Here is the discussion and continuation thread from GotoLuc´s Reactive Generator Research thread:
http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/ (http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/)
Hi Luc,
I just googled the surcharges for reactive power usage and there are
some power companies, where you pay for it a surcharge and it also
rises, the more reactive power you use:
https://www.psoklahoma.com/info/news/ReactivePowerCharge.aspx (https://www.psoklahoma.com/info/news/ReactivePowerCharge.aspx)
This one shows it in the last table there.
http://www.bchydro.com/news/conservation/2013/bchydro-bill-power-factor.html#power-factor (http://www.bchydro.com/news/conservation/2013/bchydro-bill-power-factor.html#power-factor)
Power factor less than Surcharge
100%
but 90% or more Nil
90% but 88% or more 2%
88% but 85% or more 4%
85% but 80% or more 9%
80% but 75% or more 16%
75% but 70% or more 24%
70% but 65% or more 34%
65% but 60% or more 44%
60% but 55% or more 57%
55% but 50% or more 72%
50% 80%
Hi Luc,
maybe you can still address this:
Please let us know, did the scope show the real current on the shunt
or was its real value 10 times higher in your last video ?
So what was the exact real absolute value of the current in your last test ?
320 mA or 3.2 Amps ?
Many thanks.
Hi,
there's obviously a fair bit of power coming from somewhere to heat the transformer
up enough to cook an egg.
With all of these things there's always the ubiquitous grid supply, battery or signal
generator. I imagine without the grid you'd just have a lump of cold metal.
John.
Let's look at Luc's scope shot again.
Notice that the CH2 trace is indicated as current; specifically 132mA/DIV. The problem with this, and unfortunately this invalidates all of Luc's data and conclusions, is that he is NOT using a current probe in the video. He is in fact using a standard voltage probe across a 0.1 Ohm resistor. You can not use a voltage probe and tell the scope that it is a current probe and scale it that way. This is not correct.
So not only will your measured current be completely erroneous, but the phase of the trace may be inverted as well.
The attached is a picture of a typical current probe, and is what Teltronix means when they refer to "current probe" in the manual (see p8 & p105). Current probes clamp around a conductor.
Please redo your measurements using CH2 as a VOLTAGE probe with the appropriate attenuation setting.
Luc said:
QuoteStefan,
I also agree with you, the upper part of the math is what is used and the lower part is what is returned.
The scope has the ability to set a probe for use as current or voltage. Multiply the current by 10 as CSR is 0.1 Ohm.
Not quite. If you are setting the scope channel for current, you must have a current probe connected to it.
Hi Luc and all,
I checked the mechanical Watt meters over here in Germany and you are right,
they just register only Real active power and not
Apparent power, what I thought before.
So okay, you have these about 20 Watts for free with your circuit,
but the question really is, if the power company will like this.
Probably not, cause your house meter will not regirster it and
they can not charge you, but they have to pay the bigger transformers
to keep up with the reactive and apparent power needing higher
currents.
As they have to generate the current in their generators, the question
still is, if the cycling of your about 800 Watts getting in from the grid
and 800 Watts returning to the grid in a 120 Hz rhtyhm will need them to generate more power than
just idling the reactive power back and forth...Hmm...
You seem to have shown in your first experiment with the motor
driving the generator, that this additional reactive load
does not need any additional input.
The question then is why your motor really needs so many Watts to drive an
idle generator ? Are these just friction losses ?? There shouldn´t be so many losses
and you should have better used an at least 90 % efficient DC motor to drive
your generator to have a much easier measurement for the input power without any
power factor there as it is the case with your AC drive motor...
Anyway, I think this should be better tried at higher frequencies
with smaller ferrite type transformers and a sinewave opscillator that
drives these phase shifting ferrite transformers and then you can also use smaller
caps and the output power is then easier to scale up as you can transfer more energy
per timeframe this way with faster frequencies.
If you drive the sine wave oscillator from a DC battery you can then measure, if it will
draw more power from the battery, if you draw the reactive power from the output side.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 12, 2013, 10:28:34 PM
Luc said:
Not quite. If you are setting the scope channel for current, you must have a current probe connected to it.
Luc just emailed me this:
Sorry but that changes nothing.
I just tried it. If I select Voltage instead of Current the number are exactly the same. The only difference is instead of VA at the end it displays VV
Nice try but you'll have to come up with something a little better than that to explain what's going on.
Don't forget, when the circuit is connected to a generator it has Zero effects to the prime mover. So something is going on so don't get caught up in scope shot power calculation details. I'm not trying to prove this works by just looking at a scope shot. That's just for show and irrelevant! what is relevant is the zero effect to the generator and delivering over 20 Watts to the load!... this is what needs to be understood.
Hope you can tell them what you thought was a mistake does not change anything.
Regards
Luc
There is something not quite correct in those measurements.
Time will tell.
So Luc and poynt99,
it is clear now that using a shunt this way works exactly the same as using a current probe.
But Luc did not yet answer what the exact real absolute value of the current was in his last test ?
Was it 320 mA or 3.2 Amps ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
poynt99,
The current sensing resistor is using ohm's law and an oscilloscope to detect the voltage drop. This method is probably the most accurate method possible. Luc's data is indeed valid.
"Multiply the current by 10 as CSR is 0.1 Ohm." - gotoluc
We should then have 3.2A.
Cheers,
matt
Quote from: codeboundfuture on December 12, 2013, 10:42:48 PM
"Multiply the current by 10 as CSR is 0.1 Ohm." - gotoluc
We should then have 3.2A.
Can you again confirm this Luc ?
I thought your scope had already calculated the 10 times factor in via your scope settings ??
Well, if it is really 3.2 Amps then this means also
as then you are shuttling also back and forth about 800 Watts from and to the Grid !
No wonder the transfomer gets so hot then via its losses !
Then these 20 Watts of Real active output power are only a small fraction of the big
240 Volts x 3.2 amps =768 VA (Watts) of
apparent power being drawn.
So this is only a 2.6 % ratio . Could this still be then some kind of measurement error ?
Quote from: codeboundfuture on December 12, 2013, 10:42:48 PM
poynt99,
The current sensing resistor is using ohm's law and an oscilloscope to detect the voltage drop. This method is probably the most accurate method possible. Luc's data is indeed valid.
"Multiply the current by 10 as CSR is 0.1 Ohm." - gotoluc
We should then have 3.2A.
Cheers,
matt
There are some problems:
1) Luc is using a voltage probe. The scope was set to scale according to a current probe (what scaling did he use?). Even if the scaling was set to 100mV/A, is this valid? Would you bet your house that it is? Does the fact that the probe is maybe a x10 probe throw the amplitude out by a magnitude?
2) The resistor being used to measure current, is it non-inductive wound?
3) In a series RLC circuit, does the current lag the voltage, or vice versa? Or is it either? What determines this?
4) How is it that the screen amplitudes of both traces ended up the same? Coincidence?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 12, 2013, 11:15:34 PM
There are at least two problems:
1) Luc is using a voltage probe. The scope was set to scale according to a current probe (what scaling did he use?). Even if the scaling was set to 100mV/A, is this valid? Would you bet your house that it is? Does the fact that the probe is maybe a x10 probe throw the amplitude out by a magnitude?
2) The resistor being used to measure current, is it non-inductive wound?
3) In a series RLC circuit, does the current lag the voltage, or vice versa? Or is it either? What determines this?
No, this should not matter,
only if the shunt is a bit inductive, but then it shifts just the phase a bit more or less,
so we could still have some more Real Active power than the scope shows...
Luc just confirmed that it is really 3.2 Amps:
"Hi Stefan,
the current is 320ma x 10 so 3.2 Amps is running through the circuit."
Okay, but as the shunt is only 0.1 Ohms, its inductance impedance is
probably too low to have an effect on the phase shifting in this setup.
But maybe the scope head capacity calibration was not done ?
Would this be a problem in this case ??
Quote1) Luc is using a voltage probe. The scope was set to scale according to a current probe (what scaling did he use?). Even if the scaling was set to 100mV/A, is this valid? Would you bet your house that it is? Does the fact that the probe is maybe a x10 probe throw the amplitude out by a magnitude?
Tektronix manual -
"Current probes provide a voltage signal proportional to the current. You need to
set the oscilloscope to match the scale of your current probe. The default scale is
10 A/V."
The voltage probe is detecting the voltage drop induced by the current through the resistor and giving a proportional voltage signal to the oscilloscope. I'm sure you still want a confirmation from Luc about his settings but he has already stated that it's 10x what is displayed.
Quote2) The resistor being used to measure current, is it non-inductive wound?
You would be hard pressed to get a phase shift from a .1 ohm resistor at 60hz, the inductance necessary would require a much larger resistor.
Quote3) In a series RLC circuit, does the current lag the voltage, or vice versa? Or is it either? What determines this?
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html The section "Phase Angle of a Series Resonant Circuit"
Quote4) How is it that the screen amplitudes of both traces ended up the same? Coincidence?
It's a setting on the scope to change it to an arbitrary value, it was made to match on purpose, probably for simplification of viewing. You can see the setting at the bottom left of the scope screen.
Hi
this thing seems to be doing what is claimed. Could anyone please tell me how it could
be used in a practical way?
John
Hi, I've been trying to replicate Luc's setup. I have a question:
As far as I can tell, Luc is taking 2 measurements with his probes:
Probe A: Voltage - measured *before* the 'reactive circuit'
Probe B: Current - measured *after* the RC
He then multiplies these 2 values to get 'power'.
My question is this: Is this valid? Can you measure from 2 different parts of the circuit like that - multiply them - and get a meaningful result?
Regards, Tim
perhaps already said:
the measures with alternating current require non-inductive resistor.
http://www.digikey.ch/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/Ohmite_273/PDF/Ohmite_Current_Sense.pdf?redirected=1 (http://www.digikey.ch/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/Ohmite_273/PDF/Ohmite_Current_Sense.pdf?redirected=1)
Quote from: tim123 on December 13, 2013, 03:47:10 AM
Hi, I've been trying to replicate Luc's setup. I have a question:
As far as I can tell, Luc is taking 2 measurements with his probes:
Probe A: Voltage - measured *before* the 'reactive circuit'
Probe B: Current - measured *after* the RC
He then multiplies these 2 values to get 'power'.
My question is this: Is this valid? Can you measure from 2 different parts of the circuit like that - multiply them - and get a meaningful result?
Regards, Tim
Tim,
As best I can tell, if I understand Luc's connections, he is measuring power from/to the grid. CH1 is measuring the voltage across the source, and CH2 is measuring the current through the source.
Because of the probe configurations, a negative net power actually means more power is returning to the source/grid. Normally all sources have a negative power, and elements that dissipate have a positive power polarity.
Two things tell me that Luc has a phase inversion in one of his channels:
a) It is impossible to achieve 90 degrees phase difference (i leading v) between those two measurement points without inverting one channel. At least as I understand the circuit.
b) He has a net negative power, when it should be positive with the probe configuration he is using. One channel being inverted would result in both the wave forms he showed, and the net negative power.
Quote from: wings on December 13, 2013, 04:23:42 AM
perhaps already said:
the measures with alternating current require non-inductive resistor.
http://www.digikey.ch/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/Ohmite_273/PDF/Ohmite_Current_Sense.pdf?redirected=1 (http://www.digikey.ch/Web%20Export/Supplier%20Content/Ohmite_273/PDF/Ohmite_Current_Sense.pdf?redirected=1)
Indeed. Inductance in the CSR results in a larger current being measured. The inductance of Luc's CSR is unknown at this point, but should be measured.
Quote from: tim123 on December 13, 2013, 03:47:10 AM
Hi, I've been trying to replicate Luc's setup. I have a question:
As far as I can tell, Luc is taking 2 measurements with his probes:
Probe A: Voltage - measured *before* the 'reactive circuit'
Probe B: Current - measured *after* the RC
He then multiplies these 2 values to get 'power'.
My question is this: Is this valid? Can you measure from 2 different parts of the circuit like that - multiply them - and get a meaningful result?
Regards, Tim
Yes, it is valid, as the current can be measured anywhere in the loop.
You only have to have to have the same ground lines for both scope heads at the same point.
If you do it like I have redrawn here, it is okay:
http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/dlattach/attach/130509/
You can also leave the Variac out there out of the circuit if you wish.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 13, 2013, 08:15:10 AM
Indeed. Inductance in the CSR results in a larger current being measured. The inductance of Luc's CSR is unknown at this point, but should be measured.
Well yes, but the 0.1 Ohms shunt does not have a big inductance compared to the
MOT and thus you can neglect that inductance from the shunt.
It would not pose a big error margin.
I wish I had the time now and the components to do measurements myself, but I have
to work on other stuff now for chrristmas unfortunately.
Hopefully Tim or some other guys can replicate it and post also a few videos
of their measurements...
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: codeboundfuture on December 13, 2013, 12:25:39 AM
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html (http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/series-resonance.html) The section "Phase Angle of a Series Resonant Circuit"
Well if Luc did not invert the shunt current channel on his scope, the current is capacitive and thus the voltage is lagging and the current comes first.
That tell us that his LC circuit resonance frequency from MOT Inductance and his 5 parallel caps must be way below the
60 Hz frequency and that it reacts capacitive and not inductive to the grid..hmm...
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 13, 2013, 02:44:07 PM
Well yes, but the 0.1 Ohms shunt does not have a big inductance compared to the
MOT and thus you can neglect that inductance from the shunt.
It would not pose a big error margin.
Stefan, what you are failing to realize is that the issue is with the CSR inductance compared to the CSR resistance which is what matters, not the relative inductance between the MOT and the CSR.
However, most likely the CSR inductance is below the level that would cause any significant error at 60 Hz.
I just realized a new thread has been started for discussion, very good idea Stefan. I'm sure many of us appreciate that.
I wanted to reply to Tim's post here - http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg378726/#msg378726
Nice setup Tim firstly. I like your capacitor box, very useful thing to have. I would like to make a box like that with long throw switches to make sure there is no arcing to "switched out capacitors", I'm assuming your setup is fine, but I see some switches that have fairly close contacts when off and have had a wall switch arc over in an off grid experiment with about 600 volts applied and maybe some spikes involved. But with resonance we might get higher voltages but not spikes.
Here is a couple of clips of my TC sparking and lighting some bulbs, in the lighting vid I show the amp input but the voltage is out of view it does drop a bit, the amp meter is fairly steady. Lighting bulbs and spewing RF and sparks is not very efficient but fun. ;)
Spark run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nkJtrKCdFg
This clip shows the big Tesla coil at the back, saves me posting a pic. Sorry for the mumbling, I'm not really saying much anyway. Just messing around, trying stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y1U1PSmAjQ
.....
Now back on topic, I think I agree with Stefan. It's kinda what I was getting at in the post before Tim's post that I linked above.
Coming from a higher frequency and tuning down with capacitance and going way past would mean a much lower resonant frequency. The effect of that I'm not so familiar with but I have done it at HF with air core TC's simply by exciting the transformer with a higher frequency till it happens.
I still say if a person has to produce their own AC power, these odd methods of trying to get some free energy won't be free at all. Creating lots of reactive power is not in my opinion a good idea.
One of the reasons I want to get the power factor of my Tesla coil as close to 1.0 as possible as so I might be able to run it from an inverter without making the inverter a smoke hazard. :) If there is not much energy being sent back to the inverter it might be able to handle it, I have a true sine wave inverter 800 Watts designed to run inductive loads, it's transformer has one of those micrometals T650-55 Toroids in it. I haven't tried it yet though. I want to watch the power factor as I run up and down the BPS on the spark gap.
Cheers
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 13, 2013, 03:28:03 PM
Well if Luc did not invert the shunt current channel on his scope, the current is capacitive and thus the voltage is lagging and the current comes first.
That tell us that his LC circuit resonance frequency from MOT Inductance and his 5 parallel caps must be way below the
60 Hz frequency and that it reacts capacitive and not inductive to the grid..hmm...
It tells us that the circuit appears capacitive.
However, with 25uF at 60Hz, the most phase shift you can get is about 45º, with the inductance at 0H.
In order to get 90º of phase shift between those two measurement points where i leads v, the inductance would have to be 0H, and the capacitance only about 1uF.
The only explanation I can think of for what Luc is showing us, is that the circuit is highly inductive, and one of the scope channel signals is inverted.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 13, 2013, 08:12:45 PM
It tells us that the circuit appears capacitive.
However, with 25uF at 60Hz, the most phase shift you can get is about 45º, with the inductance at 0H.
In order to get 90º of phase shift between those two measurement points where i leads v, the inductance would have to be 0H, and the capacitance only about 1uF.
The only explanation I can think of for what Luc is showing us, is that the circuit is highly inductive, and one of the scope channel signals is inverted.
Yes, I agree,
a shortcircuit on the secondary of a MOT will make the MOT a very big choke, maybe having a few Henries of inductance, so I guess this circuit is probably much more inductive than capacitive.... so Luc should really check, if not one scope channel was unawarely inverted...
Could be probably somehwere hidden in the Scope menu..
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 13, 2013, 02:39:51 PM
Yes, it is valid, as the current can be measured anywhere in the loop...
Hi Stefan,
it doesn't feel right to me - because we're specifically phase shifting the current / voltage. Your diagram makes perfect sense - but it's quite different from Luc's measurement points.
I think we should probably be measuring both voltage & current (i.e. 4 probes) (EDIT: I mean 3 probes - only 1 needed on shunt):
a) Around the whole circuit - as you suggested, and
b) Around the shunt.
That way it would be possible to compare input with output properly... What do you think?
Quote from: Farmhand on December 13, 2013, 07:32:16 PM
Nice setup Tim firstly. I like your capacitor box, very useful thing to have. I would like to make a box like that with long throw switches to make sure there is no arcing to "switched out capacitors"
Hi Farmhand, Thanks :)
The switchbox has been invaluable for many experiments... The switches (ebay specials) are rated for UK mains at 240v, probably would cope with 2-3 that - but I rarely run it at high voltage. As you can see - the wiring inside is well exposed. One of the switches has just mechanically failed (200uF) so I'll have to replace that one day soon. :(
QuoteHere is a couple of clips of my TC sparking and lighting some bulbs...
Cool :)
Quote
I still say if a person has to produce their own AC power, these odd methods of trying to get some free energy won't be free at all. Creating lots of reactive power is not in my opinion a good idea.
Mmmm... I think we need to go back to the beginning, and discuss the aim of the experiment... Will follow up...
Guys, I think this whole issue is quite complex, and I think we need to start at the beginning, and define exactly what it is we're aiming to acheive / find out.
Is the point of the research to:
a) demonstrate that 'reactive power' can do work.
b) demonstrate that 'reactive power' can be created / consumed by capacitors / inductors.
c) demonstrate that 'reactive power' can be created, and then can do work - all for free
d) find a way to trick the electricity meter / company.
e) something else?
Quote from: tim123 on December 14, 2013, 04:34:50 AM
Hi Stefan,
it doesn't feel right to me - because we're specifically phase shifting the current / voltage. Your diagram makes perfect sense - but it's quite different from Luc's measurement points.
I think we should probably be measuring both voltage & current (i.e. 4 probes) (EDIT: I mean 3 probes - only 1 needed on shunt):
a) Around the whole circuit - as you suggested, and
b) Around the shunt.
That way it would be possible to compare input with output properly... What do you think?
Quote
Tim,
As best I can tell, if I understand Luc's connections, he is measuring power from/to the grid. CH1 is measuring the voltage across the source, and CH2 is measuring the current through the source.
Luc is essentially measuring both the input and output power, the only difference between the two being what is dissipated in the CSR resistor. The volage across the source is essentially the voltage across the LRC network too.
And yes, the current can be measured anywhere in the circuit since it is a series circuit.
I must clarify something, because I was working on the notion of a pure LRC circuit. In this case, yes I would say the circuit is highly inductive and a signal inversion is taking place somewhere.
However, Luc is using a transformer as an inductor, and this changes things when the secondary is loaded or shorted.
What I found is this:
When the secondary is shorted and therefore left with the secondary's DC winding resistance as a load, that load is reflected back to the primary, effectively shorting it to a degree as well. As an example, let's say the primary inductance is 280mH and the secondary is 5H, with a DC winding resistance of 100 Ohms. When the secondary is shorted, the 100 Ohm winding resistance is reflected back across the primary as a ratio of the secondary to primary inductance, in this case 5H/.28H = 17.86. So this would result in the equivalent of a 5.6 Ohm resistor being placed across the primary winding.
When Luc says that the "magic" is in shorting the MOT secondary, what he is really doing is essentially eliminating the MOT inductance, making the circuit mostly capacitive, hence the "i leading v" result we see in the scope shot. The voltage swing across the primary will change from 350V to a few hundred mV when the secondary is shorted.
Now, there's still a problem; the capacitive reactance of the 25uF cap at 60 Hz is not enough to cause a 90º phase shift across the network, and we are back to what I said before about the circuit having to be purely capacitive (or mostly) with a capacitor value of about 1uF, not 25uF. I would like to see Luc measure his capacitor stack to see how close it really is to 25uF.
I'd also like to see Luc remove the MOT and test the circuit again. He should get a similar 90º result.
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 12, 2013, 10:38:24 PM
Luc just emailed me this:
what is relevant is the zero effect to the generator and delivering over 20 Watts to the load!... this is what needs to be understood.
Actually, you've not proven that the resistor is dissipating 20W. Why? Because that 1k resistor is going to be inductive. The only way you are going to be 100% certain is to either measure its temperature and try to match it with a DC supply, or you use the scope to perform AVG[v(t) x i(t)] in order to get the average power of the resistor.
Before you get too excited about any measurement, especially a power measurement, you must confirm that measurement by at least one other means. This mantra has been stated endless times in this forum but it seems to always fall on deaf ears. And to date, no one here has made a single watt of OU power, which proves that they've been wrong 100% of the time they make a claim based on their botched power measurements.
In order to prove there's real power being developed, Luc could presumably replace the resistive load with a FWBR. Then put the same resistive load across the DC terminals (+ smoothing cap) and measure the DC voltage...
The trouble with the AC measurements is they have to include the power factor. I really don't think you can calculate AC power in the way that Luc was doing, but then he hasn't set out exactly how he's calculating these values (such as 10-20w out and zero in) in a post, so I'm not sure.
I have tried again - this time with the circuit from this post (i.e. with the load on the secondary):
http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg377250/#msg377250
I found that if I calculated the power across the load *assuming* a power factor of 1 - then it appears to be OU.
All the calcs are complicated, and so I did what I suggested above - and used a FWBR. This time the output was sensibly UU...
You can in fact calculate the real power in the resistor by measuring the rms voltage across it as Luc has done, but ONLY if the resistor itself is non-inductive, AND the two meter leads are right tight against the body of the resistor. But in this case since we are dealing with 60Hz, the latter requirement is not necessary, within reason.
Sure, Luc could use a FWBR on the output of the secondary as you suggested and tested yourself. This is yet another possible check that he has most likely NOT performed.
Are you using a resistor similar to his?
I was using a standard low-power resistor - 150ohms - probably wire wound - not sure...
As the instruction is to use only 1-2 watts - i thought it'd be ok. It was.
I didn't use the variac this time.
Here you can see how Jean Louis Naudin made a faulty measurement (measured too much power output) because the resistor also was inductive (not only resistive):
http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/html/ugentest22.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/html/ugentest22.htm) (NOTE TECHNIQUE du 26 octobre 2012)
He not only had to deal with the induction of the resistor but also with the so called "reflected HF power" which falsified his measurement http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/html/ugentest23.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/html/ugentest23.htm)
The subject of Naudin's test is not relevant for this thread. I cite his pages because it shows the difficulty of correctly measuring HF output from a coil.
The pitfalls are "induction in the measurement resistor" (too much power is measured) and "reflective power" or "missmatch loss" (too little power is measured) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatch_loss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mismatch_loss) (more pronounced at higher frequencies).
May be it helps.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: tim123 on December 14, 2013, 03:12:56 PM
I have tried again - this time with the circuit from this post (i.e. with the load on the secondary):
http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg377250/#msg377250 (http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg377250/#msg377250)
I found that if I calculated the power across the load *assuming* a power factor of 1 - then it appears to be OU.
How did you do it exactly? Mind posting your results?
Measuring the rms voltage across a non-inductive load resistor should yield the correct power when using: v^2/R.
Quote from: tim123 on December 14, 2013, 03:12:56 PM
All the calcs are complicated, and so I did what I suggested above - and used a FWBR. This time the output was sensibly UU...
Remember that you will lose some power to the diodes.
Quote from: tim123 on December 14, 2013, 04:11:08 PM
I was using a standard low-power resistor - 150ohms - probably wire wound - not sure...
As the instruction is to use only 1-2 watts - i thought it'd be ok. It was.
I didn't use the variac this time.
What are the specs for your MOT?
What value cap did you end up using?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 14, 2013, 06:26:24 PM
How did you do it exactly? Mind posting your results?...
Ok, I'll run thru the test again later, and fully document it...
Thx for the other info too... Will try to include it in my tiny brain...
:), Tim
Ok, hopefully I've done this right...
Attached is a schematic of the test setup.
- Mains is 250v - measured
- MOT is UK 230/250v 600w (I think).
- Resistor is standard 1/4 watt carbon film - 148 Ohms - According to my DMM
Measurement:
- I used the wattmeter to read overall power in
- The DMM (I presume) is showing RMS volts AC,
- The 'scope is using just CH1 to show RMS Volts AC
Note 1: The scope is battery-powered (DSO203) - so I can connect the two ends of the probe directly over the load.
Note 2: The scope is not calibrated... Note the DMM & Scope show different values.
Note 3: I cannot connect my mains 'scope probe's earth leads to the Neutral line - even at the end of the circuit. It still trips the RCDs...
Results:
5 uF:
- Watts : 1 W (approx - it wanders within 0.3 for all the tests...)
- DMM : 6.47 V
- Scope : 5.8 V
- V2/R : 0.23 W
6.5 uF:
- Watts : 2 W
- DMM : 8.1 V
- Scope : 7.3 V
- V2/R : 0.36 W
7.5 uF:
- Watts : 3 W
- DMM : 10 V
- Scope : 8.4 V
- V2/R : 0.48 W
Note: Power factor remained at 0 throughout - according to the wattmeter.
Also attached is
a) A pic of the test bench.
b) A scope shot - showing the waveform - at 7.5uF
Another note: I put a solenoid coil around one of the secondary's wires - as a basic current probe. I couldn't get much amplitude with the small currents, but it did seem to work. The signal from the solenoid coil & the voltage probe were out of phase... I'll test that some more if folks are interested...
Let me know if I've done anything wrong, or need to do more...
Regards, Tim :)
Thanks Tim.
Wow, you've got some harmonics going on there. Is your grid power clean?
Can you measure the resistance and inductance of both the primary and secondary of your MOT?
The difference between the scope and DMM could be from the harmonic noise we see there. The scope should be the more accurate of the two.
Also, it occurred to me that these power meters were not really designed to be that accurate down around the 1W range. I am amazed that yours even has tenths of a watt!
Anyway, it would appear in all cases that your output power is below the input power, even using the higher DMM measurement.
Obviously the power factor computation by the meter is incorrect (i.e. it can not be 0) if the resistor etc. is dissipating power. You can confirm the actual phase angle (hence PF) using the second channel of your scope. See my attached diagram. NOTE: You will also be able to get the true input power with this probe arrangement, provided your scope can do the required math.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 15, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
Wow, you've got some harmonics going on there. Is your grid power clean?
The harmonics go away with higher capacitance / power throughput. See pic below... I don't know what causes them (harmonic reactance form small caps?). (EDIT: They only go away on the DSO scope - the other one still shows them)
QuoteCan you measure the resistance and inductance of both the primary and secondary of your MOT?
Primary:
- 2.4 Ohms
- 0.27 Henries
- with 2ndary shorted = 0.05 H
Secondary:
- 133.5 Ohms
- over 20 Henries
- with 1ary shorted = 3.8 H
QuoteThe difference between the scope and DMM could be from the harmonic noise we see there. The scope should be the more accurate of the two...
I've done another test. Pic attached. A few changes this time:
- 10 Ohm, wire wound, variable power resistor (100w) as the load (on 2ndary), instead of the 148 Ohm...
I wanted to try a lower resistance and see what happened...
- I included my mains scope - to take the same measurement - so I now have 3 things all reading the voltage across the load.
I wanted to have another source for comparison.
Test run is depicted - using 12.5uF.
- Watts : About 5 W
- DMM : 1.116 V
- DSO Scope : 2.515 V Pk, 0.899 V RMS
- Mains Scope : About 2.5V Peak, Probably... This takes a little explaining - and I have a potential problem...
1) To read the voltage using this scope, I have to put probe A on one side of the resistor, and probe B on the other. I then have to use MATH A-B to get the true voltage. BUT my scope doesn't display the calculated wave's peak or RMS - so it has to be judged by eye. lol.
Yellow = Chan A, Blue = Chan B, Red = MATH A-B
2) For some reason my scope is displaying 10 times more than it should...
- Probes are set to 10x. (Max scale is 5v per div on scope)
- BUT Scope has to be set to 'Probe 1x' to match the other 2. If I set it to 10x - it's 10x too big!
I don't understand this..... Will engage tiny brain, and see if I can figure it out... I may be some time... :)
I just did a first test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc056vnuIYU
/Hob
Quote from: tim123 on December 15, 2013, 12:55:12 PM
The harmonics go away with higher capacitance / power throughput. See pic below... I don't know what causes them (harmonic reactance form small caps?).
Well it makes sense actually. We are high-pass filtering the grid voltage by using a relatively small capacitance. So we are seeing the noise present in the grid voltage. As you increase the cap value, the voltage increases and there is more of the 60Hz signal drowning out the "noise".
Quote
Primary:
- 2.4 Ohms
- 0.27 Henries
- with 2ndary shorted = 0.05 H
Secondary:
- 133.5 Ohms
- over 20 Henries
- with 1ary shorted = 3.8 H
Thanks for the specs.
Quote
Test run is depicted - using 12.5uF.
- Watts : About 5 W
- DMM : 1.116 V
- DSO Scope : 2.515 V Pk, 0.899 V RMS
The signal is still a bit noisy so the DMM may be giving an error here.
Quote
- Mains Scope : About 2.5V Peak, Probably... This takes a little explaining - and I have a potential problem...
1) To read the voltage using this scope, I have to put probe A on one side of the resistor, and probe B on the other. I then have to use MATH A-B to get the true voltage. BUT my scope doesn't display the calculated wave's peak or RMS - so it has to be judged by eye. lol.
Sounds like you are doing a differential measurement A-B. That's fine. It's not recommended, but you could try lifting the earth gnd temporarily on your grid scope to see if that would permit use of your probe gnds. But be careful, your scope chassis could become line voltage...potential danger!
Try the phase and input power test with your DSO203. It will be interesting to see how it compares to the watt meter PF indication and power.
Quote from: nilrehob on December 15, 2013, 12:58:34 PM
I just did a first test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc056vnuIYU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc056vnuIYU)
/Hob
Hi Hob.
I wonder if the decimal point is missing in that meter perhaps? That would make it 3.1W.
Well done Tim and Hob,
will have a closer look later.
Hob,
WHat does the black Wattmeter show as a power factor ?
Does your white Wattmeter measure apparent power when it displays 31 Watts besides power factor of 0.08 ?
Congratulation Hob,
you are the first to replicate the circuit correctly.
I shared this information exactly one month ago to the day (Nov 15th)
Now for your next test, short the Secondary and add a Low value 1 to 10 ohms resistor in Series on the return leg (non cap side) of the Primary. This is now a low voltage but high current output.
Start with 1 ohms and work your way up till the watts are at minimum. The voltage across the resistor is equal to power you can take out of the circuit.
After you have found the ideal resistor value make a new video to show and I will give you the next test of what to do with this power.
All the best
Luc
Just a note about calibration. I used a signal generator to make a 50Hz sine wave - to test my meters...
- DMM : 3v (RMS) - I set it to this amplitude as my reference.
- Mains Scope (GW Instek) - 3.07v RMS (8.5v Pk)
- Battery Scope (DSO203) - 2.57v RMS (6.25 Pk)
So the DSO looks like it needs calibrating...
I also did this to see if I could trace the x10 multiplication problem I had - but I'm no wiser... They all seem to work ok...
Quote from: gotoluc on December 15, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
Congratulation Hob,
you are the first to replicate the circuit correctly.
Luc, I've replicated what you posted here, apart from different resistor values (which you suggested yourself anyway):
http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg377250/#msg377250
If I'm doing something wrong, then perhaps you would tell me what it is?
Is it because Hob's meter was reading 0 watts? Is that why what he did was 'right'? Surely that's a faulty meter... He even had two to show the discrepency...
All the information needed was given.
Those on the 220v grid will have more success in getting 0 Watts reading because MOT Primaries have more Inductance.
It you knew what a Power Factor of 0.08 was you would not say the meters are faulty.
Hopefully in time it will become easier to replicate and understand
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 15, 2013, 03:08:48 PM
All the information needed was given.
Well, if it was, then please accept my humblest apologies for having missed it, and please answer the question.
Quote from: tim123 on December 15, 2013, 02:48:53 PM
Luc, I've replicated what you posted here, apart from different resistor values (which you suggested yourself anyway):
http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg377250/#msg377250 (http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg377250/#msg377250)
If I'm doing something wrong, then perhaps you would tell me what it is?
Is it because Hob's meter was reading 0 watts? Is that why what he did was 'right'? Surely that's a faulty meter... He even had two to show the discrepency...
I think Hob's meter has a resolution of 3W, and the power being used is probably hovering right around the 1.5W mark. That would explain why it is changing between 0W and 3W while in steady state.
@Luc:
It is ludicrous to rely solely on a $20 power meter that wasn't designed to be accurate down in the range that would be considered "dirt" by comparison to most average loads.
Everyone knows what a PF of 0.08 means. It means that you are trying to find a needle in a hay stack in terms of power and PF measurement. And you are using the wrong equipment to boot. You have a decent oscilloscope at hand so use it. I gave the diagram to measure both the input power and phase difference. Once you have that you can then use the scope to measure the rms voltage across your 1k load resistor to get the power dissipated.
It's then a simple math operation to see if you are OU or not. Right?
And you would be wise to get rid of all those wirewound resistors. Unless you are using them on DC circuits, they are trouble. Must I send you a proper 1k and 0.1 Ohm power resistor?
Please upload your video demonstrating OU with this simpler circuit.
Hiu Tim,
do you have a ground problem, or why do you have these ringing wavforms ?
Is a scope ground not connected or is your LC resonance frequency about 100 or 150 Hz, so
it is close to a harmonic beat frequency ?
I think Hob has now shown the effect also clearly in his video but these 2 Wattmeters have to be compared more , what powerfactor does the black power meter show ?
Also would be beneficial, if Hob could show scopeshots.
@poynt99
I don´t think that the channel 2 in your diagram needs to be inverted as both scope channels have the same ground location in the circuit...right ?
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 15, 2013, 08:25:19 PM
do you have a ground problem, or why do you have these ringing wavforms ?
Hi Stefan,
I think the noise is coming from other things running around the house - like central heating pump, fridge etc... It gets less as the voltage / power throughput goes up in the circuit.
I've connected 2 scopes to the circuit - they both show the ringing...
Hi Tim,
still a strange waveform, I still guess you have a ground problem there, so that the neutral line
is not fully connected.
Please try at night, where you can switch off all other equipment and only run this circuit and see, if the ringing still
exists...Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 15, 2013, 02:13:27 PM
Congratulation Hob,
you are the first to replicate the circuit correctly.
I just watched Hob's vid again.
The circuit he has is exactly the same as the one I've posted - except he's using a bulb on the 2ndary - instead of a resistor - after you told me that a bulb was no good... lol. (And he has 2 wattmeters)
I don't know what you think his vid shows, but to me it clearly shows that you cannot rely on a single source of measurement.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 14, 2013, 02:02:08 PM
Actually, you've not proven that the resistor is dissipating 20W...
...you must confirm that measurement by at least one other means. This mantra has been stated endless times in this forum but it seems to always fall on deaf ears. And to date, no one here has made a single watt of OU power, which proves that they've been wrong 100% of the time they make a claim based on their botched power measurements.
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 16, 2013, 03:43:09 AM
still a strange waveform, I still guess you have a ground problem there, so that the neutral line
is not fully connected.
Hi Stefan,
http://www.emfs.info/Sources+of+EMFs/distribution/Neutral+earth+connections.htm
"According the the rules in the UK:
...you are not allowed to have any connections between the neutral and earth inside the home. If the home has pme applied, the neutral and earth will be connected at the cutout position (ie at the electricity meter). But from there on, the neutral should be isolated from earth."
The house is part way through a re-wire too. That may be related. I'll speak to my electrician - if he ever comes back to finish the job... :(
Regards, Tim
Hi Tim,
yes, do it like Hob and use a 40 Watts bulb on the secondary of the MOT transformer.
You can also try as an additional test to have there in series with the bulb another cap to see, if it will benefit to shift the
phase also on the secondary.
Regarding the mysterious superposition of 100 or 150 Hz sine wave on your 50 Hz wave,
it might be some kind of ground loop current when a big load on the same Line
is running, like a fridge or washing machine or something with a motor in it which draws lots of current.
If I still remember right in the UK where you are based all the electric wall plugs
are standardized and could not be pluged in reverse as at us in Germany, right ?
So your plugs have always the Line and Neutral pins at the same location and every
electrician must obey the rule to have the Line and Neutral at the same position in the
plug everytime, right ?
So maybe if your house wiring is faulty you have the outside ground connected,
where normally the Neutral should be in the plug ?
If this is mixed up throughout your house it could result in Ground current loops and these
induce then these different potential currents when big loads are applied, which could
then also create such overtones as seen in your scope shots.
Compare it to hum noise in audio equipment when ground current loops build
up when you have multiple ground lines connected to an audio mixer...it is probably the same problem...
Try to use an isolation transformer first, before you go into the circuit, that will fix it.
You can also build an isolation transformer from 2 x 12<->230 Volts transformers, by putting
them in series like this: 230 Volts -> 12 Volts ->12 Volts > 230 Volts.
The 2 transformers then should have at least a 50 to 100 Watts rating.
Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 16, 2013, 03:43:09 AM
Hi Tim,
still a strange waveform, I still guess you have a ground problem there, so that the neutral line
is not fully connected.
Please try at night, where you can switch off all other equipment and only run this circuit and see, if the ringing still
exists...Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Tim & Stefan,
About the wave-form: Maybe to check if there is a flux-bridge between Primary and Secondary.
The wave for sure looks like it to me, its mostly simple block of plates between the coils to by-pass?
Regards, Johan
Quote from: Johan_1955 on December 16, 2013, 05:47:18 AM
..Maybe to check if there is a flux-bridge between Primary and Secondary.
Hi Johan,
Good call! It is unmodified - and still has those bits in it. I didn't know it could have that effect...
Good instructions for removing them:
http://www.microformer.org/make-your-microformer/
Thanks, Tim :)
I just did a second test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVE6Nit0_p8
/Hob
Again an excellent replication Hob. Love your resistive load switch box!
For some time I was also unable to decide if the meters are able to read power correctly. I don't think they can when PF is close to zero.
The only way I could think of testing the circuit to see if it can deliver real power (hopefully at no cost) was to build a generator and see if it causes a load to the alternator and prime mover once the circuit is connected.
To my surprise it didn't cause a load (if tuned correctly) to the prime mover and delivered real power.
From that I concluded we can extract power from a generator and that maybe we can do the same from the grid without losses to the grid provider.
The real question is, can we extract enough power from an Alternator head and feed it back to its prime mover to keep the alternator turning?... many tests will need to be done to better understand the circuit.
For your next test, instead of the series resistor on the Primary leg place the AC legs of a FWBR in series and connect the DC side to a battery. Now you have a reactive battery charger.
Keep up the tests
Luc
A FWBR and a battery is exactly what I had in mind myself, this is just what I did in some of my other experiments on the generator-side of my Bedini-energizer, as in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3TsSD2l2ds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3TsSD2l2ds) (and a few other vids as well). What I found is that HV helps to mask the voltage-drop across the battery (just as we do with diodes), and a spark-gap also enhances the charging. :-) What makes charging batteries so interesting is that the voltage-drop stays the same (more or less) regardless of the current.
/Hob
For the FWBR in series , Dreamyear has done this also to charge his lap top .......
Very good results
In Barbosa patent they used 2 turns on the secondary in the mot and closed loop is wrapped with earth wire...... :)
Quote from: gotoluc on December 16, 2013, 02:36:49 PM
The only way I could think of testing the circuit to see if it can deliver real power (hopefully at no cost) was to build a generator and see if it causes a load to the alternator and prime mover once the circuit is connected.
To my surprise it didn't cause a load (if tuned correctly) to the prime mover and delivered real power.
From that I concluded we can extract power from a generator and that maybe we can do the same from the grid without losses to the grid provider.
So there was no input to the prime mover ? Just because the load caused no noticeable effect to the prime mover means next to nothing. What matters is what was the actual input and what was the actual output.
The important thing is in my opinion that the input and the output are still in question.
What I don't get is if it is actually free energy then why can it not be done with a battery and true sine wave inverter, until extra energy is shown I don't see valid gains.
Cheers
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 15, 2013, 08:25:19 PM
@poynt99
I don´t think that the channel 2 in your diagram needs to be inverted as both scope channels have the same ground location in the circuit...right ?
Actually, CH2 does need to be inverted (by the scope, not physically) in order to retain proper phase between the voltage and current.
Stefan,
I've already offered a plausible explanation for the noisy wave forms Tim is getting.
At 60Hz, the capacitive reactance of a 7uF capacitor is about 380 Ohms! So we have a high-pass filter effect here, and a significant level of noisy harmonics etc. are coming through. The noise is always there, we just don't see it when the grid is being measured without any high-pass filtering.
Quote from: nilrehob on December 16, 2013, 12:10:33 PM
I just did a second test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVE6Nit0_p8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVE6Nit0_p8)
/Hob
Hmmm, meters...puzzling indeed.
May I suggest Hob that you use your scope to measure the actual phase difference between the voltage and current as I showed in my diagram. Then with the amplitudes you can calculate the true input power.
Then of course you can do the same with the resistive load to see the output power.
Am I the only one that sees the elephant in the room?
Hi poynt,
sorry for staying out of the discussion. I needed to do this to stay focused on my tests in hopes to better understand the circuit with my way of understanding which is non conventional I know but this is what allowed me to come up with these ideas.
So, don't take it personally. Your knowledge is and has been very helpful.
I see you have posted the below diagram for probe position, which are my probe positions. However I see you say to invert Channel 2 (current probe) is this the correct way?... and do you wish I test it this way and post the results.
Thanks for your time
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on December 16, 2013, 07:32:19 PM
Actually, CH2 does need to be inverted (by the scope, not physically) in order to retain proper phase between the voltage and current.
I don´t think so.
Just short out the cap and place a positive voltage on the channel 1 from the grid.
Then a positive input current will flow through the transformer coil
which is registered right in the shunt as a positive value !
So no need to invert the scope channel !
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: Farmhand on December 16, 2013, 04:46:44 PM
.....
One thing is for sure if the energy companies see people or hear of people doing this they will not be pleased, and take action. People have been put in jail for similar schemes involving the stealing of energy using various means by manipulating their grid.
What I don't get is if it is actually free energy then why can it not be done with a battery and true sine wave inverter, until extra energy is shown using a source of AC other than the grid I don't see valid gains.
You are right.
The best way would be, if LUC would try it again with a high efficiency DC motor in front of his generator and
see, how much DC power he needs to drive the generator. If the DC power into the drive motor will also
not increase, he might be able to scale it up and use the MOT output also via a FWBR rectifier to charge up a supercap
and then run from it the DC motor and close the loop....
But this would probably require at least a factor 10 in MOT size as it seems to depend on iron core.
Maybe it can be done smaller with using higher frequencies and Ferrite transformers...
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 16, 2013, 11:03:52 PM
I don´t think so.
Just short out the cap and place a positive voltage on the channel 1 from the grid.
Then a positive input current will flow which is registered right in the shunt as a positive value !
So no need to invert the scope channel !
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Stefan, you're up late!
I see there's a disagreement :-\
I will be a little more available to help do some additional tests if you think of anything more that would need to be tested.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 16, 2013, 11:15:31 PM
Hi Stefan, you're up late!
I see there's a disagreement :-\
I will be a little more available to help do some additional tests if you think of anything more that would need to be tested.
Luc
Hi Luc,
try to measure again your input power into your AC drive motor.
Can you do it with a different shunt ? Maybe try an 1 Ohm shunt made from SMD
parts. These are pretty noninductive.
I would really like to see in detail, how the input current waveform changes into the AC drive motor, when you apply the load
to the Generator. ( also please show in detail on the scope the phase relationship and the div/cm etc and
also the scope settings...maybe you can record another video ? That would really help.
Maybe take 10 x 10 Ohm resistors in parallel to get the 1 Ohm shunt ?
SHould reduce the inductance also this way.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Luc,
if you have an 12 Volts DC to 120 Volts AC inverter, just try to power your AC drive motor with the inverter
from a 12 Volt battery and measure at the battery, if drawing load from the generator will
see any increase into the inverter at the battery.
Okay, this adds losses from the inverter also, but this way you can see quickly if the DC input power
changes, without needing a DC driving motor !
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: Farmhand on December 16, 2013, 04:46:44 PM
One thing is for sure if the energy companies see people or hear of people doing this they will not be pleased, and take action. People have been put in jail for similar schemes involving the stealing of energy using various means by manipulating their grid.
What I don't get is if it is actually free energy then why can it not be done with a battery and true sine wave inverter, until extra energy is shown using a source of AC other than the grid I don't see valid gains.
Cheers
Hi Farmhand and everyone,
please note, this circuit idea is not to get a free lunch using the Grid.
I maybe attaching my test circuits to the grid (because it's convenient) to demonstrate what it can do but that is
only for demonstration purposes and not the intended use of this circuit if in the end is proven to work.
Ideally the developed circuit would be fed by low impedance DC batteries as this research is a possible solution to give power to the poor people of this world who have no grid and no way to make a living or even live if the can't pump water to their crops.
So please try to help in a positive way instead of trying to find faults as I know you are quite a capable individual.
What would be needed next is a special circuit that would take high current lead acid battery DC and make AC
BUT the circuit needs to handle the return (reactive circulating current) back to the batteries. An off the shelf Inverter cannot do this.
So if you can develop a DC to AC circuit that can do this you would be my hero.
Thanks for your time
Luc
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 16, 2013, 11:36:28 PM
Hi Luc,
if you have an 12 Volts DC to 120 Volts AC inverter, just try to power your AC drive motor with the inverter
from a 12 Volt battery and measure at the battery, if drawing load from the generator will
see any increase into the inverter at the battery.
Okay, this adds losses from the inverter also, but this way you can see quickly if the DC input power
changes, without needing a DC driving motor !
Regards, Stefan.
Good idea Stefan
I will see if I can find one. This will also eliminate the need to do a scope test on the motor (which I already did but did not post a video)
Luc
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 16, 2013, 11:11:42 PM
You are right.
The best way would be, if LUC would try it again with a high efficiency DC motor in front of his generator and
see, how much DC power he needs to drive the generator. If the DC power into the drive motor will also
not increase, he might be able to scale it up and use the MOT output also via a FWBR rectifier to charge up a supercap
and then run from it the DC motor and close the loop....
But this would probably require at least a factor 10 in MOT size as it seems to depend on iron core.
Maybe it can be done smaller with using higher frequencies and Ferrite transformers...
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan and everyone,
my most current tests are now leading me to believe the circuit needs a LOW Impedance power source.
My new double MOT circuit attached to the grid can now deliver 50 Watts and still maintain a 90 degrees phase shift but when I attach it to my 1000 watt Alternator generator I can only get 29 watts max without affecting the prime mover.
This leads me to believe that my Alternator Impedance which is much higher than the grid is causing losses as the reactive re-circulating power is being wasted in Alternator coil resistance.
If we consider two of the supposed to be looped generator videos (Valy being the most recent) one thing they have in common is they have over size Alternators. Something in the range of 30KW or so.
Obviously these Alternators would have extremely low Impedance compared to mine and would not waste the return current and also deliver more because of the minimal losses.
So considering this, the possibility of looping my small scale setup is next to impossible. What we would need to do is come up with a solid state version of a Battery DC to AC switch (like suggested to Farmhand above post) and eliminate the generator and loses altogether.
Looking forward in the participation of the bright minds on this forum
Luc
Free electricity while charging battery part 3 .yt dreamyear
:)
Permit me to make a suggestion.
I believe the essence of this is the presumption is that the power factor from the mains is zero wile still powering a small load, implying an exact 90 degree phase shift between the mains voltage and the current. It appears that the power factor meter may not have sufficient resolution to show a true zero power factor.
If you set up the scope in x-y mode and make a lissajous figure, you will see a circle or a near circle when you look at the voltage and current in x and y and you adjust the variable gain of one channels to get as close to a circle as possible. The problem is that it's hard to judge by eye if it is a true circle or if there is a slight phase shift from 90 degrees.
So the way around this problem is to shift the phase of the voltage or the current by another 90 degrees. Now when you compare the current with say the 90 degree phase shifted voltage, you will see a diagonal line angled at 45 degrees. If you don't see a perfectly straight diagonal line on the scope but instead see a long thin oval shape, that is telling you that the phase shift between the actual voltage and current waveforms is not exactly 90 degrees. So this trick gives the scope display a way to show the deviation from the 90 degree phase shift very easily.
The only requirement is to create the 90 degree phase shift with a small circuit. I am not going to get into the circuit itself, but my first thought is to use an op-amp as an input voltage integrator that is isolated from the mains power with a small step-down transformer. It's a trivial circuit that could be powered by a pair of 9-volt batteries. Since the circuit is isolated via the step-down transformer, there no problem connecting the op-amp ground to the scope ground.
If the whole thing worked properly, when Luc started to draw a small amount of power to go into his load, you would start to see the small phase shift on the scope display. You also have the option to turn up the gain on both channels of the scope so you are only looking at a segment of the diagonal line. That gives you more precision to detect any phase shift. If you see two separate and distinct diagonal lines that would indicate that there was a tiny phase shift and thus a real power draw from the mains.
MileHigh
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 16, 2013, 11:03:52 PM
I don´t think so.
Just short out the cap and place a positive voltage on the channel 1 from the grid.
Then a positive input current will flow through the transformer coil
which is registered right in the shunt as a positive value !
So no need to invert the scope channel !
Regards, Stefan.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, IF you wanted your power to come out as a positive result instead of negative.
So let me repeat:
Power sources, when measured properly, have a NEGATIVE POLARITY, and elements that dissipate power have a POSITIVE POLARITY.
So in the case of my diagram, and if you invert channel two as noted, you will not only get the correct polarity of the resulting grid power, but the phase relationship between the voltage and current will be displayed correctly. This is actually basic electronics, but most people forget. If you don't believe me, start at the bottom of the grid generator and going clockwise, use your finger and trace around the circuit in a loop, noting in your mind the polarity of the probes. You should be saying to yourself "...negative.....positive....positive....negative". Notice the inversion? To be correct, we should have the CH2 probe inverted so that we would say to ourselves as we travel around the circuit..."negative...positive...negative...positive". The reason we DON"T connect the scope this way, is because the scope gnds must be commoned. So instead, we connect it as shown, and to be 100% correct, we should invert channel 2 in the scope. I know no one does this, but they should when testing under the circumstances we are dealing with here where phase and power polarity means everything.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 16, 2013, 10:52:08 PM
Hi poynt,
sorry for staying out of the discussion. I needed to do this to stay focused on my tests in hopes to better understand the circuit with my way of understanding which is non conventional I know but this is what allowed me to come up with these ideas.
So, don't take it personally. Your knowledge is and has been very helpful.
No problem Luc.
Quote
I see you have posted the below diagram for probe position, which are my probe positions. However I see you say to invert Channel 2 (current probe) is this the correct way?... and do you wish I test it this way and post the results.
Thanks for your time
Luc
Yes thanks, I would appreciate seeing this. I am not expecting your resulting net power to remain negative. In fact I expect it will go net positive, which would indicate more power going back to the grid than what is being used by the circuit. However, the phase relationship between the current and voltage might change. If it does change and you re-adjust to get your 90 degree phase shift again, the results may be different.
Here are some simple diagrams I made a while ago to explain this same power polarity issue to Rosemary Ainslie, because she had (has) the same mental block about this.
@Gotoluc
QuoteWhat would be needed next is a special circuit that would take high current lead acid battery DC and make ACBUT the circuit needs to handle the return (reactive circulating current) back to the batteries. An off the shelf Inverter cannot do this. So if you can develop a DC to AC circuit that can do this you would be my hero.
I believe you already have it in your circuit but it just needs a little clarity. An AC signal is dictated by two changing DC half cycles and if a circuit elements instantaneous voltage is higher it's a generator function and if it's lower it is a motor function. In an AC machine the instantaneous voltage relates to the rate of change of the expanding/contracting field, ie.. a moving magnet. A standard inverter cannot work here because energy is dissipated on the DC primary side regardless of whether the load becomes a source or not.
If you want a true AC source from a periodic alternating DC source then the AC source must be a series resonant circuit which you already have to some extent with your series capacitor off the AC generator. Now if we replace the AC generator with a large inductor then we have an AC generator (kind of) with no expanding/contracting field source other than the reactive current circulating in the system. Here we should remember that all those silly magnets in our generators moving past our coils ever did was induce a voltage "higher" than the instantaneous reactive current voltage which is why we called it a "generator".
Now if we added a large inductor in place of the generator and periodically charged your series capacitor when it is at peak voltage with a higher DC voltage of the correct polarity then the alternating current oscillations in the system would be maintained. The reactive current integrity would also be maintained and the AC system would be allowed to act like a true AC system should. The most efficient way to periodically charge the series capacitor is from a discharging inductor.. ie boost converter/joule thief. A voltage source such as a capacitor/battery cannot be used to charge the series capacitor otherwise you will lose 1/2 the Energy.. ie the parallel capacitor paradox.
Note: it would be very easy to measure the true input as the input is now DC.
Good luck
AC
Thanks for your input AC ;)
Sounds great!... could you please take my basic circuit below and add the components so we can see what it may look like.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
gotoluc:
from Barbosa&Leal to their reference Camel Eslam Camal to his reference http://www.google.com/patents/DE3736921A1?cl=de
@Gotoluc
It's just an LC tank with an extra inductor in place of the generator inductance. The capacitor always charges first as the inductors resist changes in current so why not charge the capacitor?. I'm not sure how most charge an LC tank circuit but pulsing the capacitor with DC from an external inductance (an inductive discharge) is the way I have done it because it is the most efficient way. Think of it as a one way reactive current charging the capacitor every half-cycle periodically adding to the reactive current already present.
As a general rule nothing moves unless it is LC, inductor to cap or cap to inductor.
You can also "ping" the circuit to find it's natural resonant frequency. Charge the cap, close the circuit and note the frequency of oscillation which is the natural resonant frequency of the circuit. Now pulse it at that frequency or use a theshold detector to detect peak voltage and pulse and your there.
AC
Quote from: poynt99 on December 17, 2013, 09:45:48 AM
No problem Luc.
Yes thanks, I would appreciate seeing this. I am not expecting your resulting net power to remain negative. In fact I expect it will go net positive, which would indicate more power going back to the grid than what is being used by the circuit. However, the phase relationship between the current and voltage might change. If it does change and you re-adjust to get your 90 degree phase shift again, the results may be different.
Hi poynt,
please find the attached scope shots below. First is the standard way I've been doing it and the second one is selecting Invert in channel 2 menu.
This is my circuit powered by my variac from the grid and with a 5 Ohm 1% 50w rated load Resistor on the Neutral leg of the primary (per CSR). Channel 3 is displaying the voltage across that load. I didn't connect channel 3 probe ground so not to affect CSR. So all ground points are standard Grid side Neutral after the 0.1 Ohm CSR
Let me know what you thing
Luc
Quote from: allcanadian on December 17, 2013, 08:53:44 PM
@Gotoluc
It's just an LC tank with an extra inductor in place of the generator inductance. The capacitor always charges first as the inductors resist changes in current so why not charge the capacitor?. I'm not sure how most charge an LC tank circuit but pulsing the capacitor with DC from an external inductance (an inductive discharge) is the way I have done it because it is the most efficient way. Think of it as a one way reactive current charging the capacitor every half-cycle periodically adding to the reactive current already present.
As a general rule nothing moves unless it is LC, inductor to cap or cap to inductor.
You can also "ping" the circuit to find it's natural resonant frequency. Charge the cap, close the circuit and note the frequency of oscillation which is the natural resonant frequency of the circuit. Now pulse it at that frequency or use a theshold detector to detect peak voltage and pulse and your there.
AC
I see 8) ... very interesting!
Lots to try
Thanks for sharing
Luc
At everyone,
I've attached 2 scope shots. The only change in the circuit between both scope shots is, the first is with the Secondary shorted and the second is with the Secondary open.
Now you can see what happens in each case and why the preferred is with the secondary shorted.
Luc
another generator/motor setup
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_Nigerian_QMoGen_Plans (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_Nigerian_QMoGen_Plans)
[/size]U.S. Patent 7,095,126 B2 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,095,126.PN.&OS=PN/7,095,126&RS=PN/7,095,126)[/size]
pdf attached
alternator/generator; He claims the magic is in the 60W lightbulb connected to one 400W inverter which is connected for loopback; and running another 1200W inverter for external loads.
(Although at a glance looks like gotoluc has been pretty forthcoming with all information already :) )
@D3xOr
Quoteanother [color=rgb(27, 142, 222) !important]generator[/color]/motor setuphttp://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_Nigerian_QMoGen_Plans (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_Nigerian_QMoGen_Plans)[/size]U.S. Patent 7,095,126 B2 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,095,126.PN.&OS=PN/7,095,126&RS=PN/7,095,126)[/size]
I think the patent is a red herring, first there are hundreds of motor/generator patents that utilize inverters as such they are prior art not disclosed rendering the patent null and void. In fact nothing new in any way has been disclosed relative to the prior art that already exists rendering the patent void. As such I have no idea why a patent would be granted however it is from Nigeria = run away, run away.
AC
Quote from: poynt99 on December 17, 2013, 09:57:41 AM
Here are some simple diagrams I made a while ago to explain this same power polarity issue to Rosemary Ainslie, because she had (has) the same mental block about this.
poynt99, This would be only valid, if we would be discussing i^2*R losses inside the Generator or the
power losses inside a battery inner resistance, which does not apply at this
circuit over here. So a BIG NO to inverting the 2nd channel on the Scope !
We really need to see the input power into the LCR tank circuit and so we need the scond channel not to be inverted !
Regards, Stefan.
Here is another test from Darcy Klyne (http://www.youtube.com/user/darcyklyne?feature=watch):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAHyk4aN-2E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAHyk4aN-2E)
Regards, Stefan.
2nd Video from Darcy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qFaa48_Qdw
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 18, 2013, 04:02:53 PM
poynt99, This would be only valid, if we would be discussing i^2*R losses inside the Generator or the
power losses inside a battery inner resistance, which does not apply at this
circuit over here. So a BIG NO to inverting the 2nd channel on the Scope !
We really need to see the input power into the LCR tank circuit and so we need the scond channel not to be inverted !
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan, I don't think we are discussing the same topic!
Proper phase of the measurement probes is of the utmost importance in this situation, and it certainly is relevant here.
We ARE attempting to get the input power from the grid, and in order to do that we need to set up the probes as I have shown AND invert CH2 in the scope. Please go back and study my diagrams more; it is very clear as to why this must be done this way in this case.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 18, 2013, 12:32:29 AM
Hi poynt,
please find the attached scope shots below. First is the standard way I've been doing it and the second one is selecting Invert in channel 2 menu.
This is my circuit powered by my variac from the grid and with a 5 Ohm 1% 50w rated load Resistor on the Neutral leg of the primary (per CSR). Channel 3 is displaying the voltage across that load. I didn't connect channel 3 probe ground so not to affect CSR. So all ground points are standard Grid side Neutral after the 0.1 Ohm CSR
Let me know what you thing
Luc
Luc.
I see the problem now, and silly of me to have missed it before.
Your MATH trace measurements, i.e. MATH max and MATH min, are not the ones you need to be using. The measurement that you need to use in order to see what the net power is, i.e. net going back to the grid, or net being consumed by the circuit, is the MEAN (average) of the trace. This is a single measurement and will tell us the net average value of the MATH trace. Now, in order to get a relatively accurate measurement of the average power, you need to display about 10 cycles. So get about 10 or more cycles on the display and use "MEAN", not "Cycle MEAN" measurement on the MATH trace.
Test again using this setting, both with CH2 not inverted and inverted. They should produce opposite numbers, for eg. +10VV, and -10VV.
Okay poynt, will give that a try after dinner.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 18, 2013, 03:30:22 AM
At everyone,
I've attached 2 scope shots. The only change in the circuit between both scope shots is, the first is with the Secondary shorted and the second is with the Secondary open.
Now you can see what happens in each case and why the preferred is with the secondary shorted.
Luc
Luc,
In the second shot with the secondary open, it appears that the MOT is going into core saturation. I'm not sure why it would be doing so as the primary current is not that high, is it?
I've posted this to some guys that are smarter than me (doesn't take much), so we'll see what they say.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 18, 2013, 07:41:35 PM
Luc,
In the second shot with the secondary open, it appears that the MOT is going into core saturation. I'm not sure why it would be doing so as the primary current is not that high, is it?
I've posted this to some guys that are smarter than me (doesn't take much), so we'll see what they say.
I don't know? all I see is the primary current is 327mA with Secondary Shorted and more then doubles 768mA when open.
I'll let the smarter ones figure this out
Luc
Looks like it might be core saturation.
QuoteThe transformer is designed to be as cheap to manufacture as possible, with no regard for efficiency. This is because it is the manufacturer who pays for the copper and iron, but the user who pays for the energy consumed. Thus the iron area is minimised which results in the core being taken well into saturation with result high core losses. The copper area is also minimised, resulting in high copper losses. The heat that these generate is handled by forced air cooling, usually by the same fan that is required to cool the magnetron. The core saturation is not part of the non-ideal classification, it is merely as a result of the economics of manufacture.
http://wiki.4hv.org/index.php/Microwave_oven_transformer
Quote from: poynt99 on December 18, 2013, 07:30:16 PM
Luc.
I see the problem now, and silly of me to have missed it before.
Your MATH trace measurements, i.e. MATH max and MATH min, are not the ones you need to be using. The measurement that you need to use in order to see what the net power is, i.e. net going back to the grid, or net being consumed by the circuit, is the MEAN (average) of the trace. This is a single measurement and will tell us the net average value of the MATH trace. Now, in order to get a relatively accurate measurement of the average power, you need to display about 10 cycles. So get about 10 or more cycles on the display and use "MEAN", not "Cycle MEAN" measurement on the MATH trace.
Test again using this setting, both with CH2 not inverted and inverted. They should produce opposite numbers, for eg. +10VV, and -10VV.
Okay poynt,
below is the circuit under a 10 Ohm 1% 50W Load Resistor at 21.3v RMS = 45 Watts
First shot is standard and next shot is Inverted.
Let me know what you think
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 18, 2013, 10:06:47 PM
Okay poynt,
below is the circuit under a 10 Ohm 1% 50W Load Resistor at 21.3v RMS = 45 Watts
First shot is standard and next shot is Inverted.
Let me know what you think
Luc
Luc,
I think something is not right.
First, I don't know if it is just the snapshot itself that is so pixelated, or if the scope itself is really showing such degradation in the wave forms. This might be affecting the measurement. What record length are you using in the scope?
The MATH MEAN value should be the same but opposite polarity when inverting CH2. So that is confirming that something is not quite right.
btw, I performed a similar test today with a Tek scope with just a simple capacitor and resistor in series, to get a phase shift between the voltage and current. I confirmed that the computed power is the same but changes polarity when one channel is inverted.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 18, 2013, 07:18:32 PM
Stefan, I don't think we are discussing the same topic!
Proper phase of the measurement probes is of the utmost importance in this situation, and it certainly is relevant here.
We ARE attempting to get the input power from the grid, and in order to do that we need to set up the probes as I have shown AND invert CH2 in the scope. Please go back and study my diagrams more; it is very clear as to why this must be done this way in this case.
No you are wrong,
we want to see the power used up by the LCR circuit and this is why the 2nd channel DOES NOT NEED TO BE INVERTED !
If this power is negative on the Math line we can see, that the circuit is just pumping back power into the grid.
How you want to measure it is not current standard and confusing !
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 18, 2013, 10:16:33 PM
Luc,
I think something is not right.
First, I don't know if it is just the snapshot itself that is so pixelated, or if the scope itself is really showing such degradation in the wave forms. This might be affecting the measurement. What record length are you using in the scope?
The MATH MEAN value should be the same but opposite polarity when inverting CH2. So that is confirming that something is not quite right.
btw, I performed a similar test today with a Tek scope with just a simple capacitor and resistor in series, to get a phase shift between the voltage and current. I confirmed that the computed power is the same but changes polarity when one channel is inverted.
Maybe consider what you're wanting to see is not correct?... I've asked other EE and they don't agree with inverting chanel 2.
Have a look at the scope shots below. I've used a transformer that's not ideal for the effect, so it will use more power then it can return. The first scope shot is standard and the second is inverted.
When a circuit uses power, the math will mostly be above the Zero line, like the first scope shot. By inverting Chanel 2 you are making the math do the opposite. I think there is your problem?
Luc
@poynt99
you sound like "that which must not be, can not be" or "it cannot be what should not (be) possible". In germany we would say "was nicht sein kann darf auch nicht sein".
I think Stefan formulated the most important question, how can we measure IF there is power send back to grid. I don't trust scope, first it should be a device which could isolate that power (if there is any) from the power from the grid .
Please read,with e-pencil and e-paper ? ::) ,this renewable energy network-circuit disclosing and the kind of wave-input-process:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=6&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19900104&CC=DE&NR=3821856A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=6&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19900104&CC=DE&NR=3821856A1&KC=A1)
Sincerely
OCWL
What if it does; until you look to see if it does return power to the grid?
Three more videos on the subject:
Watt-Meter Resistive Load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxB9Rcs7Udw
Watt-Meter Reactive Load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnuusKhZzO4
Luc Reactive MOT Straight to Battery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LSTBMwC_lc
/Hob
Two more videos:
Watt-Meter Capacitative Load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD02doq50lk
Luc Reactive Capacitor to Battery, no MOT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA6AQ7AGq88
I have found the manual for the watt-meter :-D
It says that it only takes measurements in quadrants 1 and 4 (consumed energy).
So if its in 2 or 3 (or very close to them I guess), it writes "err" in the "current page" and all power-related info says zero.
And some renaming of the previous three:
Watt-Meter Resistive Load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxB9Rcs7Udw
Watt-Meter Inductive Load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnuusKhZzO4
Luc Reactive MOT to Battery, no Capacitor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LSTBMwC_lc
/Hob
Quote from: gotoluc on December 18, 2013, 11:29:16 PM
Maybe consider what you're wanting to see is not correct?... I've asked other EE and they don't agree with inverting chanel 2.
Despite what Stefan says or your EE friend says, I am correct. I would bet my house on it. If your EE friend would like to discuss it, I would welcome the challenge. This is so basic, it is pitiable that no one will just look at it objectively and let the facts decide.
Quote
Have a look at the scope shots below. I've used a transformer that's not ideal for the effect, so it will use more power then it can return. The first scope shot is standard and the second is inverted.
When a circuit uses power, the math will mostly be above the Zero line, like the first scope shot. By inverting Chanel 2 you are making the math do the opposite. I think there is your problem?
When you say "circuit uses power" you should be more specific in what you mean. But if you mean everything to the right of the Grid generator, then you would be correct. The power in the dissipative elements, if measured properly is positive. Remember the mantra? Where are your probes for these two scope shots?
So, notice that the power remained essentially the same, but the polarity changed? The only problem is in the understanding of which polarity is the correct one. And since any OU claim hinges on the measured polarity, isn't it important to iron this problem out? If you agree, then please, anyone, explain how the diagrams I posted illustrating the power polarity in sources vs. loads is incorrect, or don't apply here.
Let me ask all here; in the simple diagram attached, is the computed power in VBAT and RLOAD the same polarity or opposite?
A question for Luc: please rearrange the probes in your diagram if you wanted to measure the power in your load resistor that is in series with the primary. Do you expect the power polarity to be the same as that when you measure the Grid power?
I think the things to remember about all this is that -
1) All the energy dissipated by the load is supplied by the circuit
2) All power dissipated by a load is "real power".
3) All the reactive power is a fraction of the applied power.
4) All the reactive power derives directly from the applied power.
5) Energy cannot be created.
In my opinion this is simply a matter of measurement errors.
Couple of questions I would have is that if extra energy was "supposedly" dissipated by the load then. Where does it come from ? How does it manifest ?
If extra energy is claimed to be involved then there must surely be a theory as to where it comes from, and how it manifests or is harnessed as well.
Most people reading the claim would think that somehow the circuit is able to manufacture energy.
Even if somehow the circuit did produce 10 Watts of anomalous power dissipated in the load for every say 300 Watts of applied power at a power factor of Zero can everyone do it ?
At the fraction of 10 free watts for 300 watts applied, it would mean 3000 Watts applied to get 100 Watts free. Completely unacceptable.
There doesn't seem to be any logic in it.
By your point 5 Farmhand, it's all about the view ;) if it cannot be created then it cannot be destroyed either...and so on...
Yes, good measurements are on the way soon. Been a long time since i posted here on OU. energeticforum is not talking much lately. Stefan I should have been posting here a long time ago!
I think its too early to debate the ethics of the situation when the operating principles are still fuzzy. We don't know what its doing to the grid yet. I agree farm hand, especially in my case, that better measuring needs to be achieved.
I thought this was a particularly good price for three of these rigs and one PIC programmer for hall effect current sensor readings. I purchased from Cytron Technologies (http://www.cytron.com.my) Their website handled paypal, could calculate international shipping and account and invoice tracking is working on their website. Got em on the way.
Video of them in action. (http://youtu.be/uGt7k9vvmi0)
3- SK28A 28 Pins PIC Start-up Kit 37.50
3- IC-PIC-18F2550 PIC18F2550 28.13
1- UIC00B USB ICSP PIC Programmer V2010 18.13
3- UIC-A ICSP Universal Socket 10.31
3- BB-ACS756 50A Current Sensor 46.88
3- DS-LCD-082A LCD (8x2) 22.50
Total Amount : 163.44
You save this with internet payment : 18.16
Payable Amount : 145.28
Shipping Fees : 26.09
Grand Total : 171.38
Quote from: poynt99 on December 19, 2013, 09:51:21 AM
Despite what Stefan says or your EE friend says, I am correct. I would bet my house on it. If your EE friend would like to discuss it, I would welcome the challenge. This is so basic, it is pitiable that no one will just look at it objectively and let the facts decide.
When you say "circuit uses power" you should be more specific in what you mean. But if you mean everything to the right of the Grid generator, then you would be correct. The power in the dissipative elements, if measured properly is positive. Remember the mantra? Where are your probes for these two scope shots?
So, notice that the power remained essentially the same, but the polarity changed? The only problem is in the understanding of which polarity is the correct one. And since any OU claim hinges on the measured polarity, isn't it important to iron this problem out? If you agree, then please, anyone, explain how the diagrams I posted illustrating the power polarity in sources vs. loads is incorrect, or don't apply here.
Let me ask all here; in the simple diagram attached, is the computed power in VBAT and RLOAD the same polarity or opposite?
A question for Luc: please rearrange the probes in your diagram if you wanted to measure the power in your load resistor that is in series with the primary. Do you expect the power polarity to be the same as that when you measure the Grid power?
Poynt, I would be the last one to say I know more than you when it come to measuring P in & P out.
You ask me to change things, I redo it with your changes then you say something is wrong! I don't understand what you want!
I don't have a problem doing it your way but you need to confirm what is what because everything is now upside down and it's going to take some time to get use to it.
You say channel 2 probe needs to be inverted, fine no problem
So now, what part of the math is the power used and power returned? below the zero line or above it?
You say the only math function needed is mean, so will a negative mean be more power used or returned or the other way around?
Anything else I need to know to evaluate how much power a circuit is using compared to returning?
Thanks for your time
Luc
Luc,
I made made a post while I was in the office, but got busy and must have forgotten to hit "Post".
Anyway, I know this must be frustrating for you to a degree, but stick with it. I may be doing a poor job of explaining things, but I am trying my best. Have patience with me please.
If you would be willing, I think it would be very beneficial to go back to the basics for a brief moment. Set up a test like I have depicted in the attached diagram. A simple DC circuit with say a 10V supply, a 100 Ohm resistor load, and a 0.1 Ohm CSR here.
Perform the battery power measurement as shown. Move the CSR and perform the RL power measurement (the load). Note the power polarity of the battery with no inversion on CH2; what polarity is it? Also note the polarity of the RL resistor with no inversion of CH2. Are they the same polarity?
If done correctly, you should get -1W for the battery power with CH2 inverted, and +1W with CH2 not inverted. In addition, you should get +1W for the load power with CH2 inverted, and -1W with CH2 not inverted.
If you obtain these results, then you have proven two things:
1) The power polarity of sources and loads is opposite.
2) The correct power polarity for Sources is negative, and for Loads it is positive.
And we know in order to obtain the correct power polarity, we need to invert one of the scope channels, because in both cases the probes are not placed in series adding, they are placed in series opposing.
This test would only take you 30 minutes or so, and it would be very worthwhile. From here we'd be ready to move on to your test apparatus measurements for which I'd be happy to draw up for you if you wish.
Note: It would be preferable to use a battery for these tests, but you could also gnd isolate your lab supply so that the CSR does not get shorted out for the RL power measurement.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 19, 2013, 04:16:43 PM
So now, what part of the math is the power used and power returned? below the zero line or above it?
You say the only math function needed is mean, so will a negative mean be more power used or returned or the other way around?
Luc, the MATH trace is an instantaneous representation of the power because you are multiplying a voltage by a current. In order to determine if the net average power is positive or negative, we apply an averaging measurement to the trace via the "MEAN" measurement.
When you use "MATH min" or "MATH max", you do not get very much useful information. Why? Because this is only telling us what the lowest or highest peak the trace ever reached on the scale. It doesn't tell us anything about what the over all average power is. So you can not simply add or subtract those two values to obtain the average power. The only way to do it properly is to use the MEAN measurement of the MATH trace. Once we establish what polarity the source (Grid) power is with a simple measurement as I show above WITH the CH2 inverted, the Grid power measurement will tell us if the net average power is returning to the grid, or being dissipated in your circuit. So a proper Grid power measurement that results in a POSITIVE polarity, would mean that more power is being returned to the grid than what your circuit is using.
Quote
Anything else I need to know to evaluate how much power a circuit is using compared to returning?
I hope the above answers this question.
@dklyne
small world, I use the Arduino Uno then calibrated voltage dividers/opto-isolation for voltage and a pair of 50 or 100 amp Allegro hall effect current sensors. No issues no worries , works every time.
AC
Hi Stefan and everyone
I made this video as per Stefan request to see in fine details (scope) the power to the generator prime mover when the circuit is connector or disconnected.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yudbBBSS58&feature=youtu.be
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 19, 2013, 10:44:46 PM
Hi Stefan and everyone
I made this video as per Stefan request to see in fine details (scope) the power to the generator prime mover when the circuit is connector or disconnected.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yudbBBSS58&feature=youtu.be
Luc
Nice work Luc. :) Good video and very clear. Its time for me to start looking at a generator output coupling to my motor. :)
your 15ohm load sure had ZERO lenz effect that i could see. Nice test.
Hi to AllCanadian and everyone here by the way... great forums and i'll be sticking around here.
Peace and love and good happiness stuff.
L&L
Quote from: dklyne on December 19, 2013, 11:16:51 PM
Nice work Luc. :) Good video and very clear. Its time for me to start looking at a generator output coupling to my motor. :)
your 15ohm load sure had ZERO lenz effect that i could see. Nice test.
Hi to AllCanadian and everyone here by the way... great forums and i'll be sticking around here.
Peace and love and good happiness stuff.
L&L
Glad you enjoyed the video Darcy ;)
I'm thinking your large floor sander motor is about on of the best motors for this application, since what I'm starting to conclude is the lower the Resistance of the coils in the Motor and the Alternator the more mechanical output power you can get out. Higher resistance coils will turn reactive power to heat. That cold be good if you want to make a reactive water heater ;D but no good if you want to get max power output.
I'm quite sure I reached my limit at 30 Watts without effect to prime mover on my 1000 watt alternator head.
So get as large of an Alternator as you can so that once you get it turning you may have some extra power left.
Find an old one that may have engine problems so you can get it for next to nothing. Also, make sure it has 220v as you may find high voltage a benefit.
All the best in your hunt.
L&L
Luc
Hi Luc. The hunt is over. lol
This 6250watt electric generator (with 220VAC as well) is actually brand new and has never seen gasoline or ran at all to be honest. The motor is rigged with a Geet-like feed back from the manifold and a low pressure propane conversion kit to be run on an exclusive diet of pure H2. I've got 3 - 24volt separator cells that are now blowing the slip connectors off the system with unrestricted flow pressure. A good problem to have, but in order to run the system i need to upgrade all my fittings to Stainless steel quick connectors and new end plates. Those fittings are about a $1500 bill (bad problem to have) So it will be awhile before i can use that motor for what it was intended for. Might become inconsequential?
I just purchased a welder a few months back so i should be able to tack on a shaft and mount the sander motor on to that frame. Hopefully those new 5uf caps from ebay will be quick too because i need about 30 more microfarad to bring that voltage at the motor up to 110 VAC.
I have 2 more good probes for my oscilloscope on the way as well and along with the hall effect current sensor rigs i'll be able to do some normal readings soon too.
Your video got me excited i couldn't sleep again. lol I really just want to say that i am very grateful for this line of experimentation Luc. I've noticed that the first few views on both our last videos had a couple thumbs down immediately after loading them??? curious.
Super stuff!
L&L
Hi Darcy,
glad you're having fun and enjoying the experiments!
As for adding more caps!... this may not be the correct way to boost your motor voltage. There is an ideal cap value and I think in your first video you were not far from it.
To boost your motor voltage just raise your input voltage. Did you not noticed when you raise your variac voltage the input Watts don't change (in the way you would expect) but look at the motor voltage, it should be going up.
That's why I say a 220v gen head maybe better.
Also, about your motor. You need to measure its RPM, since the Alternator head will need 3600 RPM to produce Voltage and correct frequency. You will want to get chain sprockets (low losses compared to belt sprockets) to double (if not more) the speed of your motor shaft.
All the best
L&L
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 19, 2013, 11:41:37 PM
Glad you enjoyed the video Darcy ;)
I'm thinking your large floor sander motor is about on of the best motors for this application, since what I'm starting to conclude is the lower the Resistance of the coils in the Motor and the Alternator the more mechanical output power you can get out. Higher resistance coils will turn reactive power to heat. That cold be good if you want to make a reactive water heater ;D but no good if you want to get max power output.
I'm quite sure I reached my limit at 30 Watts without effect to prime mover on my 1000 watt alternator head.
So get as large of an Alternator as you can so that once you get it turning you may have some extra power left.
Find an old one that may have engine problems so you can get it for next to nothing. Also, make sure it has 220v as you may find high voltage a benefit.
All the best in your hunt.
L&L
Luc
Luc,
As always, you provide us with very interesting and well done experiments!
As food for thought, consider the possibility that the internal regulation circuitry of the alternator might dissipate an additional 30 watts when unloaded.
Have you attempted to lightly load the alternator with a resistive load (< 30 watts) to see what effect that has on the prime mover?
Consider performing an experiment with the alternator loaded at 30-50 watts resistive and then attaching your circuit across that load to see if the additional load of your circuit is then reflected by the prime mover.
Good stuff Luc...
PW
Hi PW,
I did that experiment some time back before starting this topic.
A 30 watt load on the alternator causes a 35 watts to the prime mover and so on. It's always more power in for power out.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 20, 2013, 01:37:27 PM
Hi PW,
I did that experiment some time back before starting this topic.
A 30 watt load on the alternator causes a 35 watts to the prime mover and so on. It's always more power in for power out.
Luc
Luc,
Very interesting... and thorough I might add.
I found your video where you monitored the prime mover with/without your load attached most interesting. We can hear something change relative to the alternator loading, but not see anything to speak of reflected in the prime mover power.
It might be interesting to investigate the schematic/circuitry of your alternator and monitor some points within to see what goes on internally as your load is applied.
PW
@GoToLuc and all.
I have the utmost respect for those that question then try!
To all the naysayers please let all the failures / advancements evolve in to SUCCESS!
It will be through all of these great experiments that the outcome of cheap cheap energy will be achieved. (Personal Power on HIGH).
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it most certainly can be HARVESTED!
When somebody comes to me and says he knows with absolute certainty where it (The "E" part of the equation) all lies, I will point him to the head of the patent office (Charles Duell) in 1904 who so famously said "Everything that can be invented HAS BEEN INVENTED!".
We have millions upon millions of experiments yet to run. Learn what doesn't work! What does will come in due time.
My personal opinion is, we are on the threshold of determining just what and how far the term "RESONANCE & FINESSE" WILL TAKE US! Finding out just where some of that hidden energy can be HARVESTED! ZPE, Dark Mater, Magnetism or Reactive..... who the hell knows for sure how far we will go in the next million years of evolution. Based upon past results however I feel confident & that's for sure!
Namaste,
Here2njoy
Luc,
So far you have not proven your initial claims for this thread, and until you have, it looks like you're leading everyone on a wild-goose-chase...
Regards, Tim
@tim123
QuoteSo far you have not proven your initial claims for this thread, and until you have, it looks like you're leading everyone on a wild-goose-chase...
I wouldn't call it a wild goose chase, Luc claimed he was getting anomalous measurements and we are trying to determine exactly why... sounds more like science to me. Hence all the concern over how the variables are measured and where.
We may debate our point in different ways but we all have a common goal which is to know the truth.
AC
Thanks Luc,
2 points:
1.Please only use DC coupling for the scopeheads
2.Please zoom into the zero crossing of the waveform only in one half cycle and see,
if the Voltage and Current Waveform will change there, so the phase angle might only change
by a few degrees and this is the way to see it at the zero crossing...
Otherwise I moved the 2 threads into this new board and made Luc the moderator and
we want to make sure that this is no thread how to steal power from the power companies,
but to use oscillating reactive power to convert this to real power with no drag back effect and trying to loop
it this way. So all postings claiming we are only out here to steal power from the power
companies will be deleted. This is a pure research thread into this new phenomen.
Thanks for your attention.
Regards, Stefan.
More on Resonance.... Tesla, Tuning and abundance
http://youtu.be/qpLBBaapbLU
Focus in on all the similarities that are now coming together.
Have you seen the new MRANGUSWANGUS video today?
ARE YOU T U N I N G IN?
Thank you Stefan
I have edited some post and deleted content that refer to Grid power.
As researchers we must be responsible for the information we write and share.
This topic title has always been " Reactive Generator research". It is about exploring the possibilities of using a Generator (alternator) output and connecting it to the circuit I have shared.
The circuit (if correctly tuned) will cause a 90 degrees phase shift (ideal conditions)
If the circuit is attached to the output of an alternator, it can output a certain amount of real power to a load and not cause the alternator to require additional power from its prime mover.
This is the only thing this topic is about and the only claim that I have made. So anyone saying I have claimed OU, Free Energy or Creating Energy and so on, I ask you to please show me the post I have done this and I will be more than happy to delete it and apologise for doing so.
I ask all to please stay focused on the topic and don't loose yourself in illusions. Their is no magic here! ... I may of used the word "magic" but I was being facetious. If this effect is what I understand it to be, then there is no magic, special energy to tap into, energy created and so on.
So all of you thinking along these lines will hopefully have a reality check soon as I think we will be able to come to understand it soon.
WARNING
If anyone uses the grid to power the circuit in question, please note that it is your responsibility to know the rules, laws and regulations of your country.
All who want to experiment with this circuit must use their own power source.
Also, the components, voltages and power used in this circuit can kill you if you don't understand what you are doing, make a bad connection or move your hand too close to the circuit.
Myself and this Forum will not be responsible for any damages, accidents or deaths.
I also recommend you don't replicate the circuit unless you are a trained Electronic or Electrical Engineer.
Any posts that are unrelated to the above research can be edited or deleted.
All the best to those who wish to experiment at their own risk
Luc
It must be Christmas!... I'm in the mood of giving ;D
Test 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErrnPNweZR8
Test 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoPbhE6oQoI
Test 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo1sLwjLEDk
Quote from: nilrehob on December 19, 2013, 06:54:10 AM
Three more videos on the subject:
Watt-Meter Resistive Load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxB9Rcs7Udw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxB9Rcs7Udw)
Watt-Meter Reactive Load: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnuusKhZzO4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnuusKhZzO4)
Luc Reactive MOT Straight to Battery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LSTBMwC_lc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LSTBMwC_lc)
/Hob
Hi Hob, Well done !
But it seems your MOT transformer also has some flux guidance bridge iron pieces, that distort the flux pathes, so that you get a nonlinear current waveform. You should look that up and remove them, so you get a linear transformer...
Regards, Stefan.
Regarding this video from Hob:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LSTBMwC_lc
Hi Hob,
it seems you have shifted the phase now more than 90 degrees, maybe 120 degrees...How did you exactly connect the bridge rectifier and with what voltage is the battery recharged ? With 100 Hz pulsating rectified 50 Hz waveform ? WHat is its voltage when you disconnect the battery ? It seems the battery voltage pulls up the potential so the phase shift gets bigger and real active power is again flowing..
Regards, Stefan.
Luc
This may be a dumb question, but since you have a 120 volt generator and are using very little amps to power your circuit, could you not use a 120 volt to 220 volt transformer on your generator outlet to increase its output volts and conduct the same test on the induction motor that you did with the grid?
Vince
Quote from: vince on December 20, 2013, 09:23:20 PM
Luc
This may be a dumb question, but since you have a 120 volt generator and are using very little amps to power your circuit, could you not use a 120 volt to 220 volt transformer on your generator outlet to increase its output volts and conduct the same test on the induction motor that you did with the grid?
Vince
Hi Vince,
unfortunately not. A step up transformer will have double the resistance in the 220v voltage coil, so now we have a gain in voltage but the current will be eaten up by the higher resistance.
The way I see it now is, the source must be of the smallest resistance but of high voltage also.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Luc,
In your video #2 where you show the setup with the 5 & 10 Ohm series resistors, I wonder if you've taken the temperature of those resistors? If so, how hot did they get?
Would you be willing to do a DC test on them to verify the power you measured?
Thanks.
.99
Hi poynt99,
regarding your 2 circuit diagrams at:
http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/dlattach/attach/130974/ (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/dlattach/attach/130974/)
if we look both times for to see the consumed power at the load resistor,
we must only invert the channel 2 scope trace in the lower circuit diagram.
(as there the flowing current is displayed negatively on the scope)
In the upper diagram the channel 2 at the shunt resistor must not be inverted.
Let´s just measure it normal to see it only from the side of the "load resistor",
that is in GotoLuc´s case the LCR circuit,
as it is normally done.
This is less confusing than what you want to measure.
The topic is difficult enough, so we don´t need to be confused with more confusing
measurement methods.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 20, 2013, 09:49:46 PM
Luc,
In your video #2 where you show the setup with the 5 & 10 Ohm series resistors, I wonder if you've taken the temperature of those resistors? If so, how hot did they get?
Would you be willing to do a DC test on them to verify the power you measured?
Thanks.
.99
Hi poynt,
no temperature readings were taken. My IR temp reader is in storage. I'm kind of limited on stuff at this time as I have no home. Now living for free in my uncles basement. Can't afford a place of my own.
Are you suggesting to FWBR the ac and attache the load to dc? if so It can be done but 3 to 4 watts could be lost in the conversion.
I'm wondering why you want to see that since test 5 already demonstrates 20+ Watts going to charge a dc battery!
Maybe appreciate what I just shared then to keep asking for more. I think I've shown enough and it's now time to replicate if you need more. I'm sure you can understand I don't owe anything to anyone and would like to use my own time for the development of the circuit then to prove this or that to all who come.
Please don't take this personally as I'm not just writing this for you.
The circuit is not complicated to build lol... it all can be done for free from garbage you pickup here and there.
Just grab a capacitor and FWBR and do the test Hob did.
Luc
Luc,
By DC test I meant that you would simply connect the 15 Ohm load to a variable DC supply and adjust it until you achieve the same temperature they were at while powered by your circuit. It's a simple and effective way to confirm the power measurement in the resistors.
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 20, 2013, 10:14:10 PM
Hi poynt99,
regarding your 2 circuit diagrams at:
http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/dlattach/attach/130974/ (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/dlattach/attach/130974/)
if we look both times for to see the consumed power at the load resistor,
we must only invert the channel 2 scope trace in the lower circuit diagram.
(as there the flowing current is displayed negatively on the scope)
In the upper diagram the channel 2 at the shunt resistor must not be inverted.
Let´s just measure it normal to see it only from the side of the "load resistor",
that is in GotoLuc´s case the LCR circuit,
as it is normally done.
This is less confusing than what you want to measure.
The topic is difficult enough, so we don´t need to be confused with more confusing
measurement methods.
I don't know what you find confusing Stefan. You haven't even shown any analysis of my diagram to explain your objection. May I suggest you start there? I asked some clear and simple questions about the the previous diagrams; have you tried answering them?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 20, 2013, 10:27:10 PM
Luc,
By DC test I meant that you would simply connect the 15 Ohm load to a variable DC supply and adjust it until you achieve the same temperature they were at while powered by your circuit. It's a simple and effective way to confirm the power measurement in the resistors.
So does this mean we cant even trust a 58Hz RMS readings from a high end scope now?
This will never end!... I don't know why I bother to torture myself like this ???
Well Luc,
The scope was at the same time displaying an average power of 1.66W. Am I assuming wrong that this MATH reading is for the power in the resistors? If it was not for the resistors, then what?
Quote from: gotoluc on December 20, 2013, 10:38:34 PM
This will never end!... I don't know why I bother to torture myself like this ???
Indeed, my sentiments as well.
I've apparently wasted too much time on this already. Good luck.
http://static.schneider-electric.us/docs/Power%20Management/Power%20Quality%20Correction%20Equipment/5800DB1201.pdf?tsk=N846V&pc=16319&keycode=n846v&promocode=16319&promo_key=16319 (http://static.schneider-electric.us/docs/Power%20Management/Power%20Quality%20Correction%20Equipment/5800DB1201.pdf?tsk=N846V&pc=16319&keycode=n846v&promocode=16319&promo_key=16319)3.0 Calculating ......
3%-6% electricity power saving ? or see Figure 1 : (10000KWH +7000KvarH) /9700KWH gain ? Consumer/Producer cycle
Sincerely
OCWL
Quote from: minnie on December 13, 2013, 03:11:40 AM
Hi
this thing seems to be doing what is claimed. Could anyone please tell me how it could
be used in a practical way?
John
Suppose you have a motor driving a generator. Lets use a dc motor, so we can easily see it's power usage. Suppose it is a 12 Volt 5A motor. It is able to overcome all resistive loads on the generator which is attached to the shaft. We then use the generators output and place there one circuit (see Luc's #3 and 4 videos) of MOT + C + Rectifier + battery. As you can see, 1.7 Amps is being delivered. How ever the dc motor will show no increase of amperage. Now connect at least 2 more of this circuit. It will still not increase the current to the 12 volt motor, but now we have 5.1 Amps. After some fine tuning (the generator does have a limit to the amount of added circuits) there will be a maximum of delivered amps (note that we also have free heat, these mot's do get warm, I'd like that in the winter very much).
For some reason I am feeling very comfortable about this reactive setup. An analogy (imho): the power company asks us to add a capacitor to a inductive load. if you look at the video explaining 'power factor', you will see that the added capacitor is in fact storing half of the sinus wave the power which is induced back, and the next half cycle it is freeing that power to the inductor, and thus the power factor is corrected. In pure reactive mode, the same (alike) seems to be happening. Note I am not saying the same is happening, it is pure for reference.
Also think of this (and when Luc slows down his inductive motor you can see this): a motor is as well a generator. So: when the motor is not spinning, the oscilloscope show the low voltage on the motor (a few volts). When the motor has spun up, the voltage increases to 50-ish volts. This is a motor-generator effect in equilibrium.
Well, of course I can be wrong, but by looking at this open minded, the idea is that all we need to find out is the limit of the reactive power which we can get or draw from the generator. If we have 3 Amps running (as in his demo) then I expect a 1000W generator is limited to 3 reactive circuits attached. Because the amps are flowing, but in a resonating way. The coils in the generator are in fact part of the LCR circuit as well, things are little more complex if you add it all up (haha, but not on the inductive part of a 0.1 ohm resistor, I dare say that sort of influence is really next to zero). Any way. it can and will run looped, and then with a surplus. As well in warmth as in power out in any way.
So far my thoughts. The more we share the further we will get on this.
I would just like to say to luc you are a special person sharing even with all people trying to blow you out of the water. I for one would like to say a heartfelt thanks to you for this knowledge and hope the naysayers don't scare you off. hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year ron from Australia please delete post if it is inappropriate. thank you kind sir
Hi everyone,
the circuit is about to take a huge change!
Strange how we see something and we don't follow through. About two weeks ago I had a MOT that was cut open, just the E core with both the coils in it and I was able to get 95% of the effect and with no short to the Secondary. I put it aside for testing later and didn't get back to it till last night after exchanges with Hob.
Well it looks like a MOT is NOT needed LOL. Now I know why some experimenters had different results!
Consider your power source (Alternator) as the Inductor, so the main component is the Capacitor. Adding another Inductor may have benefits but lets leave it out for now.
So the test is so simple there's no reasons anyone cannot to do it. So no more loads of tests and questions needed to be answered by me, you will answers all your questions by seeing the results yourself.
New Test:
connect a Capacitor in series of around 35uf or lower and choose another component of your choice, Resistor or FWBR and connect it also in series with your capacitor, that's it.
If you chose a FWBR you connect the AC legs in series and you need a battery on the DC side but be careful if you feed 220v though and have no load attached to your battery as in no time it will got over the ideal charge voltage limit of 14.5 Volts. So have enough load attached to your battery to keep the voltage around 12.8 volts.
An Induction Motor of very low coil resistance could also be used as a component choice but you will need to add a flip flop relay to start it off a non reactive power source as I did in my demo video.
Adding an Inductor in the Network could have benefits but can be done in time once you better understand the effect.
I also think the Inductor would be of super low resistance and of low Inductance value.
I believe the basic effect is:
Electricity has two components, Voltage and Current, if you separate them (90 degrees phase shift) and just allow them to flow through a circuit (series network) each component of electricity will be able to do their work WITHOUT crashing in each other (short circuit)
I think for the past 100 years we've been making circuits that just basically short circuits electricity and as a result we only have losses.
So maybe this circuit can be summed up by "Don't Kill The Dipole"
Looking forward in your test results!... good luck to all and please share your results to help the development.
Luc
I've been told skipping the MOT and just use a capacitor is called "George Wisemans Capacitive charger".
The capacitor works as a current limiter, small capacitance => less current.
Letting energy back and forth from the Alternator power source by using a capacitor is essentially the same as if You connect an unloaded transformer to the power source except the transformer has probably more losses than a capacitor.
/Hob
Quote from: energy1234hope on December 21, 2013, 06:49:11 AM
I would just like to say to luc you are a special person sharing even with all people trying to blow you out of the water. I for one would like to say a heartfelt thanks to you for this knowledge and hope the naysayers don't scare you off. hope you and your family have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year ron from Australia please delete post if it is inappropriate. thank you kind sir
Thank you for taking the time to express your gratitude and recognizing the time and effort it takes to bring this information to the public.
Luc
Quote from: nilrehob on December 21, 2013, 07:48:17 AM
I've been told skipping the MOT and just use a capacitor is called "George Wisemans Capacitive charger".
The capacitor works as a current limiter, small capacitance => less current.
Letting energy back and forth from the Alternator power source by using a capacitor is essentially the same as if You connect an unloaded transformer to the power source except the transformer has probably more losses than a capacitor.
/Hob
Thanks Hob for bringing my attention back to the need of the Mot.
I don't know if you or anyone else of the Forum remembers a man about 5 years ago was posting about a circuit he had develop that was using only capacitors to achieve a large reduction in power usage when his circuit was under load. I think he was Indian. He had a video demo with a wheel power meter to demonstrate the difference between a load in the standard way vs his circuit.
Maybe this was his basic effect?... HE NEVER SHARED HIS CIRCUIT
Thanks again for sharing
Luc
Quote from: nilrehob on December 21, 2013, 07:48:17 AM
The capacitor works as a current limiter, small capacitance => less current.
/Hob
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=34&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19860225&CC=US&NR=4572992A&KC=A (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=34&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19860225&CC=US&NR=4572992A&KC=A)
less inrush "current " means less heat and resistance : higher efficiency
Hi lancaIV,
I don't see that Patent as being the same circuit and effect. I did a Google search and found the schematic.
Let us know why you would think this is related to this topic
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 21, 2013, 08:40:26 AM
Thanks Hob for bringing my attention back to the need of the Mot.
I don't know if you or anyone else of the Forum remembers a man about 5 years ago was posting about a circuit he had develop that was using only capacitors to achieve a large reduction in power usage when his circuit was under load. I think he was Indian. He had a video demo with a wheel power meter to demonstrate the difference between a load in the standard way vs his circuit.
Maybe this was his basic effect?... HE NEVER SHARED HIS CIRCUIT
Thanks again for sharing
Luc
winsonali electrogenie this ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sqmq9i-tos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sqmq9i-tos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoAmtkHkDzI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoAmtkHkDzI)
http://www.winsonali.com/index.html
soft static/motive driver technology( also Frank Nola controler) included inrush current limiting makes part of the LC-tank-circuit optimization.
My response was "current limiter" related,cause sur-current saturate the conductor to fast =resistance I and seconds heats(=vibrations) it up to fast =resistance II !
We need a "cold" conductance.
Sincerely
OCWL
Quote from: wings on December 21, 2013, 01:17:04 PM
winsonali electrogenie this ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sqmq9i-tos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sqmq9i-tos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoAmtkHkDzI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoAmtkHkDzI)
http://www.winsonali.com/index.html (http://www.winsonali.com/index.html)
Yes wings, that's the one.
Thanks for finding it
Luc
Hi All,
I think these Russian inventors have already mastered the technolgy and can offer
a 10 times power amplification via reactive power and resonance in tis unit.
Have a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hCkwWhIyvc
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 22, 2013, 10:03:28 AM
Hi All,
I think these Russian inventors have already mastered the technolgy and can offer
a 10 times power amplification via reactive power and resonance in tis unit.
Have a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hCkwWhIyvc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hCkwWhIyvc)
Regards, Stefan.
the max allowable reactive power should be within 90% of active power
INPUT
1260 Watts and 3000 VAR -
3300 total input power V*A (200 Volts 5-6 amperes)
cost (3.23*1260 + 4.21*3000)/3600= 4.6 centEuro (KV*A*hours)
OUTPUT
9080 Watts and 165 VAR
9100 total output power V*A (220Volts 13.5 amperes)
cost (3.23*9080 + 4.21*165)/3600= 8.4 centEuro (KV*A*hours)
amplifications of 10 times active power 3 times full power - not bad
probably already said:
the MOT transformer, has a shunt:
As it is intended to drive a capacitive load, the leakage inductance of the tranformer is deliberately increased by adding a small magnetic shunt between the primary and secondary coils. The inductance is roughly equal and opposite to the doubler capacitance, and so reduces the output impedance of the doubler. This specified leakage inductance classifies the transformer as non-ideal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_booster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_booster)
or Phase Shifting Transformers?
with relations to the last Russian youtube with 3 phases it is much easier, because you can mix the phase with another 3phase transformer and as consequence increase the voltage (200V input 220 output)?
By Bucking or Boosting using the next phase.
Quote from: wings on December 22, 2013, 01:02:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_booster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrature_booster)
or Phase Shifting Transformers?
with relations to the last Russian youtube with 3 phases it is much easier, because you can mix the phase with another 3phase transformer and as consequence increase the voltage (200V input 220 output)?
By Bucking or Boosting using the next phase.
Thanks wings,
using 3 Phase would be the easiest path to a solid state version.
Now all you guys and girls, I've explained enough times what is needed (90 degrees phase shift0!... so go and build it
Thanks for sharing wings
Luc
Quote from: wings on December 22, 2013, 01:02:43 PM
probably already said:
the MOT transformer, has a shunt:
As it is intended to drive a capacitive load, the leakage inductance of the tranformer is deliberately increased by adding a small magnetic shunt between the primary and secondary coils. The inductance is roughly equal and opposite to the doubler capacitance, and so reduces the output impedance of the doubler. This specified leakage inductance classifies the transformer as non-ideal.
the MOT magnetic shunt and his effect that is similar to Thane C. Heins effect
:The weakened energy coupling between the primary and secondary means that a load on the secondary is no longer fully compensated for by increased primary current. Normally, secondary current produces an[/size]
mmf (http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/terms.html#mmf)[/size]
which opposes the primary flux, which the primary then compensates for by increasing its own current draw. Now, however, the secondary flux can drop without the primary flux having to drop too. [/size]
From :http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/leak/weld/index.html[/size]
[/size]
A way to try and explain this reactive power situation using water and a paddle wheel
In the video,we see water flowing out of a chanel(the waterfall),and onto a paddle wheel.
No matter how much we load the paddle wheel,no reflection or restriction of the water flow will be detected at the output of the water channel(top of the waterfall).But what would happen if we reduce or stop the water flow at the top of the waterfall?. We also know that the paddle wheel would not have enough energy to return all the water driving it,back up to the top of the waterfall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKx-Jms624A
A simple test for you all(one i carried out) in reguards to the main's/MOT setup.First,get it to read 0 watt's,and measure voltage across load resistor on the secondary. Next test-place a 1k ohm non inductive resistor on the active of the mains line,befor the watt meter.Now run again,and measure voltage across load resistor on MOT secondary. If we were indeed drawing 0 watts of power,then no drop in voltage across the load resistor should be detected. I could tell you my results,but this is something you must see for your self.
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2013, 07:09:45 AM
A simple test for you all(one i carried out) in regards to the main's/MOT setup.First,get it to read 0 watt's,and measure voltage across load resistor on the secondary. Next test-place a 1k ohm non inductive resistor on the active of the mains line,befor the watt meter.Now run again,and measure voltage across load resistor on MOT secondary. If we were indeed drawing 0 watts of power,then no drop in voltage across the load resistor should be detected. I could tell you my results,but this is something you must see for your self.
Hi Tinman,
The test you are describing, is it to compare it with the setup which Luc had when he had a MOT on his generator, with a 1 K load on it producing about 10 Watts?
In his L-C circuit the voltage over the primer is not very high, so if you add a resistor in the circuit, you are changing the characteristics of the circuit. If you look at a later setup which Luc did, he used an audio power transformer. He did clearly tel us that the DC resistance should be as low as possible, and said the MOT is therefor not a good example.
If you add a resistor in series, you are reducing the current and creating an offset voltage (lowering the mains), and thus lowering the voltage. This changes the behavior of the circuit you started with (the reactive circuit runs better on a higher voltage, not the opposite).
And in fact I already know the answer, as when I was testing I had a 1 ohm load just for measuring the current on 230 Volt. It did scare me as the circuit seems to draw 2 Amps while the KWH meter says it is running at about 1 Watt (it is an rms Watt meter, but with reactive tests you must always check the scope, that much I have learned already). The AMP claw which I had as well only showed 0.49 Amp. So hmmm? without a scope you cannot rely on meter, unless you know your meters inside out.
To be honest, I did not get the analogy with the water paddle wheel, sorry for that.
And I hope we get a good discussion on this, because I am simply repeating to say the things which Luc says (or at least trying to get as close as possible). I am currently trying very hard to get a generator, since I don't want to do more tests on the grid. I do believe that a good setup can be looped back.
@Luc:
Could you do one more test for us?
Hook up the reactive setup on the generator, the one with the resistor heating up will do just fine. Now I am very curious to see what happens if you start loading the generator, for instance with some light bulbs and using 300 to 500 Watts, or if possible up to a 1000 Watts if you have such a load. I am not directly interested in the power usage of the induction motor of course, but I am curious if the given power of 1000 Watts of the generator is based upon purely consumed Watts. And if you can get above it, when using ('consuming') reactive power as well. Another test I would love to see is a test in which you hook up 2 of the previously tested circuits, to see if you can draw twice the reactive power, or if there is a limit there as well (if I had a generator these are the kind of tests which I would surely do, it helps in determining the possible applications).
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2013, 07:09:45 AM
A way to try and explain this reactive power situation using water and a paddle wheel
In the video,we see water flowing out of a chanel(the waterfall),and onto a paddle wheel.
No matter how much we load the paddle wheel,no reflection or restriction of the water flow will be detected at the output of the water channel(top of the waterfall).But what would happen if we reduce or stop the water flow at the top of the waterfall?. We also know that the paddle wheel would not have enough energy to return all the water driving it,back up to the top of the waterfall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKx-Jms624A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKx-Jms624A)
A simple test for you all(one i carried out) in reguards to the main's/MOT setup.First,get it to read 0 watt's,and measure voltage across load resistor on the secondary. Next test-place a 1k ohm non inductive resistor on the active of the mains line,befor the watt meter.Now run again,and measure voltage across load resistor on MOT secondary. If we were indeed drawing 0 watts of power,then no drop in voltage across the load resistor should be detected. I could tell you my results,but this is something you must see for your self.
okay but now turn the paddle wheel on its side, and make a vortex, which has a combined resonant motion greater than the input...
backyard science version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Oo490FfUfw&list=PLYup1NqKR5BO-sb3_x5SI4QBRmJrR7U2q&index=11)
industrial scale version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax-ItbC_zkY)
Edit: generator in india (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3jXDjsWLCc) Had to add this one too...
Would be best if the impeller could just react to the surface flow ,which is the fastest portion...
viktor schauburger aparatus for generating power at his cabin... top is a splined pipe falling on an impeller
Quote from: wings on December 22, 2013, 11:48:29 AM
the max allowable reactive power should be within 90% of active power
INPUT
1260 Watts and 3000 VAR -
3300 total input power V*A (200 Volts 5-6 amperes)
cost (3.23*1260 + 4.21*3000)/3600= 4.6 centEuro (KV*A*hours)
OUTPUT
9080 Watts and 165 VAR
9100 total output power V*A (220Volts 13.5 amperes)
cost (3.23*9080 + 4.21*165)/3600= 8.4 centEuro (KV*A*hours)
amplifications of 10 times active power 3 times full power - not bad
I was not able to download
http://x-faq.ru/index.php?PHPSESSID=2ff6a3659cbfc6464117764804a0dbaa&action=dlattach;topic=1316.0;attach=6677;image (http://x-faq.ru/index.php?PHPSESSID=2ff6a3659cbfc6464117764804a0dbaa&action=dlattach;topic=1316.0;attach=6677;image)
http://x-faq.ru/index.php?topic=1316.240 (http://x-faq.ru/index.php?topic=1316.240)
О нас | Лаборатория инновационной электродинамики "СТЕХО" steholab.ru
Владелец домена: ZAO ASGARD
Тел.: +7 34365 60600
Email: adm@t4f.ru[/size]
here more:
http://nshb.at.ua/load/svobodnaja_ehnergija/rezonansnyj_usilitel_moshhnosti_stepanova/21-1-0-589 (http://nshb.at.ua/load/svobodnaja_ehnergija/rezonansnyj_usilitel_moshhnosti_stepanova/21-1-0-589)
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/104616649/Stepanov-electric-power-amplifier
Or maybe the load is reacting like a brown dipper (image)
American dipper under water (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV6IDY1TSC0&list=PLYup1NqKR5BNu4pC-mDBQuh3F3aeU-X8_&index=1)
more of the same (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7nAdbOo8xk&list=PLYup1NqKR5BNu4pC-mDBQuh3F3aeU-X8_&index=2)
Dipper at Tyresta Nyfors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kjzgwf7CLM&feature=youtu.be&t=1m05s)
Was reflecting; if you have a twisted pipe and can guarantee its negative resistance flow rate, could put the water back uphill easier... even if it wasn't negative and it was just lower resistance would be good....
and that's all doable using hydrodynamics alone
Maybe the Russian Guys device takes the 50 Hz grid supply and chops it up to high frequency which causes the output meter to read incorrectly. We have to assume the light bulbs are 500 Watts each, I would have thought 10 kW of 500 Watt light bubs would be difficult to look at and film properly if fully powered. Then there is the reactance from the globes, if the output of the device is high frequency and the bulbs have inductance there are more issues for the meter which is designed for 50/60 Hz Sine wave power. If the output is not 50/60 Hz Sine wave power the meter will not be reading correctly.
Then there is the problem of it being connected to the grid, none of these systems that require connection to the grid will have any future if the power company finds out about it, just like the guys in Brazil, the power company will not allow other people to make use of their grid to do work for free. For there to be any uses for this stuff the device needs to be able to make use of a motor driven AC generator/alternator as the power supply or some other way of obtaining the AC supply on site, connecting to the grid takes out the cost of producing the AC power to begin with, it's simply cheating.
If it won't work when used with say a 5 kVA petrol/gas powered generator then it probably isn't "making" any energy.
It requires energy to keep the grid supply there and waiting.
It takes energy to power a load.
Someone beg borrow or otherwise obtain a small AC petrol generator and use that for the power supply, then factor in the cost of fuel and maintenance for that power supply for the duration of the tests to get the real efficiency. Notice the way generators are in rated kVA not Watts output.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on December 23, 2013, 04:04:56 PM
Maybe the Russian Guys device takes the 50 Hz grid supply and chops it up to high frequency which causes the output meter to read incorrectly. We have to assume the light bulbs are 500 Watts each, I would have thought 10 kW of 500 Watt light bubs would be difficult to look at and film properly if fully powered. Then there is the reactance from the globes, if the output of the device is high frequency and the bulbs have inductance there are more issues for the meter which is designed for 50/60 Hz Sine wave power. If the output is not 50/60 Hz Sine wave power the meter will not be reading correctly.
Then there is the problem of it being connected to the grid, none of these systems that require connection to the grid will have any future if the power company finds out about it, just like the guys in Brazil, the power company will not allow other people to make use of their grid to do work for free. For there to be any uses for this stuff the device needs to be able to make use of a motor driven AC generator/alternator as the power supply or some other way of obtaining the AC supply on site, connecting to the grid takes out the cost of producing the AC power to begin with, it's simply cheating.
If it won't work when used with say a 5 kVA petrol/gas powered generator then it probably isn't "making" any energy.
It requires energy to keep the grid supply there and waiting.
It takes energy to power a load.
Someone beg borrow or otherwise obtain a small AC petrol generator and use that for the power supply, then factor in the cost of fuel and maintenance for that power supply for the duration of the tests to get the real efficiency. Notice the way generators are in rated kVA not Watts output.
..
i like this diagram
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/nshb/view/420216/ (http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/nshb/view/420216/)
the use of variable reactor (or magnetic amplifier) that sense the load
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/nshb/view/420217/ (http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/nshb/view/420217/)
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/nshb/view/420214/all it seem well done
http://nshb.at.ua/load/svobodnaja_ehnergija/rezonansnyj_usilitel_moshhnosti_stepanova/21-1-0-589 (http://nshb.at.ua/load/svobodnaja_ehnergija/rezonansnyj_usilitel_moshhnosti_stepanova/21-1-0-589)
@Farmhand
QuoteThen there is the problem of it being connected to the grid, none of these systems that require connection to the grid will have any future if the power company finds out about it, just like the guys in Brazil, the power company will not allow other people to make use of their grid to do work for free. For there to be any uses for this stuff the device needs to be able to make use of a motor driven AC [color=rgb(27, 142, 222) !important]generator[/color]/alternator as the [color=rgb(27, 142, 222) !important]power supply[/color] or some other way of obtaining the AC supply on site, connecting to the grid takes out the cost of producing the AC power to begin with, it's simply cheating.
Oh I wouldn't worry too much about the power companies anymore than one would worry about the horses when the automobile came or whale oil companies when the light bulb was invented. They will be obsolete soon enough and our children will look back on us in the same way we would back on the pioneers. They will laugh at this nonsense and wonder how such people even managed to walk upright. This is true as it has always been true throughout our history and your power companies days are numbered. Nobody... I repeat Nobody has the power to halt progress and evolution, it marches on as consistently as time itself.
On a side note if all goes well by this time next year I will have the pleasure of demanding the power company remove all there equipment from my private property. You see the power companies are nothing more than a simple service provider and I have the right to choose who provides it or to generate my own power. We are in control of our future not them ... deal with it.
AC
You bet and the customer is always right !
Unless there is a governing law that a greased political figure passes to make us wrong lol.
Than in this case a little civil disobeying may be of the order. :P
Laws only stick if the majority follow them and the tipping point for any issue is believe it or not only 10% of a difference another interesting fact.
Make sure that you read the article about the lady that is being evicted
from her "paid for property" because she doesn't use the grid. Paid for
property? Yea right! Just dont pay your property taxes and see who really
owns it.
Tried one of the Russian circuits that Wings posted.
Interesting results!
I did not have 1:1 transformers, so I made do.
AC 110 volt to
Killowwatt meter to
110 volt to 220 volt step up transformer to
240 volt to 120 volt transformer to
15 uf capacitor on one leg
Outdoor HO florescent tube inductor on other leg
Both legs to 230 volt to 208 volt transformer to
Load
Voltage out was slightly higher than 110 volts.
After tuning for the right capacitor value the load (in this case a scroll saw) did not draw more amps on loading.
Tried the saw with no circuit and loaded it to stall both with cutting and by manually locking the reciprocating arm. The amps shot way up as did wattage used .
Same thing with wrong capacitor values.
Tune to proper capacitance and loaded the saw within the russian circuit and absolutely no increase in amps or watts used even on stall. Was able to cut same material.
Need someone with proper measuring equipment to try this!
Vince
Vince
the Russian circuits use a variable inductor to tune the circuit to resonance (much easier that change capacitor size) in your circuit you have the small white transformer put on the free side a DC current regulated by potentiometer or put a magnet at different distance like in this experiment :http://sparkbangbuzz.com/mag-amp/mag-amp.htm (http://sparkbangbuzz.com/mag-amp/mag-amp.htm) very similar to the Russian http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5410/47810397.14/0_66976_6bec2ddb_L.jpg (http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5410/47810397.14/0_66976_6bec2ddb_L.jpg)
The Russian have a circuit to tune the variable magnetic inductor (m.amplifier) according to the load current and to output load voltage.
:)
Hi Wings
So let me get this correct. Are you saying that if I replace my inductor with a transformer and use a small dc voltage with a potentiometer on the the open windings of the transformer I will be able to tune the capacitance to optimize the circuit?
I was just trying the simple circuit they had posted because I thought it would be doable with what I had on hand. Tuning was tedious but I think the circuit shows promise in a looped system.
Vince
related to resonance you can find experiment and paper like
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/moscowuniv.htm (http://www.cheniere.org/misc/moscowuniv.htm)
http://www.chronos.msu.ru/RREPORTS/berkovich_prime_energy.pdf (http://www.chronos.msu.ru/RREPORTS/berkovich_prime_energy.pdf)
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/#_Work_Information (http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/#_Work_Information)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/largcoil.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/largcoil.htm)
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Mandelstam_Papalexi/Mandelstam-Papalexi%20-%20Oscillations%20in%20an%20Electrical%20System%20Energized%20by%20Means%20of%20Periodically%20Varying%20Capacities%20-%201933.pdf (http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Mandelstam_Papalexi/Mandelstam-Papalexi%20-%20Oscillations%20in%20an%20Electrical%20System%20Energized%20by%20Means%20of%20Periodically%20Varying%20Capacities%20-%201933.pdf)
TEP http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/scalwidx.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/scalwidx.htm)
http://www.overunity.com/10606/overunity-parametric-oscillator/dlattach/attach/52149/image// (http://www.overunity.com/10606/overunity-parametric-oscillator/dlattach/attach/52149/image//)
http://freenrg.info/Patents/Russian-Resonant-Transducer/WO2013039415A1-Resonant-Transducer.jpg (http://freenrg.info/Patents/Russian-Resonant-Transducer/WO2013039415A1-Resonant-Transducer.jpg)
Cris Wanlass
http://www.linux-host.org/energy/awan.html (http://www.linux-host.org/energy/awan.html)
other interesting
http://www.vk2zay.net/article/150
http://www.overunity.com/10606/overunity-parametric-oscillator/#.UroOb2TuIcc
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5811-parametric-excitation.html#post98702
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/paraconv.htm
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Parametric_Excitation/
...
Hi Vince and Wings,
In the block diagram the upper left transformer is a step down type (понижающий трансформатор), I managed to figure it out from the text written above that transformer... :) Hence it is supposed to feed (with a low impedance output, i.e. small voltage-high current) the tank circuit made from capacitor C and the primary coil of the right hand side power transformer.
Then here is a google translation on the block diagram Vince tried to test in his post #173:
**** start (from link http://nshb.at.ua/load/svobodnaja_ehnergija/rezonansnyj_usilitel_moshhnosti_stepanova/21-1-0-589 (http://nshb.at.ua/load/svobodnaja_ehnergija/rezonansnyj_usilitel_moshhnosti_stepanova/21-1-0-589) )
The simplest resonance amplifier consists of only four elements.
Appointment of elements is the same as in the previously discussed amplifier. The only difference is that in the simplest resonant amplifier manual adjustment is made in response to a specific load .
Calculate the simplest amplifier can be simplified to the following algorithm:
1. Enable the power transformer to the network and measure at a given load current consumed them .
2 . Measure the resistance of the primary winding of the power transformer .
3 . Calculate the impedance of the transformer under load.
4 . Calculate the inductive reactance of the transformer under load.
5 . Select the value of the inductive reactance of the controlled magnetic
the reactor equal to about 20 % of the inductive reactance of the power transformer .
6. Manufacture adjustable magnetic reactor tapped starting from the middle to the end of the winding ( the more bends to be made , the better the adjustment in resonance).
7. On the condition that the inductive and capacitive reactance at resonance, calculate the value of the container , which must be connected in series with the transformer and adjustable magnetic reactor for a series resonant circuit.
8. Of the resonance conditions , multiply the measured current consumption loaded transformer to the amount of active resistance of the primary winding and the reactor and get an approximate value of voltage is needed to apply for a serial loop .
9. Mark transformer for output found according to claim 8 voltage and the measured current consumption of claim 1 ( the period setting of the amplifier is the most convenient to use LATR ) .
10 . Powered from the mains through a transformer of claim 9 input resonant circuit - ( series-connected capacitor loaded primary winding power transformers and reactors ) .
11. Changing the inductance of the reactor by switching taps configure the primary circuit in resonance when the input voltage ( for fine-tuning can be slightly change the capacitance of the capacitor connected in parallel with the main capacitors of small capacity ) .
12. By changing the input voltage to set the voltage on the primary winding of the power transformer 220 V.
13. Turn off and turn LATR stationary step-down transformer with the same strain .
Widespread use of tuned amplifiers power frequency can significantly reduce the load on the distribution networks and reduce capital costs for the introduction of new electrical capacity.
Scope of resonant power amplifiers power frequency - stationary and marine electrical systems . Mobile objects appropriate to apply transgeneratory at higher frequencies , followed by converting AC to DC .
**** end
I think iT would be better to use a power transformer with a 230V or even a 380V primary coil, preferably with very low DC resistance winding so that the tank circuit should have as high Quality factor at 50 or 60 Hz resonating with capacitor C as possible.
Gyula
Quote from: vince on December 24, 2013, 04:12:27 PM
...
So let me get this correct. Are you saying that if I replace my inductor with a transformer and use a small dc voltage with a potentiometer on the the open windings of the transformer I will be able to tune the capacitance to optimize the circuit?
...
Yes, basically you get a tunable coil with the DC current biasing the core of that coil, this is what is shown in the block digram with the feedback circuit: some part of the output voltage is rectified and fed back to two variable inductors, the control coils of which are cross fed by this control current to cancel 'unwanted modulation' for the tank circuit. With this feedback circuit the effect of the changing load conditions is compensated for within a certain load range, this is why a constant load is mentioned for the simplified block diagram where there is no feedback. At least this is what is suggested in the Russian text.
Gyula
Quote from: vince on December 24, 2013, 04:12:27 PM
Hi Wings
So let me get this correct. Are you saying that if I replace my inductor with a transformer and use a small dc voltage with a potentiometer on the the open windings of the transformer I will be able to tune the capacitance to optimize the circuit?
I was just trying the simple circuit they had posted because I thought it would be doable with what I had on hand. Tuning was tedious but I think the circuit shows promise in a looped system.
Vince
you tune the circuit by Variable inductance instead by Step by step capacitance.
Hi everyone,
I made 2 new videos which hopefully will serve as an update to demonstrate that a MOT is no longer needed and to also serve as a tutorial to guide you in the best direction for those who wish to replicate.
Tutorial 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hr2C1vvvx4&feature=youtu.be
Tutorial 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6SaAjQaLkM&feature=youtu.be
Hope this helps answer questions and not cause more!
All the best in your experiments
Luc
Hi Luc,
Thank you
Have fun
Hi Luc
I made a comment on your video,but will make one here aswell.
One of your scope probes is hooked up backwards,and channel 1 needs to be inverted to read correctly. In a capacitive circuit,current always leads voltage,but your scope shows voltage leading current ??. You are infact consuming 3.1 watts from the grid(which is being disipated through the 10 ohm resistor),not returning 3.1 watts to the grid.
Some helpful information can be found on this page,along with the links on the page.
Hope this helps.
http://www.electrotechnik.net/2010/08/understanding-power-factor-part-1.html
Quote from: tinman on December 29, 2013, 01:34:57 AM
Hi Luc
I made a comment on your video,but will make one here aswell.
One of your scope probes is hooked up backwards,and channel 1 needs to be inverted to read correctly. In a capacitive circuit,current always leads voltage,but your scope shows voltage leading current ??. You are infact consuming 3.1 watts from the grid(which is being disipated through the 10 ohm resistor),not returning 3.1 watts to the grid.
Some helpful information can be found on this page,along with the links on the page.
Hope this helps.
http://www.electrotechnik.net/2010/08/understanding-power-factor-part-1.html (http://www.electrotechnik.net/2010/08/understanding-power-factor-part-1.html)
Hi Tin Man,
you have it backwards, channel 1 is voltage and channel 2 is current. Current is leading when capacitor is connected.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 29, 2013, 01:38:22 AM
Hi Tin Man,
you have it backwards, channel 1 is voltage and channel 2 is current. Current is leading when capacitor is connected.
Luc
Luc,could you put up a circuit diagram of the setup in your second last video please,as it looks to me like you are looking at the current used to charge up the cap. Once the cap voltage starts to drop,is when the cap is giving back it's energy to the system. With the cap in series(which i believe it is) current will only flow while the cap is charging up.This is why the voltage rises,while the current drops-the potential difference become's less. Is there a way you could put channel 1 of your scope across the cap?-so as we can see the voltage and current then?. It also looks like the cap has some inductance or something?,as the wave form was good until you added the cap.
@gotoluc
Video1 : Please post a picture and manufacturer data of this 10 Ohms resistor . Which material as resistor wire is used inside?
Video2 : Have you ever considered to test a rotoverter setup with instead the variac, one cap or
2 caps (one on each terminal, like Eric Dollard : one element of a longitudinal transmission line) you could get the desired low input voltage .
You indeed show remarkable results in video 2 which one can start with experimenting ;
Which type of 'kill a watt meter' is able to measure real power, reactive power, to the grid returned power correctly?
To everyone,
the circuit is so simple that any experimenter should be able to check the effect them self.
For clear reasons you cannot use this circuit with an Inverter to get this effect, as Inverters are designed for typical circuits that short circuit electricity (kill dipole) and are not capable of re-circulating current and voltage.
The good news is, it works very well with an Alternator (generator) as demonstrated since day one.
All the best with your replication.
Please post your results and not your criticism
Luc
Quote from: TheCell on December 29, 2013, 08:17:58 AM
@gotoluc
Video1 : Please post a picture and manufacturer data of this 10 Ohms resistor . Which material as resistor wire is used inside?
Video2 : Have you ever considered to test a rotoverter setup with instead the variac, one cap or
2 caps (one on each terminal, like Eric Dollard : one element of a longitudinal transmission line) you could get the desired low input voltage .
You indeed show remarkable results in video 2 which one can start with experimenting ;
Which type of 'kill a watt meter' is able to measure real power, reactive power, to the grid returned power correctly?
DALE HR-50 10 Ohm 1% 50W
I have a Rotorverter and it does not even come close to what I demonstrate in Tutorial Demo 2
Luc
Hi all,
I have been reading text-book AC theory during the holidays and I just wrote a document I call "Basic AC Theory". Its only 3 pages long and was a good exercise to better learn the stuff. Maybe It can be of interest for You:
https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents
If You have any suggestions on correcting errors or adding info You can PM me.
/Hob
Comparing with a "reactive power" recovering comercial product :
http://www.ortronic.com/ENGLISH/index.html
Sincerely
OCWL
OK then, can someone give an overview of the over unity claim here ?
How much extra energy is harnessed from a alternate source and what is the mechanism that allows it to happen ?
Why can it not be done with an inverter or a AC generator like a 5 kVA petrol/gas generator ?
Seems the next logical step is to generate your own AC, then do the test to see if the results are the same.
Some things to consider are-
1) As soon as you start the generator it is consuming fuel right along, so the fuel used between when you start the generator and when the test is complete needs to be considered as input.
2) When generating your own AC without the grid all the fuel used, or all the input power to the prime mover is input.
3) All the while that you are setting up your experiment the power company is incurring costs to keep the AC available at the outlet, and those costs are transferred to you in the bill, so part of the input for the experiment is paid for in the bill but not considered in the experiment. So you are out of pocket for standby energy, it is paid for in the bill, just as the home generator uses energy to have the AC there ready to use so does the grid.
4) All reactive power originates from the supply.
.....
AllCanadian, it isn't me that is "worried" about the grid, it's the experimenters that cannot seem to do this experiment without it that ought to be worried about the grid. Unless the arrangement can show extra energy when the supply is a petrol/gas generator, then it is of no real consequence.
As the guys from Brazil have found out, if a system is made available that uses the grid and touts free energy the power company can shut it down in a jiffy, because the energy simply must be provided by them. If not why can it not be shown without the grid ?
If there is extra energy why is the massive grid system needed to see it.
Free as in cost is not a concern here, getting energy for free but putting the actual cost on the power company is not what I would call valid alternative energy research.
Cheers
Farmhand
Give me please the proof that mechanical energy in generators is converted into electrical energy . I think power company does not produce any electricity by conversion - they simply work out the situation when this energy come to the system from outside but they do that in symmetrical way with a COP never exceeding 1. It's like the misconception that water pump is converting you muscles energy into water. No miracles here, you still need a supply of water like well or lake, and if you plug your pump in correct way you can have much higher output then input.
I'm not the only one who suspect what is the real action here....mark my words...
Quote from: lancaIV on December 29, 2013, 12:35:52 PM
Comparing with a "reactive power" recovering comercial product :
http://www.ortronic.com/ENGLISH/index.html (http://www.ortronic.com/ENGLISH/index.html)
Sincerely
OCWL
Hi Lanca,
The link you gave includes some demo video on their concept, this is the English language version video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUChl7zRzTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUChl7zRzTA) from their video channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrtronicTechnologySL/videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/OrtronicTechnologySL/videos)
and I took a snapshot from their video on the power levels, see attached.
Edit: I found a patent application on "Method and means for multiplying the active power of elecric generators using inductive loads" WO2011101512 in Spanish language, inventor is Juan Garcia Ortigosa and this is a google translation of the Spanish text:
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011101512A1?cl=en&dq=WO2011101512&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-HbAUr3vGITgygPM5IH4CA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA (https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011101512A1?cl=en&dq=WO2011101512&hl=hu&sa=X&ei=-HbAUr3vGITgygPM5IH4CA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA)
Thanks, Gyula
Luc,
I was happy to stay out of this discussion, but in your video you have made an accusation that I am wrong regarding my assertion that one scope probe needs to be inverted in order to maintain correct phase when measuring power the way we all commonly do. Your accusation is not supported; you simply say that I am wrong. I have supported my assertion with careful detailed analysis and it is clearly posted in this forum for all to review and critique. To date, not a single person has refuted my assertions at a technical level, and until that time, my assertion stands.
So, I would request that either you edit your video to remove your unsubstantiated, libelous statement about me, or PROVE your statement to be true. Simply saying that I am incorrect is certainly not proof.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 29, 2013, 02:37:53 PM
Luc,
I was happy to stay out of this discussion, but in your video you have made an accusation that I am wrong regarding my assertion that one scope probe needs to be inverted in order to maintain correct phase when measuring power the way we all commonly do. Your accusation is not supported; you simply say that I am wrong. I have supported my assertion with careful detailed analysis and it is clearly posted in this forum for all to review and critique. To date, not a single person has refuted my assertions at a technical level, and until that time, my assertion stands.
So, I would request that either you edit your video to remove your unsubstantiated, libelous statement about me, or PROVE your statement to be true. Simply saying that I am incorrect is certainly not proof.
What do you mean ? Moving the voltage probe connection after the capacitor ?
No movement of the probe is necessary. It is a simple inversion done in the scope itself. Luc demonstrated it in the first video.
You can refer to this post for more info.
http://www.overunity.com/14132/charging-battery-from-mains-is-series-with-a-capacitor/msg380307/#msg380307
Hi all,
I'm new to this forum but have read for a while in this thread. It is very interesting, a big thank you to Luc for sharing the information.
I did some tests myself now and can see this is a good way to free energy. I was using a MOT, secondary was shortet out. Just drove
a simple induction motor with the primary coil and condensers in series. My motor needed a quite low capacity to see the effects
(only around 4 µF). Input dropped from 380 Watts down to 90W, funnywise the input lowers again when I load the motor shaft. When I brake it too much the motor looses it's magnetic coupling and input goes down to 7W. Need a better Oszi to look for the phase shift, can't do it with the one i have.
regards
Abt
Quote from: forest on December 29, 2013, 02:07:28 PM
Farmhand
Give me please the proof that mechanical energy in generators is converted into electrical energy . I think power company does not produce any electricity by conversion - they simply work out the situation when this energy come to the system from outside but they do that in symmetrical way with a COP never exceeding 1. It's like the misconception that water pump is converting you muscles energy into water. No miracles here, you still need a supply of water like well or lake, and if you plug your pump in correct way you can have much higher output then input.
I'm not the only one who suspect what is the real action here....mark my words...
Without the generator there is no power, the generator generates "power" not energy.
..
Yes this patent describes ways to increase the "Active power" not the
output energy.
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2011101512A1?cl=en&dq=WO2011101512&hl=hu&sa=X&ei=-HbAUr3vGITgygPM5IH4CA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA
Some parts from the patent.
Quote=, Of dande sais kW = EVA x. fp fp KVA The conclusion is the same in both cases: the active power is zero when the inductive load is ideal. I said in the previous paragraphs shows that the cosine of an angle is not correct to use it as power factor, for the following reasons: The value 0, which corresponds to a phase angle of 90 degrees, is an unacceptable contradiction and a 1 limiting the value of reactive power, the total power value, without regard to the quality factor of the inductor or coil. By definition, the ideal inductor has an ohmic resistor and an inductive reactance zero infinite due to the value, the current inside a parallel resonant circuit, Q times reaches a value greater than the current in the external circuit, on which fact underlying the many advantages and applications of the parallel resonant circuit. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the cosine of an angle should not be used as power factor, because the power is not vector and because the maximum and minimum values of the cosine does not correspond with the limits of variation of the reactive power, therefore the formula:
Km = V x. I ■ CQS does not represent the physical function of the electrical power with any waveform, and therefore should not be used.
Meters use this formula I guess
....
Quote2.8 For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, and not to limit the benefits of the advances that the invention proposes, has changed the classic power factor by the quality factor Q of the inductive load, which faithfully represents the physical phenomenon without limiting its extreme values and the possibilities of the inductive load as generating reactive power, which when transformed into active power generator becomes active or useful energy generated by the inductive load.
...
Quote2.9 In practice, there are huge amounts of reactive power, inductive and capacitive circulating electrical installations and distribution networks, which limit the efficiency of electrical energy in his generation, distribution and use. Two. 10 The solutions to the deficiencies stated in the preceding paragraphs, are the basis of the method proposed by the invention.
...
I don't see any claims of extra
output energy. Just an increase in the active power. And it says that the regular way of measuring is no good or something along those lines.
Power is not energy.
..
I can show an input to a transformer of just a few watts with an active power of tens of watts, maybe even hundreds, but it is not free energy. It's activity.
..
Anyone know how to get to see the drawings for the patent ? I can't see any drawings, A picture tells a thousand words.
..
In reality the input and output energy should probably be calculated in joules.
...
http://de.slideshare.net/Electricpowermultiplier/scientific-foundations-of-the-ore (http://de.slideshare.net/Electricpowermultiplier/scientific-foundations-of-the-ore)
the WO patent mosaics: http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=WO&NR=2011101512A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20110825&DB=&&locale=en_EP
Sincerely
OCWL
Thanks LancaIV, I think I found out how to work the site now thanks very much. :-[
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2011101512A1?cl=es
Yes I see, there seems to be a mishmash of terms used in the patent. It seems the object is to completely eliminate the reactive power of the original load by not allowing the reactive portion to return to the grid supply, but rather the circuit would appear to convert the previously reactive power instead immediately into active power in a load such as another transformer which gives apparent power that can be applied to a load. The patent gives several uses for the previously reactive power which is now apparent power applied to a secondary load as a generator. This use of the previously reactive power is in itself subject to creating more reactive power within that portion of the circuit I think, being that the secondary load utilizing the previously reactive power is also a generator, so any power returned to it from it's load would be reactive power local to that portion of the circuit. Even though all the reactive power is eliminated from the primary load and no reactive power is returned to the grid.
Now that the power factor is 1.0 from the grid all the power is paid for.
This is to the benefit of the power company. They no longer have to deal with reactive power.
In a normal situation, when we run a load of 1000 watts apparent power and only 800 watts is real and dissipated by the load then 200 Watts is returned to the grid supply, therefore we only get charged for the 800 Watts and the power dissipated in the heating of the house wires, the power company pays for the reactive heating losses in the lines outside our home.
We do not pay for reactive power, we only pay for real power. Unless there is a penalty for residential users with bad Power Factor. Businesses with high inductive loads may pay for reactive power "penalties" which reflect the losses and higher kVA required.
Seems like a good and valid patent. I see there is a drawing with a feedback, which is of course possible as well which would lower the input power by the value of the previously reactive power being reapplied as "real power".
One of the uses listed in the patent for utilizing the power previously known as "reactive" is to drive a wireless power transmitter. Another is to split H2O into H and O2.
The setups powering secondary loads/generators-wireless transmitters ect. do not contribute to the primary intended load eg. lets say it is a motor of 1000 Watts with a PF of 0.8. Only the setup in Figure three (if it does feed back the converted reactive power) benefits the user by a decreased input power at power factor 1.0. The other secondary loads would need to be wanted for it to be viable, the power factor changes so the load to use the converted reactive power would need to be variable.
Reducing or eliminating the reactive power returned to the grid is admirable and beneficial, but the reactive portion of the apparent power originates from the supply if it is used it is paid for.
Cheers
P.S. I'm gonna say that Ponty is correct about the probes, it makes sense to me. If I had a question about the use of a scope he would be one of the few I would ask for help.
On a side note I still cannot access the O.U.R. site, it just will not load up, I'm thinking I must be blocked by my provider here on a false bad site hit block or something. It's super frustrating.
..
Here's an Easy way to get a Power Factor of 1.0 and an input of a few watts of real power with an active power of many tens of Watts.
Take a FWBR or use an SCR arrangement to rectify the grid AC to DC in a capacitor then draw low power from that to drive a Resonant Air Cored Transformer "Tesla Coil" with a primary tank circuit, the activity will be a lot even though the input is small, the power factor will be 1.0 from the grid. But how much energy is utilized and how much is radiated. If the activity is tapped it will lower the activity or increase the input.
I think basically the patent draws off the reactive power component (making the power factor 1.0) which is then applied as apparent power to a load/generator in a "child or secondary" circuit (such as the Tesla coil) which increases the active power (activity) and some of that activity can be made to do work, but not more work than the input to the secondary circuit can sustain.
...
Thanks Farmhand.
I don't see any reason why you can't load up OUR. It does show you last active 2013-07-11 though so it's been a while since you logged in. Did you get any email warnings about not logging in for 6 months? Your account is presently still active, but if left for 180 days, the site automatically deletes your account.
I'm no expert but in the case of the Rectified input and Tesla coil, if the input is 10 Watts and the activity is 100 Watts with no output then 10 Watts is losses that's 10 Joules per second. If we load the setup we may be able to reduce the losses and get nearly 10 Watts output while maintaining almost 100 Watts activity.
The output should be calculated just like the input, if the input is PF 1.0 and is 10 Watts and the arrangement runs for 10 seconds than that is 100 joules input.
If 10 Watts is taken out of the system in real dissipated power for 10 seconds than that is 100 joules output, the activity within the circuit is irrelevant to the input/output.
I think the best way to measure input output must be to heat a known resistor a known amount from a given temp calibrated with a DC power supply identical resistors should be used on the input and the load circuit at the same time and the heat monitored in real time so that temp over time is graphed. Max temp of the resistor would not tell the entire story. I don't think.
It's all about energy in and energy out, the power is a way to determine that, but not the entire story.
Cheers
Edit: Corrected typo.
Farmhand
Tesla knew how to convert activity into the real active power. He said that even , but not in modern language.
Basically he did what this patent told also : he used inductive circuit of low resistance and high inductance and his oscillator circuit with low inductance primary. Read his interview again.
His words seems cryptic but they are not.....
"The method was this: I had a 550-volt current with which I charged the condensers. These condensers I discharged through a primary in the form of an arc, sometimes I also introduced in this arc a mechanical break of several thousand per second. And I obtained a perfectly continuous train of waves as has been described in my patents. The reason why I show the condenser here [Fig. 83] is that that is synonymous with undamped waves. If I had shown the whole apparatus as arranged there, then I might still have damped waves;"[/size]
[/size]
"[/size] Then I had a sensibly damped wave because at that time I still was laboring under the same difficulties as some do this dayI had not learned how to produce a circuit which would give me, with very few fundamental impulses, [/size][/size]. That came with the perfection of the devices. When I came to my experiments in Colorado, I could take my apparatus like that and get a continuous or undamped wave, almost without exception, between individual discharges."[/size]
Forest, Producing a continuous wave is only activity. No doubt a small input can build up a lot of activity and the increased activity can be applied all at once for effect, but then the small input needs time to rebuild the activity.
It is not possible for a circuit with say 10 Watts input to sustain activity of 100 Watts while outputting 100 Watts.
If 10 Watts is applied and activity is 100 Watts then if 100 Watts is drawn the activity will drop or the input will increase.
A 100 Watt continuous output is not possible with 10 Watts continuous input. 100 Watts continuous activity is possible with 10 watts continuous input.
With a 10 Watt input it may be possible to take 100 Watts intermittently but not continuously.
The fact remains in order to get out 100 Joules per second output then at least 100 Joules per second needs to be input from somewhere.
It is not possible to draw 100 Joules per second from a circuit with an input of 10 Joules per second. It is possible to draw 100 Joules in one second, every 10 seconds from an input of 10 Joules per second, not considering losses.
Hell I can use 10 joules per second input and draw off a 1000 joules in one second 1000 Watts, but only once every 100 seconds.
..
Take for example a rail gun, if I have 0.5 Farad of capacitance and I charge it to 300 volts using 50 Watts it would take some wait time to charge but when done I would have 22500 Joules of potential energy, now if I discharge that over 1 second that is 22500 Watts, but if I discharge it over 0.5 of a second then it is 45000 Watts.
Energy cannot be taken from a circuit that did not enter it.
..
Voltage is not energy, current is not energy, voltage x current is power but voltage x current is not energy. Power is not energy. Activity is not output.
..
If I discharge 10 joules in 0.1 of a second then that is 100 Watts of power, if I discharge 10 Joules in 0.01 of a second then that is 1000 Watts of power.
It's easy to see Power is not Energy.
..
It's important to remember that reactive power is just power being returned to the source later in the sine wave cycle. The source does work to pump the reactive power (or energy per cycle) into the load at the beginning of the sine wave cycle. Then the load does work to return the same power (or energy per cycle) back to the source later in the sine wave cycle. Like Farmhand has stated many times, this creates a back and forth AC current in the power lines dissipating heat for nothing.
At the power generating station the generators see an extra load for part of the cycle and then less of a load later in the sine wave cycle. It may be that they want the rotating generators to see a "normal" and even load through the entire sine wave cycle. Too reactive a load may induce unwanted stresses in the giant rotating generators. I am speculating here.
Big factories with lots of motors have power factor problems on a large scale. So at the power entry point to the factory they install power factor correctors. These are giant spinning drums with windings that bring the power factor for the factory as close to one as possible. You end up with the reactive power going back and forth between the electrical motors inside the factory and the giant spinning drums. The giant spinning drums are made to act like electrical capacitors because of the windings interacting with the heavy spinning mass. This compensates for the very large inductive load from the motors. I am making an educated guess here about the exact description of how the power factor correction system works. This could be confirmed by doing the online research.
MileHigh
Hi Luc
This message board is about OU. And what you are doing is providing the readers information to lead the way (or at least a possible way) to find this. We (as in everyone) are stuck in our thinking that what comes out must go in. We then hope there is a way to get OU, and join a message board like this one, to learn and do some brainstorming. To me you are a hero, because the info is right under our eyes, and yet we are discussing a signal being inverted or not. I know: measurements must be done and taken, in the end it is the proof of how it looks like. (not 'what it is', but 'how it looks like' since we hope to find an anomaly).
Most 'inventors' are not even thinking about sharing their ideas, so for you to come out in the open with all your research is really something. And again a thank is in its place, but I can only speak for myself, and I thank you. Even though the concept is very simple, I have saved all your videos. The fact and idea that I never had heard of such a simple way to efficiently use electricity is at least to say: remarkable. And I say this on behalf of the idea, not to perform any such thing. I would not even dare to, since I have solar panels and a big inverter on the grid (up to 2KWatt on a sunny day and in the summer), and I would not want to have that one get damaged. But the idea of using the energy storage in the coil of a generator is really great! And I really wish you had a bigger generator to test with. here in the EU we have 230 Volt, but then again we don't have much 110 Volt appliances here. But that should not be a problem, you don't need to power a 120 Volt motor, it can as well be a 12 or 24 Volt motor (after a FWBR), but I also believe an AC motor would benefit the most in this situation.
I am thinking of changing a vacuum cleaner motor. I am no good at mechanics at all, but it seems to me the fastest way to get an AC generator. I have two such motors, so if I fail at the first one I will get a second chance.
Personally I'd like to ask you to ignore whatever info you think is incorrect (what others write here). You are on a road to success, and any one that wants to ride with you can take a seat. I am sitting right behind you and hopefully it will take us 'there'. Also I have an idea to use as a load: just open a toaster and take out the wires. Most toasters are about 800 Watts, so you can easily choose a length of heating wire to get the right load (perhaps in parallel of course). My firsts tests using this were not positive, in the way that tuning is difficult, but the nice thing about this wire is that you can create any resistance you like by using alligator clips at the right spot.
To who reads this: this is not about power factor, or the theory behind it. This is about that one specific part of it, where the voltage and current are out of phase for 0.5 phi (90 degrees). We need to have some notes (findings) of people testing this. Luc has found out his generator has about 30 Watts which can be taken off of it without being a load. To draw conclusions we need more testing. And with generators, because playing with the grid is just for testing and learning. And it is a good thing to watch and see what other people do, like Stepanova. What I did see in Stepanova's story is that you need to have the load right and have the circuit in resonance. I have not (yet) been able to fully test what he did, but step one is to believe there is a way to OU. Who wants to join the ride: hop in. Please try to do some testing of your own.
If anyone wonders why I am not putting out any videos is because I am not tidy. I can set up a circuit between three or four other projects, having all wires cross each other. People would ask me to make clean videos, and that is not my thing. So I will just try to write about it. And if I have a tidy setup so every now and then, then I will do record it. And sorry for my long story, but as far as I can see and tell, Luc is doing real good things and he deserves a more positive approach from us. And this has also to do with intuition. Which is also a thing you cannot measure objectively, I know. But I do am one of those guys that afterwards will say: look, didn't I tell you?
Just have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUChl7zRzTA
There doing it by converting the reactive power of Line 2 to real power at Line 3. At least this is what they claim.
Some time ago at realstrannik 2 members had a little dispute, one said: the major Korean brand are putting this technology into their devices for energy saving purposes. Disassemble it , he said and you will know how they do it. <Quote End>
And I guess he means samsung.
www.alibaba.com (If I find the exact Link I will post it here).
@GotoLuc
In your first video the voltage over the shunt is not a sine wave . Regardless the phase shift it should be, unless there is a nonlinear device in your circuit.
Simply connect your cap in series to the shunt and measure the voltage again. It should be a sine wave. (That means the shunt is a linear device) If it is so your 10 Ohms Resistor is the non linear device , with evt. negative resistance properties, which imo leads to an energy surplus.
But then the formula U^2 /R is not applicable for calculating output watts, because it implies U/I is a constant, which is not the case then. But if your shunt is linear input measurements are correct .But if you measure negative Input watts and the 10 Ohms resistor is getting hot you know you got ou. The circuit changes it's behavior consuming/spending when switched from the mains to the generator ; this thing has an operation point like a transistor. Find the right point and you get a benefit.
Farmhand
I don't want to fill this thread with offtopic discussion but as you touched that issue I must correct you. I and also Tesla had never said there is no "external input", in fact this is all about the "external input" ! Again, I have to repeat myself : mark my words. Power IS energy if you know how to let "external input" fill the gaps. You can have CONTINOUS WAVE of whatever output energy UNDER load you wish. Exactly like Tesla described. Enough about that...
Quote from: MileHigh on December 30, 2013, 04:21:37 PM
At the power generating station the generators see an extra load for part of the cycle and then less of a load later in the sine wave cycle.
Like Farmhand has stated many times, this creates a back and forth AC current in the power lines dissipating heat for nothing.
So if you think a power generating station generators will see an extra load if I power my load at a power factor of zero can you or Farmhand then explain why when I connect the same load to my Generator (mini power generating station) the generators does
NOT see an extra load.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: TheCell on December 30, 2013, 04:41:40 PM
Just have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUChl7zRzTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUChl7zRzTA)
There doing it by converting the reactive power of Line 2 to real power at Line 3. At least this is what they claim.
Some time ago at realstrannik 2 members had a little dispute, one said: the major Korean brand are putting this technology into their devices for energy saving purposes. Disassemble it , he said and you will know how they do it. <Quote End>
And I guess he means samsung.
www.alibaba.com (http://www.alibaba.com) (If I find the exact Link I will post it here).
@GotoLuc
In your first video the voltage over the shunt is not a sine wave . Regardless the phase shift it should be, unless there is a nonlinear device in your circuit.
Simply connect your cap in series to the shunt and measure the voltage again. It should be a sine wave. (That means the shunt is a linear device) If it is so your 10 Ohms Resistor is the non linear device , with evt. negative resistance properties, which imo leads to an energy surplus.
But then the formula U^2 /R is not applicable for calculating output watts, because it implies U/I is a constant, which is not the case then. But if your shunt is linear input measurements are correct .But if you measure negative Input watts and the 10 Ohms resistor is getting hot you know you got ou. The circuit changes it's behavior consuming/spending when switched from the mains to the generator ; this thing has an operation point like a transistor. Find the right point and you get a benefit.
Great find on that video TheCell!
I don't understand why the sinewave is changed this way by the series cap, but it is. The only time I have seen a clean sine wave is when I was using a 220v MOT I have, which has a much higher Henry value then the 120v MOT's. However, it is now clear that the MOT is not needed and was actually wasting power in the core. The higher the Inductance the more the MOT core would heat which = less power to the load.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: deslomeslager on December 30, 2013, 04:27:22 PM
Hi Luc
This message board is about OU. And what you are doing is providing the readers information to lead the way (or at least a possible way) to find this. We (as in everyone) are stuck in our thinking that what comes out must go in. We then hope there is a way to get OU, and join a message board like this one, to learn and do some brainstorming. To me you are a hero, because the info is right under our eyes, and yet we are discussing a signal being inverted or not. I know: measurements must be done and taken, in the end it is the proof of how it looks like. (not 'what it is', but 'how it looks like' since we hope to find an anomaly).
Most 'inventors' are not even thinking about sharing their ideas, so for you to come out in the open with all your research is really something. And again a thank is in its place, but I can only speak for myself, and I thank you. Even though the concept is very simple, I have saved all your videos. The fact and idea that I never had heard of such a simple way to efficiently use electricity is at least to say: remarkable. And I say this on behalf of the idea, not to perform any such thing. I would not even dare to, since I have solar panels and a big inverter on the grid (up to 2KWatt on a sunny day and in the summer), and I would not want to have that one get damaged. But the idea of using the energy storage in the coil of a generator is really great! And I really wish you had a bigger generator to test with. here in the EU we have 230 Volt, but then again we don't have much 110 Volt appliances here. But that should not be a problem, you don't need to power a 120 Volt motor, it can as well be a 12 or 24 Volt motor (after a FWBR), but I also believe an AC motor would benefit the most in this situation.
I am thinking of changing a vacuum cleaner motor. I am no good at mechanics at all, but it seems to me the fastest way to get an AC generator. I have two such motors, so if I fail at the first one I will get a second chance.
Personally I'd like to ask you to ignore whatever info you think is incorrect (what others write here). You are on a road to success, and any one that wants to ride with you can take a seat. I am sitting right behind you and hopefully it will take us 'there'. Also I have an idea to use as a load: just open a toaster and take out the wires. Most toasters are about 800 Watts, so you can easily choose a length of heating wire to get the right load (perhaps in parallel of course). My firsts tests using this were not positive, in the way that tuning is difficult, but the nice thing about this wire is that you can create any resistance you like by using alligator clips at the right spot.
To who reads this: this is not about power factor, or the theory behind it. This is about that one specific part of it, where the voltage and current are out of phase for 0.5 phi (90 degrees). We need to have some notes (findings) of people testing this. Luc has found out his generator has about 30 Watts which can be taken off of it without being a load. To draw conclusions we need more testing. And with generators, because playing with the grid is just for testing and learning. And it is a good thing to watch and see what other people do, like Stepanova. What I did see in Stepanova's story is that you need to have the load right and have the circuit in resonance. I have not (yet) been able to fully test what he did, but step one is to believe there is a way to OU. Who wants to join the ride: hop in. Please try to do some testing of your own.
If anyone wonders why I am not putting out any videos is because I am not tidy. I can set up a circuit between three or four other projects, having all wires cross each other. People would ask me to make clean videos, and that is not my thing. So I will just try to write about it. And if I have a tidy setup so every now and then, then I will do record it. And sorry for my long story, but as far as I can see and tell, Luc is doing real good things and he deserves a more positive approach from us. And this has also to do with intuition. Which is also a thing you cannot measure objectively, I know. But I do am one of those guys that afterwards will say: look, didn't I tell you?
Thanks deslomeslager for taking the time to write this post.
I'm happy to know of people experimenting with this.
I had to make a small edit to your post about a comment about the grid. A generator working with this circuit is the goal of this research.
Thanks for sharing and all the best with your experiments
Luc
I keep hearing from people with much knowledge that if the wave form is not sinusoidal the meters and the scope cannot calculate power properly.
It does not concern me if people take what I say for a grain of salt, my only objective is to show that some people see it another way.
This reminds me a lot of Thanes stuff and Gotoluc had a close relationship with Thane. I don't buy any of it I won't believe what makes no sense.
And eventually I will probably make some video's to demonstrate what I think is going on, after the holidays. I'm in no hurry, the deeper people dig the easier they are to bury.
I also noticed that series capacitors can change the wave form.
I have previously made a small transformer appear to show OU by manipulating the phase angle, and driven by a sine wave. Using a function generator and a RIGOL DS 1052E scope. I had a 90 degree difference of phase between voltage and current so a power factor of 0.0 but there was still output and most importantly there was still input.
Series capacitors are current limiters. For a given frequency and capacity only a certain current can flow.
..
The scope can and will provide an accurate measurement regardless of the waveform, PROVIDED that there is little to no parasitic reactance between the measurement points, in particular the CSR.
But most importantly:
Correct interpretation of the results comes down to a basic understanding of electrical/electronics theory. More often than not, the simplest most basic concepts elude not only the uninitiated, but even the so-called trained individuals. And we are witnessing this phenomenon here.
Claims are being made based on (to quote from my good pal TK) "numbers in boxes", as provided by the scope itself. "A negative MEAN power must mean that a net power is returning to the grid" is the song being sung by so many uninitiated here, and the truth is that this is not only incorrect, but they have no idea why they are even singing this song. None of them truly understand the concepts of power measurement and how the measurement of sources and loads differ, not to mention adequately understanding how to correctly use the measurement features in their oscilloscope.
The claims and "tutorial" demonstrations being made here are, sadly, full of follies. Stay tuned for some real tutorials. ;)
@Farmhand
I played with this in falstad... I didn't save the sim since it's just a AC voltage source, a cap, and 2 resistors... Tried removing the direct AC source through a transformer but that I think wasn't behaving quite right... But
I learned; if you use too much capacitance, then you delay the current to the next phase... which tells me that the current isn't in advance of the voltage, but is 1/4 lagged...
If the current flows, then it would imply that a voltage should follow... (a magnet moving near a coil makes the voltage change because of a current; there is no source potential in this case...)
The smaller the capacitance, the less current can flow through the load.
I found for a 60Hz wave with 10Ohm load, that 50-75uF were good. at 100 it started lagging the current into the next pulse... and at 150 it ended up removing the phasing difference....
Small is good; so it can charge reasonably high from a current flow... especially if from a coil... too big and it takes too long to fill;
Given a 'infinite' source... On the power side in the simulator; the power was + and - X watts for + and + X watts on the load ....
On some oscilloscopes you can plot X/Y... so you can have current on one side and voltage on another... The smaller the capacitance, the more cicular this is; the more balanced...as the capacitance increases... the circle skews and becomes eliptical... so the voltage is returning as there's still a current... A linear circuit ends up being a diagonal line; where X = Y; V = I... Falstad has such options too... I know that old timers used to make advantage of that; so the skew would show good/bad characteristics... and spirals and ... cardiod shapes...
Thanks Poynt
looking forward to your video tutorials on how to use scope math properly. This will be very helpful to many, as there is little information out there on this.
A video demo is the best teaching tool and hopefully I will be able to learn something. If I come to understand that I did do something incorrect with my scope measurements I will be more than happy to delete the tutorials and redo them.
Please note, my tutorial were not to demonstrate how to use a scope. So no need to get on your high horse about that. The Tutorials are to demonstrate how to get the effect by using certain values of Capacitors, Resistors and the effects at different Voltages. The scope was used to show what is happening with these different values.
Truthfully, I don't care that much about what the scope can calculate. The real test to me is the Generator. So I do hope you will have a Generator to test the correctly tuned circuit and can clearly explain why the circuit has no effect to the Gen Prime Mover. Also why this effect would not be useful
Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Luc
Quote from: Farmhand on December 30, 2013, 09:37:52 PM
I keep hearing from people with much knowledge that if the wave form is not sinusoidal the meters and the scope cannot calculate power properly.
It does not concern me if people take what I say for a grain of salt, my only objective is to show that some people see it another way.
This reminds me a lot of Thanes stuff and Gotoluc had a close relationship with Thane. I don't buy any of it I won't believe what makes no sense.
And eventually I will probably make some video's to demonstrate what I think is going on, after the holidays. I'm in no hurry, the deeper people dig the easier they are to bury.
I also noticed that series capacitors can change the wave form.
I have previously made a small transformer appear to show OU by manipulating the phase angle, and driven by a sine wave. Using a function generator and a RIGOL DS 1052E scope. I had a 90 degree difference of phase between voltage and current so a power factor of 0.0 but there was still output and most importantly there was still input.
Series capacitors are current limiters. For a given frequency and capacity only a certain current can flow.
..
Dear Farmhand,
are you reading my posts?... if so, then you are avoiding to explain what I ask you to explain and just ranting about this or that and all this is not real.
No one is forcing you to accept anything, so believe what you want. I have never made any claims of OU, so why have you been writing that in your posts.
Move on mate if this is not for you. One more unproductive post of this kind and you will be blocked from this topic.
Luc
Hi everyone,
a researcher named Dog-One has been playing with the circuit with a Java Simulator and has made a video demo.
Link to video: http://vimeo.com/83003669
Luc
At everyone,
A group of experimenters at RWG Research forum have been researching looped generators and found my research and already built a Generator using the Series Capacitor effect.
User Matt Watts may soon have his looped.
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=1471 (http://open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=1471)
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 31, 2013, 01:41:01 AM
Hi everyone,
a researcher named Dog-One has been playing with the circuit with a Java Simulator and has made a video demo.
Link to video: http://vimeo.com/83003669 (http://vimeo.com/83003669)
Luc
be nice if he included the link :)
but; the AC source is usually represented as negative power; but it turns out in reality it should be the absolute value of power... it's because the current is reversed... the AC voltage source (single terminal) always shows negative power...
QUick howto
http://www.falstad.com/circuit (http://www.falstad.com/circuit)
Under circuits on the menu, you can select blank circuit at the bottom.
Right click on the black area to get a list of things to add... power/ac source is under 'input/outputs'
resistors are 'R' as a key, capacitors are 'C' as a key, wires are 'W' as a key. (these don't work if you have a popup for editing parts)
right click on a part, and select edit to change the parameters.
after selecting the part, click and drag to add the part.
the part stays selected for just clicking and dragging to get a new part.
Space bar unselects any part, then you can click on a part to move it.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 30, 2013, 05:44:09 PM
So if you think a power generating station generators will see an extra load if I power my load at a power factor of zero can you or Farmhand then explain why when I connect the same load to my Generator (mini power generating station) the generators does NOT see an extra load.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
That is because your generator is already under load Luc-without your reactive circuit switched on.I am trying to find all the parts to put together a setup like your's,so as i can show you why there is no load placed on the generator when you activate the reactive circuit.I will then show you how much power you can actualy get from the generator without adding any excess load on the prime mover-you will be supprised,and i will show you were it is coming from.
Hello Luc
I followed a lot your fantastic work at the joulethief thread. (made some succesful replicas)
here some spanish stuff about reactive power.
Unfortunately they have patents, and are looking for investors. the old story, but as they produce also other things, it doesn´t seem to be fake.
video demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUChl7zRzTA
Web page: http://www.ortronic.com/ENGLISH/index.html
Cheers
http://www.keelynet.com/news/123013m.html (http://www.keelynet.com/news/123013m.html)
showing us a permanent magnet and the internal "static machine" process :
+ field and - field and : zero point ? no,alternating field-
pulsative displacement current
how would be the internal "static machine" process mosaic for a monopolar magnet, like a monopolar capacitor ?
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=10&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19770825&CC=DE&NR=2644927A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=10&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19770825&CC=DE&NR=2644927A1&KC=A1)
Tesla " coil for electromagnet"
+ Hans-Dieter Goeres thermo-couple array electro magnet
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=17&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20071004&CC=DE&NR=102004020962A1&KC=A1 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=17&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20071004&CC=DE&NR=102004020962A1&KC=A1)
+ Wolfgang Klinsing refered Biot&Savart coil-formula
+ Henri Thrilles capacitor array
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940318&CC=FR&NR=2695768A3&KC=A3 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940318&CC=FR&NR=2695768A3&KC=A3)
Quote from: gotoluc on December 29, 2013, 11:14:42 AM
To everyone,
the circuit is so simple that any experimenter should be able to check the effect them self.
For clear reasons you cannot use this circuit with an Inverter to get this effect, as Inverters are designed for typical circuits that short circuit electricity (kill dipole) and are not capable of re-circulating current and voltage.
The good news is, it works very well with an Alternator (generator) as demonstrated since day one.
All the best with your replication.
Please post your results and not your criticism
Luc
In regards to your circuit diagram with this post Luc,what do you mean by both hot sides with 240 volts?. We have 240 here in OZ,and the neutral is 0 volt's,while the active is 240v.
Anyway,i have gathered all the parts to replicate your generator setup,and will start building tomorrow. I will be useing a 24 volt 750 watt DC motor,so as accurate power consumptions can be taken.
Brad,
In Canada and US we use 120VAC, but we have two phases coming into the residence. So we effectively have two HOTs and a neutral. If you power something between the two HOT lines you have 240VAC instead of 120VAC.
Glad you will be doing the testing with the generator and hopefully you can explain to Luc why there appears to be no extra load on the prime mover when his phase-shifted load is applied. ION has already explained the effect at OUR as well.
So Luc, I won't be demoing the motor-generator. I will be giving a tutorial on your simple capacitor/load circuit and how to properly measure the power and interpret the results. This will be sufficient to demonstrate where you and others have gone awry with all your claims and assumptions.
And for the record, my assertion about the current probe channel inversion is correct and still stands, despite your disrespectful attempt to undermine my integrity in your video. This too will be proven so that once and for all the nonsense can end about what a NEGATIVE power measurement really means.
In the mean time Luc, I've taken the time to make this pretty little diagram for you.
Someone presents you with the following physical circuit and diagram, and asks you to use the DVM to measure the voltage across the 4 components; 3 resistors and one battery.
Would you please indulge me, take two minutes to reply and tell me what color lead from the DVM you would use for each test point (TP) for each component, starting from the left at R1 as follows (R=Red=+, B=Black=-):
R1
TP1: R or B?
TP2: R or B
R2
TP2: R or B?
TP3: R or B
B1
TP3: R or B?
TP4: R or B
R3
TP4: R or B?
TP5: R or B
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2013, 07:28:26 AM
In regards to your circuit diagram with this post Luc,what do you mean by both hot sides with 240 volts?. We have 240 here in OZ,and the neutral is 0 volt's,while the active is 240v.
Anyway,i have gathered all the parts to replicate your generator setup,and will start building tomorrow. I will be useing a 24 volt 750 watt DC motor,so as accurate power consumptions can be taken.
Hi TinMan,
glad you're going to experiment.
Canada and US is basically 120vac but larger appliances like ovens, water heaters and clothe dryers use 240vac. So basically our electrical panels have both voltages available. To get 120v you use hot and neutral and to get 220v we combine two separate 120v hot phases and leave out the neutral, so much like a center tap transformer.
Added: I see poynt has answered your question also
Please keep your tests within the range of values of my Tutorial Demos.
All the best and look forward to your results
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on December 31, 2013, 10:10:58 AM
In the mean time Luc, I've taken the time to make this pretty little diagram for you.
Someone presents you with the following physical circuit and diagram, and asks you to use the DVM to measure the voltage across the 4 components; 3 resistors and one battery.
Would you please indulge me, take two minutes to reply and tell me what color lead from the DVM you would use for each test point (TP) for each component, starting from the left at R1 as follows (R=Red=+, B=Black=-):
R1
TP1: R or B?
TP2: R or B
R2
TP2: R or B?
TP3: R or B
B1
TP3: R or B?
TP4: R or B
R3
TP4: R or B?
TP5: R or B
Hi poynt,
your question is:
"use the DVM to measure the voltage across the 4 components and tell me what color lead from the DVM you would use for each test point (TP) for each component"
my answer would be:
it wouldn't matter which color of lead you use of your DVM if you want to know the "voltage" of each components.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 31, 2013, 10:20:47 AM
Hi TinMan,
glad you're going to experiment.
Canada and US is basically 120vac but larger appliances like ovens, water heaters and clothe dryers use 240vac. So basically our electrical panels have both voltages available. To get 120v you use hot and neutral and to get 220v we combine two separate 120v hot phases and leave out the neutral, so much like a center tap transformer.
Added: I see poynt has answered your question also
Please keep your tests within the range of values of my Tutorial Demos.
All the best and look forward to your results
Luc
Interesting power configuration you have over there. We have our 240 single phase,450 single phase,and 450 3 phase.
I will try and make your reactive circuit,but although i have many MOT's,im limited on cap's-but we will see what we can do. But my point with this will be to show you that the power is already stored within your generator,and a load is already present within the generator-even without your reactive circuit turned on.
The one thing that must be remembered is that in order to create the reactive power,we must first have active or real power. Without it,we have nothing.
Quote from: poynt99 on December 31, 2013, 10:10:58 AM
In the mean time Luc, I've taken the time to make this pretty little diagram for you.
Someone presents you with the following physical circuit and diagram, and asks you to use the DVM to measure the voltage across the 4 components; 3 resistors and one battery.
Would you please indulge me, take two minutes to reply and tell me what color lead from the DVM you would use for each test point (TP) for each component, starting from the left at R1 as follows (R=Red=+, B=Black=-):
R1
TP1: R or B?
TP2: R or B
R2
TP2: R or B?
TP3: R or B
B1
TP3: R or B?
TP4: R or B
R3
TP4: R or B?
TP5: R or B
Now that Luc has answered,i would like a go,as some times what seems simple ,is often not how it is.
As you show a battery,we can asume DC.
So R1-TP 1 or TP 5 black,TP 2 red.
R2 -TP 2 black-TP3 red
R3-TP4 black-TP 5 or TP 1 red.
B1-TP 3 red-TP 4 black.
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2013, 10:38:33 AM
Interesting power configuration you have over there. We have our 240 single phase,450 single phase,and 450 3 phase.
I will try and make your reactive circuit,but although i have many MOT's,im limited on cap's-but we will see what we can do. But my point with this will be to show you that the power is already stored within your generator,and a load is already present within the generator-even without your reactive circuit turned on.
The one thing that must be remembered is that in order to create the reactive power,we must first have active or real power. Without it,we have nothing.
Humm... why are you mentioning a MOT when I have written many pages back it's not needed and also have made the 2 new tutorial to demonstrate the effect without any MOT?
Keep in mind that a generator with an exciter rotor field (like I'm using) uses a capacitor to build the electromagnetic field in the rotor. Without that capacitor you have no rotating magnet = no voltage or current.
To conclude the power I getting out of the Alternator is coming from the exciter rotor field capacitor would it not be like saying we will remove permanent magnets out of a PM Alternator since that's where you're getting your power from.
Luc
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2013, 10:45:34 AM
Now that Luc has answered,i would like a go,as some times what seems simple ,is often not how it is.
As you show a battery,we can asume DC.
So R1-TP 1 or TP 5 black,TP 2 red.
R2 -TP 2 black-TP3 red
R3-TP4 black-TP 5 or TP 1 red.
B1-TP 3 red-TP 4 black.
I would agree with TinMan if we wanted to know the "Polarity" of the components. Was that your question poynt? and wrote Voltage instead?
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on December 31, 2013, 11:10:02 AM
Humm... why are you mentioning a MOT when I have written many pages back it's not needed and also have made the 2 new tutorial to demonstrate the effect without any MOT?
Keep in mind that a generator with an exciter rotor field (like I'm using) uses a capacitor to build the electromagnetic field in the rotor. Without that capacitor you have no rotating magnet = no voltage or current.
To conclude the power I getting out of the Alternator is coming from the exciter rotor field capacitor would it not be like saying we will remove permanent magnets out of a PM Alternator since that's where you're getting your power from.
Luc
Because im building your original setup to explain your question Quote:So if you think a power generating station generators will see an extra load if I power my load at a power factor of zero can you or Farmhand then explain why when I connect the same load to my Generator (mini power generating station) the generators does NOT see an extra load.
I am also going to show you that a far greater load can be pulled from the generator ,than that that was drawn by your reactive circuit-without any extra load being placed on the prime mover.
You asked the question Luc,so im going to answer it-with a working device.
But basically what you are doing,is taking some of the power from the exciter circuit to run your reactive circuit.What your reactive circuit disipate's is equal to the power lost in the exciter(tank)circuit of the generator.This is why you see no extra load on your prime mover-you have tuned your reactive circuit to the exciter tank circuit-every action has an opposite and equal reaction.
Also-a happy new year to you all.
Us Aussies are already in the year 2014,but i know the other half of the world is yet to catch up lol.
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2013, 11:21:26 AM
Because im building your original setup to explain your question Quote:So if you think a power generating station generators will see an extra load if I power my load at a power factor of zero can you or Farmhand then explain why when I connect the same load to my Generator (mini power generating station) the generators does NOT see an extra load.
I don't see why building the original circuit will help answer that question since keep in mind I asked that question yesterday and have not been using a MOT for the past 2 weeks
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2013, 11:21:26 AM
I am also going to show you that a far greater load can be pulled from the generator ,than that that was drawn by your reactive circuit-without any extra load being placed on the prime mover.
You asked the question Luc,so im going to answer it-with a working device.
Well that will be great to see. Looking forward to your video.
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2013, 11:21:26 AM
But basically what you are doing,is taking some of the power from the exciter circuit to run your reactive circuit.What your reactive circuit disipate's is equal to the power lost in the exciter(tank)circuit of the generator.This is why you see no extra load on your prime mover-you have tuned your reactive circuit to the exciter tank circuit-every action has an opposite and equal reaction.
This remains to be proven and I have been trying to prove this to myself before I even started this topic. So far I have not been convince of this and this is one of the reasons I'm sharing. So if you can prove it without any doubt then I will be happy to accept it and will have a better understanding of the effect.
So I'm very opened to learning as much as sharing and look forward to your test results.
Thanks for taking the time to do this and share your result
Luc
Luc, if your drive motor uses an internal capacitor as a virtual phase - then that will be 'tuned' for load.
If that's the case, and you run it no-load - it will be relatively inefficient, and adding a load will improve it's performance.
Does the drive motor contain it's own capacitor(s)?
Regards, Tim
Hi Tim,
I think you know the answer to the question you ask me.
If this was the case, would you not see a phase shift in the Induction motor when the load is applied if you scope the motor input?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yudbBBSS58
Regards
Luc
No Luc, I don't ask questions I already know the answer to, that would be silly...
As for your question - I don't know the answer to that...
I take it from your response that it does not have capacitors then?
Would you please just describe your motor fully - for everyone reading the thread.
Okay Tim,
all single phase Induction motors will have a capacitor. Mine is a 3600 RPM slow start with a 8uf run cap.
Luc
Crikey, that was like pulling hen's teeth... State secrets revealed at last eh, Luc... ;)
LOL ;D ...I'm glad your having fun with this!
It's been educational, and better than TV... :)
I've been working on tank-circuits - for induction heating - which as you know contain 100% reactive power - with current & voltage 90 degrees out of phase.
If your circuit does indeed return more reactive power than it consumes - then would it not be possible to run it from a tank circuit?
You could use a ZVS driver, and a DC power source to give the initial power to the tank, and get it resonating.
If the circuit genuinely returns more than it consumes - then the circuit will power the tank with the returned reactive power - and you can disconnect the power supply...
Quote from: tim123 on December 31, 2013, 02:29:46 PM
It's been educational, and better than TV... :)
I've been working on tank-circuits - for induction heating - which as you know contain 100% reactive power - with current & voltage 90 degrees out of phase.
If your circuit does indeed return more reactive power than it consumes - then would it not be possible to run it from a tank circuit?
You could use a ZVS driver, and a DC power source to give the initial power to the tank, and get it resonating.
If the circuit genuinely returns more than it consumes - then the circuit will power the tank with the returned reactive power - and you can disconnect the power supply...
I think a ZVS driver is not much different then an Inverter. Both are unable to use returned power.
These circuits were the first thing I tried back more than 2 years ago when I first shared this effect. As soon as I hooked it up to a pure sine wave inverter and it pulled watts I thought it didn't work and dropped it for 2 years. It's only 4 months ago when I decided to give it more tests and built the alternator that I understood what I had missed.
Luc
Luc
It's different from an inverter, but I think you should be able to drive a tank with an inverter and use it in your circuit too, in a similar way, and this is why:
- A tank-circuit is basically a container of reactive power.
- If you take real power out of the tank, it causes more real power to be drawn from the power supply to support the oscillation, and this is power-transfer in action, and clear to see (and hear - in my coils)...
- If your circuit creates reactive power - then instead of causing a drag on the tank - it should increase it's amplitude. The power supply should read less as the impedance increases...
- If your circuit uses real power - that will be shown too.
To use reactive power as real power - is logically and electrically equivalent to using a tank-circuit as the power source - but instead of it being diminished - it is reinforced by the load...
Unless you can run the circuit from a tank-circuit - without it causing a power draw - then I don't understand what it is you think the circuit offers...? If it's not OU - then what exactly is it all about?
Quote from: gotoluc on December 31, 2013, 02:45:12 PM
I think a ZVS driver is not much different then an Inverter. Both are unable to use returned power.
These circuits were the first thing I tried back more than 2 years ago when I first shared this effect. As soon as I hooked it up to a pure sine wave inverter and it pulled watts I thought it didn't work and dropped it for 2 years. It's only 4 months ago when I decided to give it more tests and built the alternator that I understood what I had missed.
Luc
Luc
Luc,
According to your WM, you are dissipating 163W in your prime mover against only 31W dissipation in load, giving a system efficiency of 19% for that particular loading. Can you increase your loading and produce a loading curve to see how this curve compares to input power over a wide range of loadings?
If you look carefully you can see a slight amplitude increase on channel 2 voltage across the 0.1R shunt resistor.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 31, 2013, 11:15:58 AM
I would agree with TinMan if we wanted to know the "Polarity" of the components. Was that your question poynt? and wrote Voltage instead?
Luc
No, I craft my questions carefully. and hope to have them answered as asked. So your first answer is not an answer to my question.
What I am asking, is if someone sat you down in front of this circuit, handed you the DVM and said please measure and write down each VOLTAGE that is across each of the 4 components before you. Don't think tooooooo much about it, just do it as I'm asking. Keep in mind that we ALL know that a DVM does not care what polarity it is measuring, as it will not damage the meter if the leads are "backwards". With that in mind, and per the original question, how would you go about placing the meter probes across each component?
btw, this is not a trick question.
This is how I would do it;
As I grabbed the meter leads, whichever lead ended up in my left hand would be the lead that would measure the left side of each of the 4 components, and the other lead in my right hand would measure the right side of each of the 4 components, as I moved from left to right to measure across each component.
How would you do it?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 31, 2013, 04:04:16 PM
This is how I would do it;
As I grabbed the meter leads, whichever lead ended up in my left hand would be the lead that would measure the left side of each of the 4 components, and the other lead in my right hand would measure the right side of each of the 4 components, as I moved from left to right to measure across each component.
How would you do it?
Yes, I agree! if only voltage was needed to be known good chances I would do it like you say.
Luc
...see next reply, next page.
What if all 4 of those components were unknown (except you knew it was a DC circuit) and each was hidden inside its own separate box, and the task given to you was to determine the relative polarity of voltage across each component with reference to say BOX1?
Wouldn't you maintain the same probe orientation while measuring across each of the 4 components? That is how I would do it. How would you?
To make things simple, keeping the probes the same will tell you the polarity of each component.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 31, 2013, 05:06:36 PM
To make things simple, keeping the probes the same will tell you the polarity of each component.
You could in fact have the absolute polarity of each component reversed though, right?
More importantly however, maintaining the same probe orientation while measuring across each component will tell you the RELATIVE polarity of the voltage when comparing each component, agreed?
I thought this was a simple exercise ;D ... when I have to read something 3 times and still not sure I understand I start to fade out
One thing I know of myself is, reading and integrating is not one of my gifts. Never been able to understand any patents by reading it.
I'm a hands on visual guy. I do tests and if I find something interesting I'll share it, then take a beating from all who know better.
If you can't make a video demo or post a link to one already made that explains your reasoning behind inverting a probe with a verbal and visual explanation, then I'm afraid you're wasting your time with me.
As you saw in my video, I inverted the probe but then to see the phase between voltage and current being 180 degrees out of phase on a resistive load made no sense to me.
I didn't do that to discredit what you know, I did it so you could see what I understood of your recommendation and my reaction of seeing the phases like that.
I apologize for being unable to understand your reasoning.
Luc
OK,
You have the 4 unknown/hidden components connected in a circuit in front of you, and all you have to do is place your meter probes across each one and write down the voltage, including if the meter reading is "+" or if it is "-". Are you with me so far?
Capacitance lowers Induction motor Amp draw by 80%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63tX67HnwGw
If you go to the part 2 and 3 videos you will see diagrams and explanations..
Seems this guy was used capoacitors in paralel not in series....
Quote from: poynt99 on December 31, 2013, 06:09:25 PM
OK,
You have the 4 unknown/hidden components connected in a circuit in front of you, and all you have to do is place your meter probes across each one and write down the voltage, including if the meter reading is "+" or if it is "-". Are you with me so far?
Sorry, done for the day. I'm on my way out to a New Year eve thing.
Happy New Year to all
Luc
Ditto, Happy New Year to all.
Have a good time Luc.
btw, I think you're only a few baby steps away from understanding.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 31, 2013, 12:56:14 AM
Dear Farmhand,
are you reading my posts?... if so, then you are avoiding to explain what I ask you to explain and just ranting about this or that and all this is not real.
No one is forcing you to accept anything, so believe what you want. I have never made any claims of OU, so why have you been writing that in your posts.
Move on mate if this is not for you. One more unproductive post of this kind and you will be blocked from this topic.
Luc
Dear Luc,
Well if you are not claiming any extra energy then what
exactly are you claiming ?
Might be handy if you explain what advantage it is that you see to doing this.
And your thread got locked, this is not your thread. If you are the moderator of this thread I want nothing to do with it anyway.
Tinman, I can't explain what I haven't seen. How much is the load and how big is the generator ? I would guess that as soon as you start the generator there is fuel being used due to some drag from the generator head, maybe it is possible that there is some load but you just cannot notice it. I'll bet any money that if you power the load at 0.0 power factor for long enough the generator will run out of fuel. This is my point, would you run your generator 24/7 so the next door neighbor can draw a load at power factor 0.0 and not pay anything to you ? That is considering if you do not know the neighbor or have any friendship with them to cause you to want to do it.
With our 6 kVA generator a small load is not even noticed. And I was surprised how much power it generates and for how long a time on a tank of fuel, but it makes one hell of a noise. >:(
As long as the petrol station has fuel it is very useful for when the grid goes down. It doesn't cost all that much to power the house with it for a day. But I would not like to pay to run it 24/7 even at idle. It is still in almost brand new condition because we don't use it much, but it will wear out and require maintenance as well after some use.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on December 31, 2013, 08:11:11 PM
Dear Luc,
Well if you are not claiming any extra energy then what exactly are you claiming ?
Might be handy if you explain what advantage it is that you see to doing this.
And your thread got locked, this is not your thread. If you are the moderator of this thread I want nothing to do with it anyway.
Tinman, I can't explain what I haven't seen. How much is the load and how big is the generator ? I would guess that as soon as you start the generator there is fuel being used due to some drag from the generator head, maybe it is possible that there is some load but you just cannot notice it. I'll bet any money that if you power the load at 0.0 power factor for long enough the generator will run out of fuel. This is my point, would you run your generator 24/7 so the next door neighbor can draw a load at power factor 0.0 and not pay anything to you ? That is considering if you do not know the neighbor or have any friendship with them to cause you to want to do it.
..
Farmhand
Im not claiming that there will be no load,infact im saying the opposite.Disregarding normal friction load,these generators place a load on the prime mover even befor any power is drawn from the generator. My point of the experiment is to show where this load is,and how you can draw from this load without it effecting the prime mover. This will also show why Luc sees no reflection on the prime mover when he places a load on the generator through his reactive circuit-no matter what that circuit may be. Infact there is no need for any type of reactive circuit at all to be able to draw power from the generator,without it showing or reflectiong on the prime mover.
This ofcourse all depends on my theory being correct-and i have been wrong many times befor. But it is the only answer i have for what Luc's original generator setup show's. So now we just have to build it and see.
OH I see, gotcha drift now. Yes I would say a small load probably could be drawn without extra loading on the motor.
Go well
I'm with you, Farmhand. Stay firm.
They can fool scope, but not the counter on the wall.
Look at the last video at the end, by frame (split of second) - battery went way down when load switched off compare as it was before the start, and meter shows the steady reading while running.
If it would be there any gain (or even consumption), meter will show the RAISE voltage on the battery after load went off.
Anyway, time will show the truth. To me it's wrong. Misleading.
No offense, Luc, just thoughts loud out.
If this is actually wrong, it will be proven out in the end...ON ITS OWN MERIT !!!
All you nay sayers and nit pickers are doing it littering the langscape with endless drivel...effectively drowing out ant meaningful discussion and free exchange of ideas.
Is that your intention ?
I asked on another popular thread here that this activity cease...apparently some people cannot help themselves - OR they are paid distractors.
Which are you ?
Nevertheless...stop !!!...sit back and watch...and keep your hands off the keypad, and stay the hell out of the way...like myself and all the other people not currently at the bench.
If not, be prepared...I can get right down to it on a personal level, by disecting your personality and motives here.
I will not stand by a watch as you try to overwhelm and run off Luc with your negative crap, as you have systematically to other enthusiastic contributors who have left because of YOU !!!
Otherwise...a Happy New Year to all the real people here.
Regards...
Cap-Z-ro, Just how pray tell would anything be shown to be a mistake if no one investigates exactly what is going on and it is fully explained ?
Don't worry I'll show some bench video when and if I am good and ready. This is a discussion forum. I do experiments. I've been very unwell and unable to do anything much at all but I am recovering.
I am subject to moderation. Don't get ya knickers in a knot over me. I heeded Luc's request as far as I am concerned. And will continue to do so. As far as I am concerned I am discussing possibilities. And also responding.
I respect your right to say what you think but I do not have to agree.
Why not make some more personal attacks and say what you really think ?
I am unaffected by your personal opinion of people looking at possibilities to explore in order to better explain what is seen.
I'm posting because I'm interested in finding truth. If the arrangement is able to harness extra energy it needs to be explained. If not but there is a benefit then it ought to be shown what that benefit is and how it occurs.
Regards
P.S. If Luc likes I will remove the offending post or text, or he can but I will not remove any valid questions or my opinions/thoughts on topic. And since I see that Luc is the moderator, I will take no further part in this thread. I can always start my own discussion to get free speech.
..
Capz,
Analyze this if you wish:
If someone were to post a claim that they've discovered the average of -6 and +5 is -11, and you took the time to correct them and show them why they are wrong, would you be considered a naysayer, or a teacher?
::)
"If this is actually wrong, it will be proven out in the end...ON ITS OWN MERIT !!!"
Yes, and that's what i did. And it's your turn now to see where it went wrong. I do not care.
And here's your answer - "I'm posting because I'm interested in finding the truth".
No matter what do you THINK.
Quote Farmhand:
" Cap-Z-ro, Just how pray tell would anything be shown to be a mistake if no one investigates exactly what is going on and it is fully explained ?
Like I said, show a video demonstratingf your position...as Luc has done - else stop interfering weith the natural flow of ideas.
" Don't worry I'll show some bench video when and if I am good and ready. This is a discussion forum. I do experiments. I've been very unwell and unable to do anything much at all but I am recovering. "
I look forward to anything offered in the spirit of education the field.
Quote poynt99:
" If someone were to post a claim that they've discovered the average of -6 and +5 is -11, and you took the time to correct them and show them why they are wrong, would you be considered a naysayer, or a teacher? "
I would not waste my time with that learning curve...especially incessantly.
Quote alex:
" I'm posting because I'm interested in finding the truth".
No matter what do you THINK. "
Just so long that is your pursuit here, you will not I'm sorry if you saw yoyrself portrayed in my wordseven know I'm here...unless I have something worthwhile to contribute
I'm sorry if you saw yourself portrayed in my words - they were not directed at you personally...unless of course they apply.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 31, 2013, 11:04:40 PM
Quote Farmhand:
" Cap-Z-ro, Just how pray tell would anything be shown to be a mistake if no one investigates exactly what is going on and it is fully explained ?
Like I said, show a video demonstratingf your position...as Luc has done - else stop interfering weith the natural flow of ideas.
" Don't worry I'll show some bench video when and if I am good and ready. This is a discussion forum. I do experiments. I've been very unwell and unable to do anything much at all but I am recovering. "
I look forward to anything offered in the spirit of education the field.
Quote poynt99:
" If someone were to post a claim that they've discovered the average of -6 and +5 is -11, and you took the time to correct them and show them why they are wrong, would you be considered a naysayer, or a teacher? "
I would not waste my time with that learning curve...especially incessantly.
Quote alex:
" I'm posting because I'm interested in finding the truth".
No matter what do you THINK. "
Just so long that is your pursuit here, you will not I'm sorry if you saw yoyrself portrayed in my wordseven know I'm here...unless I have something worthwhile to contribute
I'm sorry if you saw yourself portrayed in my words - they were not directed at you personally...unless of course they apply.
Regards...
I would agree Cap-Z-ro about the talkers. But most here that are saying Luc is missing something,are avid experimenters-not just talkers. You only have to view there youtube channel to see that-and this includes myself. The only true way to discover the answers ,is to build the device and test it. But everything within that device needs to be understood-not just input's and output's,but the hidden power sources.There is one of these hidden power sources within the generator of Luc's first setup.But i always build and test befor i come to a final conclusion,as stated in my last post.
Quote: This ofcourse all depends on my theory being correct-and i have been wrong many times befor. But it is the only answer i have for what Luc's original generator setup show's. So now we just have to build it and see.
True experimenting lies in the ability to fully understand your own device.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 31, 2013, 11:04:40 PM
I would not waste my time with that learning curve...especially incessantly.
You should have a little more faith in the ability of others to learn. And stick around capz, it would appear you have something to learn here too. ;)
So after a trip to the farm,we now have what we need to build Luc's first setup.
@ Poynt.
Was not the answers i gave in regards to your circuit you posted correct. Looking at the answers i gave,shows what you said about moving the DVM leads. Luc also said that he would do it like this aswell,if we were to stay polarity correct-in accordance with your test circuit being DC.
Below the gen head and prime mover.
Tinman quote:
"...The only true way to discover the answers ,is to build the device and test it. ..."
Agreed...but challenging the presenter isa counter productive.
Everybody non active like me should just stay out of the way and politely watch and learn.
Regards...
Quote from: poynt99 on December 31, 2013, 11:38:19 PM
You should have a little more faith in the ability of others to learn. And stick around capz, it would appear you have something to learn here too. ;)
Don't be ridiculous, I have no inclination or intention to force feed anyone anything...especially a lesson.
I have said my piece on this matter...for the time being.
Regards...
Well i had a fairly productive afternoon. Managed to get the generator all ready to couple to the motor.The generator now has a support bearing both end's-this is so i can try different motors if i wish. The generator and motor will be coupled via a shaft coupler.
Pic 1-engine and gen out of frame.
Pic 2-generator sepperated from motor.
Pic 3-motor striped and crank removed.
Pic 4-crank shaft with taper cut off,and housing from motor trimed to bolt back onto the generator and carry the other bearing.
Pic 5-genny all back together,and is now a stand alone genny, so as any motor can be coupled to it.
Quote from: sinergicus on December 31, 2013, 06:17:27 PM
Capacitance lowers Induction motor Amp draw by 80%
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63tX67HnwGw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63tX67HnwGw)
If you go to the part 2 and 3 videos you will see diagrams and explanations..
Seems this guy was used capoacitors in paralel not in series....
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/4.html
Quote from: tinman on December 31, 2013, 11:46:41 PM
So after a trip to the farm,we now have what we need to build Luc's first setup.
Looking forward to your tests Brad. ;)
Quote
@ Poynt.
Was not the answers i gave in regards to your circuit you posted correct. Looking at the answers i gave,shows what you said about moving the DVM leads. Luc also said that he would do it like this aswell,if we were to stay polarity correct-in accordance with your test circuit being DC.
There wasn't really a correct answer. The question was to see how Luc (or anyone) would do it given the situation I outlined. I did not intend the question to be linked to my other diagrams, so sorry if you thought that.
But there is an end-goal to the discussion in sight, and I'm confident we'll get there as long as Luc is willing to continue for a few more posts.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 01, 2014, 12:50:35 AM
Don't be ridiculous, I have no inclination or intention to force feed anyone anything...especially a lesson.
Is that so?
By your own "standards" I would say this qualifies:
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 01, 2014, 12:45:21 AM
Everybody non active like me should just stay out of the way and politely watch and learn.
I for one would be quite pleased if you would post something of technical merit and on topic, otherwise, well, perhaps take your own advice.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 01, 2014, 09:27:07 AM
Is that so?
Yes that IS so.
I had no intention of singling out anyone in particular...but, since you insist on stepping out in the open - you are one of, if not the worst offender.
By your own "standards" I would say this qualifies:
I for one would be quite pleased if you would post something of technical merit and on topic, otherwise, well, perhaps take your own advice.
By your counter productive conduct and painfully apparent lack of contribution, you offer nothing here but an incessant penchant for disrupting progress and the free flow of ideas on just about every topic offered up.
I strongly suspect this is your vocation in life...else you would have become frustrated and left a long time ago...you know, like all the other builders you and your ilk have chased off.
If you find my posts counter-productive, well I guess you are entitled to your opinion, and that is all that it is. I believe however that most find my posts to be informative and helpful. I post the facts as best I can and try to stick to the technical side of issues as much as possible.
On the other hand, in my opinion, your posts are not informative, rarely if ever touch on technical issues (on the contrary, you are usually whining about something or someone), and are simply disruptive to the topic of discussion. Take for example every post of yours in this thread; they do nothing to help explain Luc's results, nor teach anyone anything about electrical theory. They are however, completely off topic and hence disruptive to the end-goal of getting to the truth about this circuit and the results being observed.
And what constitutes "progress" is also a matter of opinion it would seem.
" I believe however that most find my posts to be informative and helpful. "
That "statement"...is a classic example of the standard Illuminatti mantra...' a lie repeated often enough will be accepted as fact.'
Except...when the lie is broken down into its motivating factors.
In this case, the motive is clearly to drive Luc to the 'poynt' where he will stop sharing.
We can't have anybody with any fresh approaches to energy production sharing their ideas...now can we ?
By the way, kindly provide us all just one example of you sharing 'anything' here.
Your superior "intellect" and attitude does not qualify.
Hi poynt and everyone,
today we will start the opposite way. Let us hear from poynt the logic of Inverting channel 2.
Maybe this way we can see the light and good chances it will all come together.
Below is the scope shot and circuit of the 1.5k Ohm Resistive load I used in my Tutorial 1 video with probe Inverted.
Please explain why we want the scope to look at a resistive load 180 degrees out of phase, why this is the correct way, how can the scope display a correct math power analysis this way, is the "Mean" or "RMS" the power on the load, if negative why do we want to read it this way, if positive what does this mean? and so on.
Please note that channel 2 probe is set at x1 but scope menu is set at x10. So no need to multiply channel 2 by 10
Thanks for your time
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 01, 2014, 03:59:43 AM
Well i had a fairly productive afternoon. Managed to get the generator all ready to couple to the motor.The generator now has a support bearing both end's-this is so i can try different motors if i wish. The generator and motor will be coupled via a shaft coupler.
Pic 1-engine and gen out of frame.
Pic 2-generator sepperated from motor.
Pic 3-motor striped and crank removed.
Pic 4-crank shaft with taper cut off,and housing from motor trimed to bolt back onto the generator and carry the other bearing.
Pic 5-genny all back together,and is now a stand alone genny, so as any motor can be coupled to it.
Great work TinMan,
happy to see you will be testing soon
Luc
cpaz, time's up my friend.
I'll not be lowering myself any longer to converse with you at your level.
The bottom line is this:
If and when you can refute anything technical I have said in this or Luc's other thread, then I may engage. Otherwise, you may as well go piss in the wind. :P
Now, back to pertinent on-topic issues...
Luc,
You you mind if we first got back to this train of thought? Then we'll get to your post and questions therein.
Or is this not working for you?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 31, 2013, 06:09:25 PM
OK,
You have the 4 unknown/hidden components connected in a circuit in front of you, and all you have to do is place your meter probes across each one and write down the voltage, including if the meter reading is "+" or if it is "-". Are you with me so far?
To save time, let's assume you are ok to this point.
Now to measure the 4 components, let's say you use the probe orientation as shown coming out of the meter, that is Black on the left, and Red on the right.
Next you start from R1 and move to the right with your 4 measurements. You do not change the orientation of the probes for the 4 measurements.
What POLARITY (don't care about voltage now) will the meter indicate for each component?
R1?
R2?
B1?
R3?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 01, 2014, 02:31:27 PM
To save time, let's assume you are ok to this point.
Now to measure the 4 components, let's say you use the probe orientation as shown coming out of the meter, that is Black on the left, and Red on the right.
Next you start from R1 and move to the right with your 4 measurements. You do not change the orientation of the probes for the 4 measurements.
What POLARITY (don't care about voltage now) will the meter indicate for each component?
R1?
R2?
B1?
R3?
I don't mean to interrupt; but you're using a DC source there... what about when it's AC? Does inversion really matter? Normally it will compute to be all on one side of zero; adding capactiance skews it so half of it is negative... how do you get the inverse in DC?
Quote from: d3x0r on January 01, 2014, 03:24:11 PM
I don't mean to interrupt; but you're using a DC source there... what about when it's AC? Does inversion really matter? Normally it will compute to be all on one side of zero; adding capactiance skews it so half of it is negative... how do you get the inverse in DC?
If one is making a claim based on the polarity of a number, then yes polarity matters, regardless if it is an AC or DC circuit. Average power is average power. It can be negative and it can be positive in either case.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 01, 2014, 02:14:30 PM
cpaz, time's up my friend.
I'll not be lowering myself any longer to converse with you at your level."
Does that slot me, in your mind, above or below the Illuminatti level ?
" The bottom line is this:
If and when you can refute anything technical I have said in this or Luc's other thread, then I may engage. Otherwise, you may as well go piss in the wind. :P "
Interesting that you wood employ the term 'piss'...as luring builders into pissing contests just happens to be your method operation.
You continue in the present manner, I will call you out...and your massive ego will not permit you to resist defending your faux honor.
And thats just the way it is, and the way it will play out.
We all must learn to accept certain realities.
" Now, back to pertinent on-topic issues...
We shall see.
I've done a quick circuit with a transformer as AC source, the secondary feeding a RC series exactly like Luc minimal configuration.
I took scope shots and instead of using math function U*I like any honorable academic, I used function U/I. Why? because I wanted to see what power source sees. The scope shot is attached, "tan.jpg" naturally looks like tangent function in trigonometry. Another reason is because I don't trust the sophistication of a DVM (sorry PoyntyEgo) when I try to understand what I present.
The Red trace is the voltage, the Yellow is the current and the Green trace is U(t)/I(t) function.
Ladies & Gentlemen, I present you the Negative Impedance shown as the negative spikes in the green trace. Briefly you may remember the efforts of using of negative resistance exhibited in semiconductors by many researchers. I'll let you contemplate about natural occurrence of the phenomena in these circuits. Effortless! Other implications I will let you contemplate on your own, I will not try to impose.
For some other people that are more familiar with graphs used on semiconductors data sheets (I function of U as X and Y coordinates) I attach another plot "xy tan.jpg". "Those skilled in the art" will recognize the regions of negative resistance.
That was with the intent of moving forward, enough with chasing our tails on issues of minuscule importance.
Thank you barbosi for you test and sharing your interesting results.
I hope this will help move things along.
Excellent work! once again, thanks for sharing
Happy New Year
Luc
First I apologize for going back on my word about not posting any more here, but I just want to ask a simple question to Barbosi, so that I can improve my knowledge.
Barbosi, can you please clearly define what exactly is negative impedance ?
Cheers
From what I have been able to find on negative impedance, the subject would just take this thread off in another direction...thereby causing yet another distracti8on.
Farmhand, I have a feeling you have much to say on the subject, and recommend that you open another thread to discuss the issue there.
That way you don't have to go back on your word.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Regards...
Quote from: Farmhand on January 01, 2014, 06:18:49 PM
First I apologize for going back on my word about not posting any more here, but I just want to ask a simple question to Barbosi, so that I can improve my knowledge.
Barbosi, can you please clearly define what exactly is negative impedance ?
Cheers
Before I direct you to text book explanation, I have a few words to say. I do not claim that Luc's disclosure (and I think he does not claim it eighter) that the presented phenomena is something new to the established science. It's just that some aspects are still unexplored, or rather not thought in classes because of the monetary implications on electric power producers. They charge for undeserved "merchandise" or "service" pretty much like the tax carbon which should apply to any breathing living creature, people, wolfs, chickens or dolphins, or ... you name it. Some other companies charge you for delivering poisoned water or food and they want too their little dirty secrets not to be exposed. In this monetary world, many make undeserved money like the insurance companies, or inflate the prices because they simply want more money. Was I clear enough?
If one decides sign out, produce his own electric power and tries to maximize it's effects, then it better looks to unexplored aspects of theories known already by established science.
Now if you are a genuine researcher, here is the accepted theory sold as knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_resistance)
It is a starting point but if you cling on difference between "resistance" and "impedance", keep reading down to the chapter "Impedance cancellation" and from now on you won't be spoon fed. This is because I won't go in semantics wars.
Regards.
Yeah I already read that and another page, I was wanting you to explain it in Laymans terms and why it is that you mention it, or what benefit or effect it has. No matter maybe Pointy will explain it in simple terms. Thanks for pointing me to a link I have already read, I can use the search box you know.
Cheers
Quote from: gotoluc on January 01, 2014, 12:48:26 PM
Hi poynt and everyone,
today we will start the opposite way. Let us hear from poynt the logic of Inverting channel 2.
Maybe this way we can see the light and good chances it will all come together.
Below is the scope shot and circuit of the 1.5k Ohm Resistive load I used in my Tutorial 1 video with probe Inverted.
Please explain why we want the scope to look at a resistive load 180 degrees out of phase, why this is the correct way, how can the scope display a correct math power analysis this way, is the "Mean" or "RMS" the power on the load, if negative why do we want to read it this way, if positive what does this mean? and so on.
Please note that channel 2 probe is set at x1 but scope menu is set at x10. So no need to multiply channel 2 by 10
Thanks for your time
Luc
Luc,
I'm not certain if you're interested in finishing this exercise with me or not, but as you have not responded I can only assume you are not.
I have already tried a few times to answer the above questions, but nothing seemed to click for you. So I thought of another approach, which was to once again go back to a simple DC circuit. As you don't seem interested, I guess we are at an impasse.
In my opinion, understanding the simple DC circuit is absolutely essential to understanding your AC circuit. And I have little desire to restate what I already have to explain the polarities and necessity to invert your CH2 in the scope. It is there in my previous posts.
If you can not, or are unwilling to learn the concepts I am trying to teach with the simple DC circuit, then there is little hope you will understand what is going on with the measurements in your AC circuit.
So I'm asking one last time for your participation in the exercise. Otherwise you'll simply have to wait for my videos to get the answers to all your questions. My preference would be to discuss both, but that is completely up to you.
This excellent "All About Circuits" page describes precisely what I have been saying, and where I am going with the exercise with the simple DC circuit.
They've already done it all, and almost in the exact same manner I have been presenting the exercise.
LUC, are you familiar with Kirchhoff's Voltage Law? Even if you are, please carefully review the page. Pay particular attention to the orientation of the meter probes for every measurement!
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_6/2.html (http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_6/2.html)
Sorry Poynt but I'm building something and don't have time to do this now. I didn't have time to do it yesterday either but I didn't think it would of taken so much time. So this is why today I ask you to just go ahead and explain how it all works.
If you can't do that, then I guess I'll have to wait for the video.
Thanks for your time
Luc
Luc,
With reference to your first video with the 10R resistor and 5uF cap as load, your DVM is showing 2.25V across the resistor which gives a current of 0.225A. However, your scope reading is showing 229mV across the 0.1R shunt resistor, which gives a current of 2.29A!. Your scope probe setting for channel 2 looks wrong here by a factor of 10x the actual voltage across the shunt resistor. Can you please re-display the scope shots with this corrected.
Although there is a slight change in amplitude of the channel 2 waveform when a capacitor is added, your watt meter is not showing any appreciable change when the alternator is loaded with a reactive circuit. This may to some degree be due to the watt meter not being designed to measure reactive loads accurately and being insensitive to small reactive load variations, especially given the highly reactive nature of the prime mover.
Kirchhofs law does not apply with non- conservative fields.
Here is an explination
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/lecture-notes/lecsup41.pdf (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/lecture-notes/lecsup41.pdf)
and here is a video lecture of which go to minute 33 onwards, it will open your minds "or blow them as the case maybe" 8)
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/video-lectures/lecture-16-electromagnetic-induction/ (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/video-lectures/lecture-16-electromagnetic-induction/)
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Hoppy on January 02, 2014, 06:35:13 AM
Luc,
With reference to your first video with the 10R resistor and 5uF cap as load, your DVM is showing 2.25V across the resistor which gives a current of 0.225A. However, your scope reading is showing 229mV across the 0.1R shunt resistor, which gives a current of 2.29A!. Your scope probe setting for channel 2 looks wrong here by a factor of 10x the actual voltage across the shunt resistor. Can you please re-display the scope shots with this corrected.
No error, channel 2 setting is set at x10 so the math is actual watts value (no need to multiply by ten)
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 02, 2014, 12:03:26 AM
Sorry Poynt but I'm building something and don't have time to do this now. I didn't have time to do it yesterday either but I didn't think it would of taken so much time. So this is why today I ask you to just go ahead and explain how it all works.
If you can't do that, then I guess I'll have to wait for the video.
Thanks for your time
Luc
If you don't have time right now to do this Luc, then why are you asking me to explain it now? It's as if you think I have all the time in the world, and that your time is more valuable than mine.
Reading and understanding the page I linked to IS A BIG PART OF THE EXPLANATION. And you know what? It's not difficult at all! So when you are more interested in understanding where you are going wrong vs. continuing to plow blindly forward, I've given you a place to start that quest.
Parts should be here today or tomorrow, and videos will follow soon after.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 02, 2014, 08:19:58 AM
No error, channel 2 setting is set at x10 so the math is actual watts value (no need to multiply by ten)
Luc
I see. Thanks Luc.
Parts have arrived.
;)
Quote from: poynt99 on January 02, 2014, 02:44:04 PM
Parts have arrived.
;)
I gave my setup it's first run last night-no output from the genny ???
The stator windings all ohm up ok,so the rotor windings or diodes must be fried.Off to the farm this afternoon after work to pick up another genny-a good thing i have about 6 of them. Providing i can find a genny that works,i should have a video up by tomorrow night.
I have changed the drive configuration,and am useing a small DC motor(180 volts 400 watts) and speed controller-all of which runs off the 240 volt main's. this way i can change the frequency of the gen from 50htz to 60htz. Also useing the smaller motor, we will see the smallest of load changes.
Hi Luc,
As You requested, since I get little time left for experimentation, I have written a short 3-page pdf about what i call "Reactive Impulse". This will be my next area of research. Maybe You (or someone else) will find this interesting and beat me to implement it.
https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents
/Hob
tinman
can you post pictures ? I'm interested how to reliably connect motor to generator, a procedure for people with limited access to tools.
Quote from: forest on January 03, 2014, 02:02:54 AM
tinman
can you post pictures ? I'm interested how to reliably connect motor to generator, a procedure for people with limited access to tools.
Hi Forest.
Some pics on page 19 of this thread.
So far,the tools needed to do the job are-hammer,5 inch grinder,a few sockets and ring spanners,and a drill.I didnt need to use my lathe this time.The whole idea was to do it with limited tool's,so as those with limited tool's could do it-just as you said.
If you can find one of these vibration machine's,you will have your motor with digital speed controller-this is what im useing,something similar to the ones in the link.
http://www.asdirect.com.au/catalog/index.php?main_page=vibration_home_page&gclid=CN2J283p4bsCFedcpgodPWIAeQ
I now have the system up and running,and tuned to it's best performance. I have a 6.8 ohm 7 watt resistor as the load on the MOT secondary,and getting around .6 volt's across it,so a little over 3 watt's.
OK-the first supprise came when i hooked up the reactive circuit to the generator output. Not only did my P/in go down(quite a bit),but the generator/motor also sped up :o -i would say a good 100 RPM,but yet to be confirmed.
But there is a bad side aswell,and that is what i thought might be the case.What power we gained over the load resistor,we lost about 4 times as much in the exciter(tank) circuit of the generator.So the 3 watt's from the reactive circuit dose consume power,and there is no doubt about that. But there is one more thing to check,and we'll do that via video's,so as you can have a look your self.
Should have the first one posted here tomorrow night-USA's morning.
Quote from: nilrehob on January 03, 2014, 02:01:53 AM
Hi Luc,
As You requested, since I get little time left for experimentation, I have written a short 3-page pdf about what i call "Reactive Impulse". This will be my next area of research. Maybe You (or someone else) will find this interesting and beat me to implement it.
https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents (https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents)
/Hob
Thank you Hob for your pdf Report with circuit suggestion to be tested.
Luc
Hi TinMan and everyone,
you may have read that I've been saying this circuit is not creating energy. What I think is going on in this circuit is by causing a time delay between the TWO electricity components (voltage & current) you don't destroy the electricity (aka don't kill the dipole) by short circuit like typical everyday circuit we use.
When the electricity components are 90 degrees out of phase they can go through a circuit, do work and come back out with next to no losses if there is minimal resistance in the circuit.
However, you need something to receive the return and store it or convert it to something useful. I think this is what the Alternator Gen is doing. So timing is very important and I'm now starting to think that a permanent magnet alternator gen may not work as well as an exciter rotor field alternator gen like I've been using in my demos and now what TinMan is using.
Let me explain, for the past 3 days I've been busy converting a DC permanent magnet motor to an AC permanent magnet generator. It's a big job but I got it done and I was testing it last night and found the effect is not as obvious or as good as using an exciter field rotor generator.
When my series cap circuit is connected to this PM AC gen it's like something is out of timing!... I see the effect a little but it's like it's kind of having a fight inside the gen, like a motor out of timing. So I'm starting to think that the exciter rotor gen causes more of a delay then a PM gen and it could be this delay that makes the difference in helping the gen rotor to be pushed at the right time when the reactive power is returned.
More tests need to be done but I though I would share this new information.
Luc
Gotoluc, have you considered trying an RC model brush-less motor? They make good AC generators as well. you can pair up a couple one mover/driver the other generator. They typically use speed controllers (PWM) to drive them. 3 wire output.
I was thinking that the magnet to coil angles might be off thus your dilema.
Quote from: starcruiser on January 03, 2014, 12:48:54 PM
Gotoluc, have you considered trying an RC model brush-less motor? They make good AC generators as well. you can pair up a couple one mover/driver the other generator. They typically use speed controllers (PWM) to drive them. 3 wire output.
I was thinking that the magnet to coil angles might be off thus your dilema.
Yes, I did think of that but they don't output high voltage and the effect is much better over 200v
Thanks for your post
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2014, 12:00:17 PM
Hi TinMan and everyone,
you may have read that I've been saying this circuit is not creating energy. What I think is going on in this circuit is by separating the TWO components of electricity (voltage & current) you don't destroy the electricity (aka don't kill the dipole) by short circuit like typical everyday circuit we use.
When the electricity components are separated they can go through a circuit, do work and come back out with next to no losses if there is minimal resistance in the circuit.
However, you need something to receive the return and store it or convert it to something useful. I think this is what the Alternator Gen is doing. So timing is very important and I'm now starting to think that a permanent magnet alternator gen may not work as well as an exciter rotor field alternator gen like I've been using in my demos and now what TinMan is using.
Let me explain, for the past 3 days I've been busy converting a DC permanent magnet motor to an AC permanent magnet generator. It's a big job but I got it done and I was testing it last night and found the effect is not as obvious or as good as using an exciter field rotor generator.
When my series cap circuit is connected to this PM AC gen it's like something is out of timing!... I see the effect a little but it's like it's kind of having a fight inside the gen, like a motor out of timing. So I'm starting to think that the exciter rotor gen causes more of a delay then a PM gen and it could be this delay that makes the difference in helping the gen rotor to be pushed at the right time when the reactive power is returned.
More tests need to be done but I though I would share this new information.
Luc
Luc,
The big question as I see it, when using your original AC gen head, is whether or not your circuit actually provides no loading on the prime mover or does it just happen to reduce the no load draw of the gen on the prime mover by the exact amount that you are able to dissipate in your load?
There is a lot going on in the gen regarding phase angles in both the field and exciter circuits. Particularly with a cap regulated unit.
It might also be reasonable to expect that there would also be a difference observed if a brushed AC alternator using electronic regulation were used instead of your capacitor regulated brushless unit (which I assume it is).
You might consider mounting your AC gen's regulation cap external so that you can probe what's going on in the exciter circuit. It would also provide another dimension to experiment with.
Can you elaborate a bit more regarding your observations when using your recent PM alternator? What exactly do you mean by "out of timing"?
As you usually do, keep up the good work,
Be safe!
PW
.
Quote from: picowatt on January 03, 2014, 01:18:34 PM
Luc,
The big question as I see it, when using your original AC gen head, is whether or not your circuit actually provides no loading on the prime mover or does it just happen to reduce the no load draw of the gen on the prime mover by the exact amount that you are able to dissipate in your load?
Yes. I know that is the big question and one that I have had since the beginning and why I built a PM AC Gen.
Quote from: picowatt on January 03, 2014, 01:18:34 PM
It might also be reasonable to expect that there would also be a difference observed if a brushed AC alternator using electronic regulation were used instead of your capacitor regulated brushless unit (which I assume it is).
No electronics. The DC motor conversion make a brushed AC gen
Quote from: picowatt on January 03, 2014, 01:18:34 PM
You might consider mounting your AC gen's regulation cap external so that you can probe what's going on in the exciter circuit. It would also provide another dimension to experiment with.
Yes, that could be something that could be done.
Quote from: picowatt on January 03, 2014, 01:18:34 PM
Can you elaborate a bit more regarding your observations when using your recent PM alternator? What exactly do you mean by "out of timing"?
I can see the gen casing kind of rock back an forth. It's not smooth
That's all I can answer for now as I'm out to get some parts before traffic starts
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2014, 01:41:23 PM
Yes. I know that is the big question and one that I have had since the beginning and why I built a PM AC Gen.
No electronics. The DC motor conversion make a brushed AC gen
Yes, that could be something that could be done.
I can see the gen casing kind of rock back an forth. It's not smooth
That's all I can answer for now as I'm out to get some parts before traffic starts
Luc
Luc,
When I made reference to a "brushed AC gen using EVR", I was referring to the brush type AC heads typical of small AC generator setups that use regulation of DC to the rotor for field voltage regulation (as opposed to brushless cap regulated units), not your new PM alternator.
PW
I have an idea : maybe the best way to measure input power would be just connecting DC motor as a prime mover of generator ? DC current can be very acurately monitored.
Quote from: picowatt on January 03, 2014, 01:51:44 PM
Luc,
When I made reference to a "brushed AC gen using EVR", I was referring to the brush type AC heads typical of small AC generator setups that use regulation of DC to the rotor for field voltage regulation (as opposed to brushless cap regulated units), not your new PM alternator.
PW
Okay, I understand. Yes mine is brushless.
Luc
Quote from: forest on January 03, 2014, 03:01:24 PM
I have an idea : maybe the best way to measure input power would be just connecting DC motor as a prime mover of generator ? DC current can be very acurately monitored.
Yes I agree that would be a good way but that is not what is in question here as I did a video demo that show there is no change to the power to the Induction motor when the circuit is on load.
What is in question is, could the power my circuit is pulling out of the gen be coming from the rotor exciter field.
Luc
When I prove not only that a probe should be inverted when making power measurements the way we all do, AND that at no time is there a net power returning to the grid when I post my upcoming videos, are you going to simply dismiss it based on your claim that no "apparent" load on the prime mover "proves" otherwise?
Do you already have your mind made up that no matter how convincing I am in demonstrating that the capacitor circuit is nothing more than "conventional", you will still insist that because there is no "apparent" increase in power to the prime mover, I am still wrong?
That certainly is the impression I am getting.
At any rate, I am still going to make the videos. Folks need to know the facts and the truth.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 03, 2014, 03:48:05 PM
When I prove not only that a probe should be inverted when making power measurements the way we all do, AND that at no time is there a net power returning to the grid when I post my upcoming videos, are you going to simply dismiss it based on your claim that no "apparent" load on the prime mover "proves" otherwise?
Do you already have your mind made up that no matter how convincing I am in demonstrating that the capacitor circuit is nothing more than "conventional", you will still insist that because there is no "apparent" increase in power to the prime mover, I am still wrong?
That certainly is the impression I am getting.
At any rate, I am still going to make the videos. Folks need to know the facts and the truth.
Why are you so determined to prove that gotoluc is wrong? and what is your problem if he is wrong? I know he is right but you try your best to show us all that we should abort researching Reactive Power. this much determination makes us all flow the idea even more, while you are talking to the walls.
Luc, better ignore this guy and use your energy towards improving this technology.
I'm assuming you are writing to me!
Please post your findings as I've always encouraged people to test the circuit and do so.
About the probe. You are the only one who ever mentioned it needs to be done. So if you're sure you're right I hope you will take the time to explain it in an audio visual way of how it should be done as I have asked you to do but have not done yet. Even Stefan is unaware of your Scope measuring technique.
Let us see and learn something if we can
Luc
Quote from: Ralis on January 03, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
Why are you so determined to prove that gotoluc is wrong? and what is your problem if he is wrong? I know he is right but you try your best to show us all that we should abort researching Reactive Power. this much determination makes us all flow the idea even more, while you are talking to the walls.
Luc, better ignore this guy and use your energy towards improving this technology.
Let poynt99 present his finding. We can then decide for ourselves.
Thanks
Luc
Where is this Ralis guy's post?
Regarding your moto/gen setup, have you done any load-testing with it at all to determine at what load does the motor rpm begin to decrease an appreciable amount?
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2014, 04:21:29 PM
I'm assuming you are writing to me!
Please post your findings as I've always encouraged people to test the circuit and do so.
About the probe. You are the only one who ever mentioned it needs to be done. So if you're sure you're right I hope you will take the time to explain it in an audio visual way of how it should be done as I have asked you to do but have not done yet. Even Stefan is unaware of your Scope measuring technique.
Let us see and learn something if we can
Luc
I'm not sure that's right. I believe the issue of channel polarity inversion in power measurements has come up several times before, notably in the discussions of the Ainslie affair and also when looking at LTseung's reports of waaaay OU Joule Thiefs. Those may not be exactly the same situations as present, but still the general issue has been discussed before.
As far as "splitting the voltage from the current" or however it was put.... this indicates, to me, an incorrect mental model of what "electricity" is. Can you separate the flow of water from its pressure? I don't think so. The same is true of electrical current. Voltage is "charge pressure", the tendency of packed together unit charges to "want" to spread apart. Current is the rate at which unit charges pass your measurement point. Using this mental model, which has strong empirical support (look around you for numerous examples), it's easy to see that it is voltage which "drives" current and there really isn't any way to "separate" them and send voltage to one part of an apparatus and current to another. Both "parts" must consist of voltage driving current. Certainly one can have stored voltage, as on a capacitor, just as one can have water pressure without flow. However, for any current (flow) to exist there must be a difference in voltage (pressure), with the lower voltage level receiving unit charges from the higher voltage level until the voltage (pressure) is equal at both ends of the conduction pathway, at which point current (flow) has gone to nil.
We are fooled, these days, with our easy high-impedance DMMs and scopes, to believe that we can measure voltage without a corresponding current flow. But this is an illusion: our DMMs do require a tiny current flow in order to read a voltage, if only to fill the gate of a FET input stage. And of course they read current the same way we do: by looking at the voltage _drop_ across a resistive element. Current and voltage together come into play for both types of measurements.
One thing that I've noticed with pulse motors (may not be directly applicable here) is that people are surprised that the peak current draw does not go up when the motor shaft is loaded or even stalled by excessive shaft loading. They don't realize that this is because the pulse motor is _already_ drawing the maximum peak current it can draw during the normal operation!
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 06:48:53 PM
I'm not sure that's right. I believe the issue of channel polarity inversion in power measurements has come up several times before, notably in the discussions of the Ainslie affair and also when looking at LTseung's reports of waaaay OU Joule Thiefs. Those may not be exactly the same situations as present, but still the general issue has been discussed before.
Answers for the record:
I'm sure it has come up in other topics but does not mean I know of it since I would of been part of that topic. The Ainslie topic I was part of at the begining but dropped out in the first few months after replicating and no results. You guys when on for years.
The Ltseung I didn't even follow.
If Stefan who is the moderator of this whole site doesn't know about it, then why would I?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 06:48:53 PM
As far as "splitting the voltage from the current" or however it was put.... this indicates, to me, an incorrect mental model of what "electricity" is. Can you separate the flow of water from its pressure? I don't think so. The same is true of electrical current. Voltage is "charge pressure", the tendency of packed together unit charges to "want" to spread apart. Current is the rate at which unit charges pass your measurement point. Using this mental model, which has strong empirical support (look around you for numerous examples), it's easy to see that it is voltage which "drives" current and there really isn't any way to "separate" them and send voltage to one part of an apparatus and current to another. Both "parts" must consist of voltage driving current. Certainly one can have stored voltage, as on a capacitor, just as one can have water pressure without flow. However, for any current (flow) to exist there must be a difference in voltage (pressure), with the lower voltage level receiving unit charges from the higher voltage level until the voltage (pressure) is equal at both ends of the conduction pathway, at which point current (flow) has gone to nil.
We are fooled, these days, with our easy high-impedance DMMs and scopes, to believe that we can measure voltage without a corresponding current flow. But this is an illusion: our DMMs do require a tiny current flow in order to read a voltage, if only to fill the gate of a FET input stage. And of course they read current the same way we do: by looking at the voltage _drop_ across a resistive element. Current and voltage together come into play for both types of measurements.
Your interpretation of me writing that I'm "splitting the voltage from the current" is illusionary. Please show me the post I wrote it this way. I'll be more than happy to correct it, as this is not a correct statement.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 06:48:53 PM
One thing that I've noticed with pulse motors (may not be directly applicable here) is that people are surprised that the peak current draw does not go up when the motor shaft is loaded or even stalled by excessive shaft loading. They don't realize that this is because the pulse motor is _already_ drawing the maximum peak current it can draw during the normal operation!
I've been aware of this for many years. Please show me the post where I'm surprised of this condition.
To me the surprise is you writing the above... don't you think I'm taking enough hits from your buddy?... do you feel the need to jump in the ring and hit everything you can?
Even if it ends up there's nothing useful with what I've shared... who do you think has got more chances to loose respect from other researchers?
Please do not justify
Luc
I have a question about something that dosnt make sense to me. In Luc's circuit below,why is the voltage being measured on the front side of the cap(across the supply),and the current on the back side of the cap?Should not the voltage and current be measured on the same side of the cap?
Tinman I think that is due to the neutral being grounded and scope damage. If the scope is grounded then the two scope grounds need to go to the grounded neutral or buku current might flow through one. I think. Don't take my answer though, I'm no expert on scopes.
When I measured the two currents on my pulse motor I did not realize the scope even had a function to invert a signal so I just showed them one oriented correctly and one inverted and said so in explanation, it worked out for me because it showed the currents difference visually, which is all I wanted. But the pulse motor circuit was isolated and I chose the input rail to place the two probes grounds, the two probes grounds need to be together and if used with the same supply as the scope then they should be on the neutral/ground. An isolated scope like a nano can be used anyhow like a DMM I think if one is careful.
I am guessing it should make no difference, the current should be equal in the entire loop, if not the safety switch should trip or something.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on January 04, 2014, 02:58:24 AM
Tinman I think that is due to the neutral being grounded and scope damage. If the scope is grounded then the two scope grounds need to go to the grounded neutral or buku current might flow through one. I think. Don't take my answer though, I'm no expert on scopes.
When I measured the two currents on my pulse motor I did not realize the scope even had a function to invert a signal so I just showed them one oriented correctly and one inverted and said so in explanation, it worked out for me because it showed the currents difference visually, which is all I wanted. But the pulse motor circuit was isolated and I chose the input rail to place the two probes grounds, the two probes grounds need to be together and if used with the same supply as the scope then they should be on the neutral/ground. An isolated scope like a nano can be used anyhow like a DMM I think if one is careful.
I am guessing it should make no difference, the current should be equal in the entire loop, if not the safety switch should trip or something.
..
Yes,well understand the common ground thing with scope's,but in order to measure the power being consumed(disipated) by the MOT and resistor,i believe it should be setup like in the pic below. I know that an ideal cap dosnt disipate power,but no cap that i know of is ideal. as soon as they raise in temp,they are disipating power.There must be some loss through the cap via heat.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2014, 11:19:52 PM
Answers for the record:
Your interpretation of me writing that I'm "splitting the voltage from the current" is illusionary. Please show me the post I wrote it this way. I'll be more than happy to correct it, as this is not a correct statement.
Luc be carefull
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2014, 12:00:17 PM
you may have read that I've been saying this circuit is not creating energy. What I think is going on in this circuit is by separating the TWO components of electricity (voltage & current) you don't destroy the electricity (aka don't kill the dipole) by short circuit like typical everyday circuit we use.
When the electricity components are separated they can go through a circuit, do work and come back out with next to no losses if there is minimal resistance in the circuit.
Luc
ADDED BY GOTOLUCI agree that using the word Separating is Not a good choice of word on a technical point of view but I'm sure most who have been following the topic knew what I was saying. So below is the edit to replace separating with time delay and 90 degrees out of phase.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2014, 12:00:17 PM
you may have read that I've been saying this circuit is not creating energy. What I think is going on in this circuit is by causing a time delay between the TWO electricity components (voltage & current) you don't destroy the electricity (aka don't kill the dipole) by short circuit like typical everyday circuit we use.
When the electricity components are 90 degrees out of phase they can go through a circuit, do work and come back out with next to no losses if there is minimal resistance in the circuit.
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2014, 03:33:06 AM
Yes,well understand the common ground thing with scope's,but in order to measure the power being consumed(disipated) by the MOT and resistor,i believe it should be setup like in the pic below. I know that an ideal cap dosnt disipate power,but no cap that i know of is ideal. as soon as they raise in temp,they are disipating power.There must be some loss through the cap via heat.
I had the same feeling and asked the same question but was unable to recognize why I asked , so thank you ::)
Again, if you think a little you should realize that only voltage is active component of power, just consider analogy with water in pipe. If I good remember in physics when we think about power generated (for example mechanical) by energy conversion then something must be dissipated for something to rise. Only voltage in pure Ohmic circuits seems to conform to that....the current is just a bunch of small magnetic particles and we use it to kill the dipole.... Power grid USE reactive power to keep steady voltage on line - that's what I learned from some good presentation , but of course I'm not good in electrical science and sometime must pass for e to comprehend HOW they do that
As far as "splitting the voltage from the current" or however it was put.... this indicates, to me, an incorrect mental model of what "electricity" is. Can you separate the flow of water from its pressure? I don't think so.
Yes you can, a river has flow but no pressure until you dam it in one way or other. Once damed you have pressure but no flow, until you open a hole in the dam.
regards
Mike
With the river analogy we're considering the effect of gravity on water, kinetic and head.
Is this comparable with current in a electric circuit?
John
Quote from: minnie on January 04, 2014, 07:16:14 AM
With the river analogy we're considering the effect of gravity on water, kinetic and head.
Is this comparable with current in a electric circuit?
John
It is as comparative as using current and voltage to define flow and pressure ;D
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2014, 01:37:53 AM
I have a question about something that dosnt make sense to me. In Luc's circuit below,why is the voltage being measured on the front side of the cap(across the supply),and the current on the back side of the cap?Should not the voltage and current be measured on the same side of the cap?
Brad,
The probes in that diagram are positioned to measure GRID power.
Granted, I believe some individuals posting here don't realize this.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2014, 11:19:52 PM
If Stefan who is the moderator of this whole site doesn't know about it, then why would I?
That Stefan isn't aware of, nor agrees with my solution to this problem should come as no surprise.
Quote
To me the surprise is you writing the above... don't you think I'm taking enough hits from your buddy?...
You mean
valid topical questions you ignore like this one about your moto/gen setup? Grow some balls Luc. You're not garnering any respect by whining about and ignoring important pertinent questions. OK, admittedly there was deserved hit. :D
http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg381543/#msg381543 (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg381543/#msg381543)
Quote
Even if it ends up there's nothing useful with what I've shared... who do you think has got more chances to loose respect from other researchers?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this.
Admittedly, you are learning as you blindly plow forward, but along the way it would benefit you immensely for you to stop and seriously consider everything knowledgeable people are conveying to you. You might not only learn faster, but also get the opportunity to fine tune your experiments in such a way that you reach a conclusion much faster and with more knowledge gained. Like for example when I posted that the MOT was not required to get the same effect, which you ignored.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 09:33:02 AM
Brad,
The probes in that diagram are positioned to measure GRID power.
Granted, I believe some individuals posting here don't realize this.
Why do we want to measure grid power?. Dont we want to know what the reactive circuit is consuming and giving back?. I tried it the other way,and now voltage lead's current??.
Anyway,i think you will find my video interesting (uploading now). Im hoping Luc will try what i have,and he may then see why the P/in is being reduced when he hooks up his reactive circuit. It seems that my theory was correct,and that the reactive circuit is interacting with the exciter circuit,and reducing it's power consumption. If you crunch the number's,you will see that the combined power across the load resistor and the power drop of P/in,is the exact amount of power consumption drop within the exciter circuit.
This is only in regards to Luc's first setup(motor/generator),and in no way a reflection on the later setup.
Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2014, 10:00:33 AM
Why do we want to measure grid power?. Dont we want to know what the reactive circuit is consuming and giving back?.
Those are two different measurements. To determine what the
net power is (used or returned), we measure the GRID power. To determine how much power is consumed (dissipated), we measure the LOAD power, i.e. the load resistor, which is a DIFFERENT probe configuration.
Quote
I tried it the other way,and now voltage lead's current??.
Indeed, probe placement and understanding the ramifications is paramount. My videos will hopefully shed sufficient light on this subject.
Thanks for the video Brad.
Ok,so here is my first test on the reactive generator setup. Please note that this is only to show the effect that the reactive circuit has on the exciter circuit within the generator,and in no way represents accurate measurements of P/in and P/out. It was to show the power already being consumed within the generator itself via the exciter circuit-something that was over looked in other test seen regarding this setup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AM_FoUV3Zs
Quote from: Ralis on January 03, 2014, 04:18:13 PM
I know he is right but you try your best to show us all that we should abort researching Reactive Power.
And your proof of this is where exactly?
What I actually have said or implied is that the results as demonstrated by Luc in his videos are not what they appear to be. In truth the circuit is behaving in a conventional manner, and I intend to show why.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 10:11:28 AM
Those are two different measurements. To determine what the net power is (used or returned), we measure the GRID power. To determine how much power is consumed (dissipated), we measure the LOAD power, i.e. the load resistor, which is a DIFFERENT probe configuration.
Indeed, probe placement and understanding the ramifications is paramount. My videos will hopefully shed sufficient light on this subject.
Thanks for the video Brad.
looking forward to seeing the vid Darren. Im hoping my video may shed some light on the P/in drop when the reactive circuit is hooked up.
BUT(and there is always a but) apon further tuneing,i seem to be getting a 1.8 to 2.3 watt motoring action from the generator :o. The measurements are close,so may be meter (measurement)error,but worth looking into a little further i think.
Will do more accurate measurements tomorrow,and post result's.
Quote from: rensseak on January 04, 2014, 04:19:10 AM
Luc be carefull
Thanks rensseak for pointing that post out. I will edit it as it is not written the way I understand it to be and is not a correct description for the record.
If you or anyone else see other posts that are questionable please do point them out.
Thanks for your time
Luc
ADDEDI agree that using the word Separating is Not a good choice of word on a technical point of view but I'm sure most who have been following the topic knew what I was saying. So below is the edit to replace separating with time delay and 90 degrees out of phase.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2014, 12:00:17 PM
you may have read that I've been saying this circuit is not creating energy. What I think is going on in this circuit is by causing a time delay between the TWO electricity components (voltage & current) you don't destroy the electricity (aka don't kill the dipole) by short circuit like typical everyday circuit we use.
When the electricity components are 90 degrees out of phase they can go through a circuit, do work and come back out with next to no losses if there is minimal resistance in the circuit.
Luc
It would have been nice, and avoided a lot of disruptive noise had that error been brought to your attention in a straight forward respectful manner...instead of framing it as a challenge, causing you to react defensively, and appear less than honest and knowledgeable in the field.
Regards...
Everyone is afraid to be ridiculed for something they suspect may be happening in a circuit, what ya gonna lose your tenure ??? .
Think outside the box, I dont give a rats a$$ what they think of me you can tell that by my posts, if I have an idea I explore and consider it no matter what others think.
Keep at it Luc
All the best
dave
Quote from: Dave45 on January 04, 2014, 12:25:28 PM
Everyone is afraid to be ridiculed for something they suspect may be happening in a circuit, what ya gonna lose your tenure ??? .
Think outside the box, I dont give a rats a$$ what they think of me you can tell that by my posts, if I have an idea I explore and consider it no matter what others think.
Keep at it Luc
All the best
dave
You showed early on that you weren't one to be messed with Dave...unfortunately not everyone has that in them.
I thoroughly enjoy your boxless approach...and have learned much from reading your thoughts and ideas.
Regards...
A good brief review of an AC generator.
http://www.auroragenerators.com/resources/articles/how-stuff-works/29-generator-fundamentals (http://www.auroragenerators.com/resources/articles/how-stuff-works/29-generator-fundamentals)
http://armymunitions.tpub.com/Mm07047/Mm070470067.htm
Brad,
Not shown, but the caps in these generators you and Luc are using are for filtering a rectified AC (produced from a residual magnetic field) in order to produce a crude DC field coil supply?
Quote from: tinman on January 04, 2014, 10:33:07 AM
Ok,so here is my first test on the reactive generator setup. Please note that this is only to show the effect that the reactive circuit has on the exciter circuit within the generator,and in no way represents accurate measurements of P/in and P/out. It was to show the power already being consumed within the generator itself via the exciter circuit-something that was over looked in other test seen regarding this setup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AM_FoUV3Zs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AM_FoUV3Zs)
Thanks TinMan for testing the circuit and pointing to the exciter field as the possible source of the effect. I will perform new tests of this kind to better understand the interaction between these two circuits and post my findings.
Thanks for taking the time to do all this excellent replication and sharing your results.
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 09:50:07 AM
That Stefan isn't aware of, nor agrees with my solution to this problem should come as no surprise.
Okay, I shouldn't speak for Stefan
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 09:50:07 AM
You mean valid topical questions you ignore like this one about your moto/gen setup? Grow some balls Luc. You're not garnering any respect by whining about and ignoring important pertinent questions. OK, admittedly there was deserved hit. :D
http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg381543/#msg381543 (http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg381543/#msg381543)
I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this.
If I would understand or know what your question is referring to would help the chances of it being answered!
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 09:50:07 AM
Admittedly, you are learning as you blindly plow forward, but along the way it would benefit you immensely for you to stop and seriously consider everything knowledgeable people are conveying to you. You might not only learn faster, but also get the opportunity to fine tune your experiments in such a way that you reach a conclusion much faster and with more knowledge gained. Like for example when I posted that the MOT was not required to get the same effect, which you ignored.
As for learning!... I do agree that I have learned much as I've been blindly moving forward. However, if I was a knowledgeable person I would not be doing any of this as I would know it all.
So to me one has to make a choice, do we accept the existing technology of burning fossil fuel for over 100 years is the only technology we have to date because the know it all say it is and do nothing about it because they know it all?
What if I decide not to buy the know it all lunch?... then why should I use everything they know if I'm looking for something different?... how would that work?
Sorry if I missed your post the MOT is not needing before Hob pointed it out to me. It could be I chose to come to that conclusion myself and not use the know it all or just missed your post. Can't remember which it was?Luc
Are you saying that you don't understand this question???
Quote from: poynt99 on January 03, 2014, 04:29:48 PM
Regarding your moto/gen setup, have you done any load-testing with it at all to determine at what load does the motor rpm begin to decrease an appreciable amount?
In regards to your other comments, sure, dream and explore, but at the same time why cut yourself off from the alternate conventional point of view?
Are you impervious to making errors? I know I am not. When someone with more experience tells me I should re-examine some assertion I've made, do I seriously consider it? Yes. Do I try to prove them wrong if I feel I am still right? Yes. Do I admit when I am wrong? Yes. Do I appreciate it when it turns out I am corrected? Yes.
Are you impervious to being fooled by something you do not understand? I know I am not. I have been fooled several times, but either I
immediately corrected it myself, or someone else helped me do so.
Do I take the improbable as being most likely correct? No, not a chance. And no one should, especially in light of evidence presented by others proving otherwise.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 12:53:27 PM
A good brief review of an AC generator.
http://www.auroragenerators.com/resources/articles/how-stuff-works/29-generator-fundamentals (http://www.auroragenerators.com/resources/articles/how-stuff-works/29-generator-fundamentals)
http://armymunitions.tpub.com/Mm07047/Mm070470067.htm (http://armymunitions.tpub.com/Mm07047/Mm070470067.htm)
Brad,
Not shown, but the caps in these generators you and Luc are using are for filtering a rectified AC (produced from a residual magnetic field) in order to produce a crude DC field coil supply?
Please note these links are for brushed rotor gen heads and not like the ones TinMan and myself are using. We are using brushless exciter rotor gen heads.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2014, 02:04:58 PM
Please note these links are for brushed rotor gen heads and not like the ones TinMan and myself are using. We are using brushless exciter rotor gen heads.
Luc
How significant is the difference?
Is the principle not very similar?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 12:53:27 PM
A good brief review of an AC generator.
http://www.auroragenerators.com/resources/articles/how-stuff-works/29-generator-fundamentals (http://www.auroragenerators.com/resources/articles/how-stuff-works/29-generator-fundamentals)
http://armymunitions.tpub.com/Mm07047/Mm070470067.htm
Brad,
Not shown, but the caps in these generators you and Luc are using are for filtering a rectified AC (produced from a residual magnetic field) in order to produce a crude DC field coil supply?
.99,
The brushless cap regulated units Luc and Tinman are using are not covered in that doc. The caps in their units actually regulate the voltage by resonating with and varying the phase angles of the exciter windings as load conditions vary. Some units resonate the exciter at the fundamental, many newer units do so at the third harmonic.
I believe the cap regulated units draw a bit more from the prime mover under no load than required for a given output voltage because the exciter phase must be prepared for application of reactive loads, particularly for motor starting. Severe loading or certain highly reactive loads applied to a cap regulated unit can cause the exciter phase angles to exceed a maximum and cause the exciter current to collapse with subsequent collapse of the field output .
The reduction of this no load exciter "excess" is what I suspect is related to the reduction in prime mover loading observed with certain reactive loads applied. Most reactive loads are inductive, so the gens are set under no load conditions to more ideally operate when inductively loaded.
Please note that I am in no way an expert on induction motors or generators. But there is a glimmer of an explanation in the above somewhere.
It would be interesting if the experimenters could find the schematics for their respective gen models.
PW.
Thanks PW. You posted while I was asking for an explanation from Luc.
I am not an expert in motors/generators either. Interesting modus operandi which no doubt must make analysis and the cause-effect relationship a tad more complicated.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 02:10:05 PM
How significant is the difference?
Is the principle not very similar?
Oh joy, a few more rabbit holes laid out before us to explore...wonder if there's anything relevant to find down there ?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 02:14:29 PM
Thanks PW. You posted while I was asking for an explanation from Luc.
I am not an expert in motors/generators either. Interesting modus operandi which no doubt must make analysis and the cause-effect relationship a tad more complicated.
Way more complicated...
That is why I said earlier that this observed effect would likely be different when using a brushed unit with an EVR (electronic voltage regulator). There are also brushless units that incorporate an EVR as well, wherein a fixed and rotor mounted pair of windings act more so as a rotary transformer to feed power to the main rotor winding. I suspect that the units that use an EVR (or even a permanent magnet rotor) are all likely going to be less prone to exhibiting the observed behavior (i.e., reduction of PM loading with reactive load applied).
I hope the experimentation continues...
But everyone please be careful!!
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 10:39:28 AM
And your proof of this is where exactly?
What I actually have said or implied is that the results as demonstrated by Luc in his videos are not what they appear to be. In truth the circuit is behaving in a conventional manner, and I intend to show why.
I have my proof as I have done this before. There is something wrong here but I am not fighting anyone.
This experiment should start with taking measurements with the motor only to determine the power required by the motor to run then continue.
I see too much determination in fighting this cause, extreme determination shows me that you oppose free energy researching or have something against Luc.
this just my view, i might be wrong, who knows!
Ralis
Again , use my advice and DC motor as prime mover.
Quote from: Ralis on January 04, 2014, 02:51:59 PM
I have my proof as I have done this before.
Until you show proof, you are simply making a hollow claim, and therefore you can't expect anyone to buy into it can you?
Quote
There is something wrong here but I am not fighting anyone.
Indeed there is, and I intend showing what. Now that I'm back and I have the house to myself the rest of the day and evening, testing is about to begin.
Quote
This experiment should start with taking measurements with the motor only to determine the power required by the motor to run then continue.
Agreed. And it should continue with load testing to determine what load on the generator is required to cause a decrease in the motor rpm. But this won't happen because apparently Luc doesn't understand what I am asking.
Quote
I see too much determination in fighting this cause, extreme determination shows me that you oppose free energy researching or have something against Luc.
this just my view, i might be wrong, who knows!
Yes, you are wrong.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 03:27:35 PM
Agreed. And it should continue with load testing to determine what load on the generator is required to cause a decrease in the motor rpm.
So this is what you want to know?
I have shared that 30 watts is the max I can pull out of my gen. Anything above that and the prime mover has to supply more energy in the standard way.
My generator has a 12uf cap for exciter field. Cap connected and prime mover needs about 158 watts to turn gen at 3500 RPM. If I disconnect the exciter cap the prime mover needs about 100 watts to turn the gen head. Prime mover is 3600 RPM max.
Hope this helps
Luc
I've been following this thread with interest for a while but I haven't felt that I had anything to contribute. Just lurking and learning; I'm dealing with reactive power issues in my wireless power / induction heating systems and trying to learn what I've missed.
I dug into my motor box and came up with a pair of interesting little motors that might enable me to do some experimentation. See the image below. These are antique Delco DC shunt motors. They are constructed just like modern DC "can" motors: wound armature, commutator, brushes, but in place of the magnets in the can motor, these have field coils. The two coils are connected in series and brought out to a pair of wires. The brushes are brought out in another pair of wires. There's no cap or other circuitry, so wiring options are unlimited and easy to implement. It has been some time since I've run these motors, but this is what I remember: The motors run well with separate DC supplies to the field coils and the armature, and there is an interesting relationship between output torque and the voltages one supplies to the two parts of the motor. The motors will also run from a single supply, IIRC, with the field coils in series with the armature brushes. Or maybe in parallel or both, I can't recall at the moment.
Since "mo-gens" are kind of a "hot" topic at the moment, I was thinking about mounting the pair on a board, coupled shaft-to-shaft, with one as "prime mover" and the other as generator. Any suggestions as to hookups, capacitor placement, rectification, etc. so I can start experimenting for myself?
Hi poynt or anyone who know the poynt way of AC scope power calculations.
Please tell me what the power used from the source (grid) in watts from the scope shots below. Both are the same just one has 15 samples instead of 3.
The CSR is 0.1 Ohm 5% with both probe grounds on one grid side of CSR, channel 2 on circuit side of CSR and channel 1 on other grid side and is 100x probe with scope menu at 100x. Chanel 2 probe is set at 1x and scope menu is set at 10x with Inverted selected.
Thank you for your time.
Luc
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 04, 2014, 05:55:16 PM
I've been following this thread with interest for a while but I haven't felt that I had anything to contribute. Just lurking and learning; I'm dealing with reactive power issues in my wireless power / induction heating systems and trying to learn what I've missed.
I dug into my motor box and came up with a pair of interesting little motors that might enable me to do some experimentation. See the image below. These are antique Delco DC shunt motors. They are constructed just like modern DC "can" motors: wound armature, commutator, brushes, but in place of the magnets in the can motor, these have field coils. The two coils are connected in series and brought out to a pair of wires. The brushes are brought out in another pair of wires. There's no cap or other circuitry, so wiring options are unlimited and easy to implement. It has been some time since I've run these motors, but this is what I remember: The motors run well with separate DC supplies to the field coils and the armature, and there is an interesting relationship between output torque and the voltages one supplies to the two parts of the motor. The motors will also run from a single supply, IIRC, with the field coils in series with the armature brushes. Or maybe in parallel or both, I can't recall at the moment.
Since "mo-gens" are kind of a "hot" topic at the moment, I was thinking about mounting the pair on a board, coupled shaft-to-shaft, with one as "prime mover" and the other as generator. Any suggestions as to hookups, capacitor placement, rectification, etc. so I can start experimenting for myself?
Very interesting motors you have there TK
the only thing is, you mentioned they are DC... not a problem for prime mover and maybe better then using an AC motor as far as power calculations go. The problem would be the gen side. I think the circuit needs AC since the basic ingredient is a series capacitor and I don't know how you could get the circuit to work with DC?
Maybe have a look at the pdf Hob has shared for a circuit you can test.
Link: https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents (https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents)
Also, if you don't mind have a look at my post above and tell me what you come up with.
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 12:53:27 PM
A good brief review of an AC generator.
http://www.auroragenerators.com/resources/articles/how-stuff-works/29-generator-fundamentals (http://www.auroragenerators.com/resources/articles/how-stuff-works/29-generator-fundamentals)
http://armymunitions.tpub.com/Mm07047/Mm070470067.htm
Brad,
Not shown, but the caps in these generators you and Luc are using are for filtering a rectified AC (produced from a residual magnetic field) in order to produce a crude DC field coil supply?
\
Hi Darren
These one's work a little different than that. These one's have 2 PM's on the rotor that excite the exciter field. The two rotor coil's have a diode on each,so as to produce a south field on one half of the rotor,and a north field on the other. By changing the cap value,we can raise or lower the RPM to get our 240 volt output. If we keep the same RPM,we can raise or lower the voltage output by changing the cap value. For example,i change the cap with a 200uf cap(just to see what happened),and the gen would produce 230 volts at 21htz-around 1260RPM.
In regards to load's on the output.
I found that a 70 ohm load was about as high as i could go befor the prime mover started to require more power. So it seems the heaver the load,the less power required by the prime mover. If i remove the load from the MOT output,my generator bog's down that much that the prime mover cant drive it. Seems to be reverse to what you think it would be.
Some figures so far.
P/in with all gen outputs open is 52 watts.
P/in with exciter circuit and inductive circuit hooked up is 55 watt's.
exciter circuit is consuming 4.1 watt's
55 watts minus 4.1 watts=50.9 watt's.
So some how we have 1.1 watts of !accounted for power! higher than we do with the generator open?.
This ofcourse is only the case if the watt meter and both DMM's are 100% accurate.My DMM's would be very close at this frequency,but im not sure how the watt meter is reacting with the PWM.
Quote from: picowatt on January 04, 2014, 02:10:13 PM
.99,
The brushless cap regulated units Luc and Tinman are using are not covered in that doc. The caps in their units actually regulate the voltage by resonating with and varying the phase angles of the exciter windings as load conditions vary. Some units resonate the exciter at the fundamental, many newer units do so at the third harmonic.
I believe the cap regulated units draw a bit more from the prime mover under no load than required for a given output voltage because the exciter phase must be prepared for application of reactive loads, particularly for motor starting. Severe loading or certain highly reactive loads applied to a cap regulated unit can cause the exciter phase angles to exceed a maximum and cause the exciter current to collapse with subsequent collapse of the field output .
The reduction of this no load exciter "excess" is what I suspect is related to the reduction in prime mover loading observed with certain reactive loads applied. Most reactive loads are inductive, so the gens are set under no load conditions to more ideally operate when inductively loaded.
Please note that I am in no way an expert on induction motors or generators. But there is a glimmer of an explanation in the above somewhere.
It would be interesting if the experimenters could find the schematics for their respective gen models.
PW.
PW-you hit the nail on the head.
In my test so far,no resistive load will reduce the P/in required to drive the generator. Only an inductive load(so far) has this effect of reducing the P/in required to drive the generator.
I am yet to try a capacitive only load on the output. As the exciter circuit is just a tank circuit,i could place a cap of a certain value on the gen output,and then make that a second tank circuit.If i can offset the phase angle between the two tank's,then we may get some interesting results.
Hi everyone,
I uploaded a video which is unlisted. I did this not to confuse other researcher from other sites and so on since this video is related to the discussion going on here.
So here is a test a la TinMan of my best score yet
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyoT9I3_93w&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyoT9I3_93w&feature=youtu.be)
I may also have another interesting thing in the works and will share when I confirm the ideal values for maximum output.
Stay tuned
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2014, 06:35:42 PM
Hi poynt or anyone who know the poynt way of AC scope power calculations.
Please tell me what the power used from the source (grid) in watts from the scope shots below. Both are the same just one has 15 samples instead of 3.
The CSR is 0.1 Ohm 5% with both probe grounds on one grid side of CSR, channel 2 on circuit side of CSR and channel 1 on other grid side and is 100x probe with scope menu at 100x. Chanel 2 probe is set at 1x and scope menu is set at 10x with Inverted selected.
Thank you for your time.
Luc
Luc,
I would say that the second shot with more cycles is the better bet. Note, you need about 10 cycles of the MATH trace, not the voltage or current traces to get an accurate power computation.
I am finding that the GRID power measurement does not seem reliable in my setup at least. I am using a 10uF cap, and 10 Ohm resistor. Depending on which CSR I use, I get a different GRID power.
For example, with the 0.1 Ohm CSR, I get a GRID power of about +3.8W (your probe config. and not inverted btw). With my non-inductive 0.25 Ohm CSR, I get a GRID power of about +2.5W. The power in the 10 Ohm measures to about 1.5W using a DMM, and compared against a DC control it is close at about 1.3W. So the DMM voltage (4.3VAC) over the resistor value is close, but probably coming out a little high (3.6VAC is more correct).
My wave forms look quite close to what you posted above.
Unfortunately thus far with my setup I can not get the negative MEAN GRID power you have with a couple of your tests. Technically it is supposed to be positive anyway (since I have not inverted CH2), but I was hoping to be able to get close to your -3.15W.
More work ahead to see if I can figure out why it is behaving more or less the way it is supposed to, LOL. btw, you may have noticed that I still have 1W or so unaccounted for. I was able to measure about 0.6W being dissipated in the 10uF cap, but still short.
btw, I tried your little trick of using a x1 voltage probe as a "current probe" while setting up the channel to measure current directly with the proper scaling. Seems to work ok. ;) Sorry for giving you a hard time about that.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 10:58:10 PM
Luc,
I would say that the second shot with more cycles is the better bet. Note, you need about 10 cycles of the MATH trace, not the voltage or current traces to get an accurate power computation.
I am finding that the GRID power measurement does not seem reliable in my setup at least. I am using a 10uF cap, and 10 Ohm resistor. Depending on which CSR I use, I get a different GRID power.
For example, with the 0.1 Ohm CSR, I get a GRID power of about +3.8W (your probe config. and not inverted btw). With my non-inductive 0.25 Ohm CSR, I get a GRID power of about +2.5W. The power in the 10 Ohm measures to about 1.5W using a DMM, and compared against a DC control it is close at about 1.3W. So the DMM voltage (4.3VAC) over the resistor value is close, but probably coming out a little high (3.6VAC is more correct).
My wave forms look quite close to what you posted above.
Unfortunately thus far with my setup I can not get the negative MEAN GRID power you have with a couple of your tests. Technically it is supposed to be positive anyway (since I have not inverted CH2), but I was hoping to be able to get close to your -3.15W.
More work ahead to see if I can figure out why it is behaving more or less the way it is supposed to, LOL. btw, you may have noticed that I still have 1W or so unaccounted for. I was able to measure about 0.6W being dissipated in the 10uF cap, but still short.
btw, I tried your little trick of using a x1 voltage probe as a "current probe" while setting up the channel to measure current directly with the proper scaling. Seems to work ok. ;) Sorry for giving you a hard time about that.
Okay, thanks for the update!
but I'm getting a little confused... why are you measuring without channel 2 Inversion when you said without doing that I'm getting the wrong readings?
And can you please tell me what the power is on the scope shots I provided above with channel 2 Inverted since I no longer know how to read a scope.
Thanks for your time
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2014, 11:43:58 PM
Okay, thanks for the update!
but I'm getting a little confused... why are you measuring without channel 2 Inversion when you said without doing that I'm getting the wrong readings?
The first task is to try to replicate your results the way YOU produced them. So I am trying the measurements the same way you are doing them. If and when I get the same or similar results (i.e. a negative MEAN GRID power), then I can move on.
Quote
And can you please tell me what the power is on the scope shots I provided you with above with channel 2 Inverted since I no longer know how to read a scope.
What do you mean you no longer know how to read it. It is the MEAN value as before. I see +194mW.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 10:58:10 PM
Unfortunately thus far with my setup I can not get the negative MEAN GRID power you have with a couple of your tests. Technically it is supposed to be positive anyway (since I have not inverted CH2), but I was hoping to be able to get close to your -3.15W.
If you Isolate your scope from grid then use 240vac and you should get a negative means
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2014, 11:51:31 PM
If you Isolate your scope from grid then use 240vac and you should get a negative means
Luc
I guess I can try that, but you were getting it on a single phase. And I did isolate the gnd on my scope. Do you mean transformer isolation as well?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 11:50:17 PM
The first task is to try to replicate your results the way YOU produced them. So I am trying the measurements the same way you are doing them. If and when I get the same or similar results (i.e. a negative MEAN GRID power), then I can move on.
Okay, I understand. I posted above how to get there but you'll need a 100x probe to display the 240v
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 11:50:17 PM
What do you mean you no longer know how to read it. It is the MEAN value as before. I see +194mW.
Okay, so you're sure by using the Inverted probe that the power I'm using from the grid is 194mW. If so, we have a big problem now! because the load has 8 watts more than the input.
What to do now?
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 11:53:11 PM
I guess I can try that, but you were getting it on a single phase. And I did isolate the gnd on my scope. Do you mean transformer isolation as well?
I have a 1 to 1 Isolation transformer on my scope. You'll need that for sure since the scope grounds will be connected to the other hot side of your 120v main.
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 04, 2014, 11:53:11 PM
I guess I can try that, but you were getting it on a single phase. And I did isolate the gnd on my scope. Do you mean transformer isolation as well?
You can also try 15uf or 20uf and see what you get on 120v alone.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2014, 11:57:29 PM
Okay, I understand. I posted above how to get there but you'll need a 100x probe to display the 240v
Not a problem, in fact I have a high voltage differential probe that I can use for that.
Quote
Okay, so you're sure by using the Inverted probe that the power I'm using from the grid is 194mW. If so we have a big problem because the load has 8 watts more than the input.
What to do now?
Luc
I am pretty sure the scope is correctly computing what you are giving it. I don't know however how exactly you have things set up inside the scope. Is the scope getting a clean measurement, and are there any issues with grounding? (rhetorical questions). Transformer isolation may be in order here, as I see a small voltage across the CSR even when the HOT is disconnected.
You measured the load with your DMM correct? It worries me a bit because of what I saw and the fact that the wave form it is reading is far from sinusoidal, and far from pure 60Hz.
Also, as I said at the present moment I am not very confident in the GRID power measurement itself.
Where to go from here? When things seem too good to be true in terms of power measurements, they usually are. Which means we should be finding a way to double check our findings. My feeling is that you might have a large reactance somewhere that is skewing the power measurement. You are getting almost zero Grid power, yet you are dissipating significant power in your load.
I don't know Luc. Send me your parts, and I'll send you mine?
I'll have to bring in the isolation transformer from work. Do you also have the gnd isolated? I ask because even isolation transformers can carry the earth ground across.
Luc,
I forgot to ask you; you have +194mW displayed for GRID power when CH2 is inverted. What power is displayed when CH2 is NOT inverted?
Ah man!... things are getting much worse now :o ... I've got 90 watts out and a negative Mean.
Are you sure this is the right way?
I'm running out of water to cool my resistors :'(
See the scope shot
Luc
Why are Luc's scopeshots so pixellated? I've never seen them like that from a Tek scope before. Even if the traces themselves are rough because they only represent a small number of samples, the text boxes and the rest of the image should be in higher resolution, shouldn't they?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 12:21:38 AM
even isolation transformers can carry the earth ground across.
Really!... mine is just a raw transformer with 2 screws on each side, so only hot an neutral is connected on in and on scope side I don't connect the ground to anything. So how can ground be carried over?
Luc
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 12:59:14 AM
Why are Luc's scopeshots so pixellated? I've never seen them like that from a Tek scope before. Even if the traces themselves are rough because they only represent a small number of samples, the text boxes and the rest of the image should be in higher resolution, shouldn't they?
Probably because I open them in windows image viewer and use screenshot pilot and make a png file so I can upload then. This site is not accepting bitmap (Tek regular file format) for some reason.
Luc
Here is a zip of the original file.
BTW, the load is 15 Ohm 1% 50w resistors connected to 3 Series 12v batteries at 37 volts DC, so no error on power to the load.
It's 1:25am and been a long day, so I'm closing up for the night. I'll pickup more of my 12v batteries from storage tomorrow so we can see how far we can take this.
Stay tuned and please try to find the error as this is too simple!
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 01:06:14 AM
Probably because I open them in windows image viewer and use screenshot pilot and make a png file so I can upload then. This site is not accepting bitmap (Tek regular file format) for some reason.
Luc
Hi Luc
Dose your scope have a USB output?-this is how i take my screen shot's.I then open the saved file on the thumb drive in windows paint,and save as a JPEG.They come out just as i see it on the scope.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 01:00:42 AM
Really!... mine is just a raw transformer with 2 screws on each side, so only hot an neutral is connected on in and on scope side I don't connect the ground to anything. So how can ground be carried over?
Luc
Mine does, and I think most variacs do too. Just saying that they can, but yours apparently doesn't.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 01:12:45 AM
Here is a zip of the original file.
BTW, the load is 15 Ohm 1% 50w resistors connected to 3 Series 12v batteries at 37 volts DC, so no error on power to the load.
It's 1:25am and been a long day, so I'm closing up for the night. I'll pickup more of my 12v batteries from storage tomorrow so we can see how far we can take this.
Stay tuned and please try to find the error as this is too simple!
Luc
I'm not sure I'm following you there Luc. What are you doing exactly?
Quote Poynt: btw, I tried your little trick of using a x1 voltage probe as a "current probe" while setting up the channel to measure current directly with the proper scaling. Seems to work ok. Sorry for giving you a hard time about that.
This is what it's all about guy's-even the best have things they can still learn.
Luc
In regards to your last video-something seems not right. Are your DMM's reading rms voltage?. The reason i ask is this.
The prime mover uses 157-158 watt's-with or with out the reactive circuit switched on.
Without the reactive circuit switched on,your exciter circuit meters read this- 167.2volts @ 1.405 amp's. This is 234.916 watt's ???-asumeing a power factor of 1.
Poynt-How can we get the power factor of the tank circuit?. If i place my scope across the cap for volts,and use a CSR for amp's,and the two wave forms are in phase,dose this mean a power factor of 1?.
In the scope shot's below,i have placed the probes so as the current channel(blue) is across a .1 ohm 5 watt resistor that is in series with the cap and exciter winding's.The voltage probe(yellow) is across the cap on the exciter circuit.Looking at the scope,i think we can eliminate any chance that our DMM's are giving us an accurate reading.You will also see that the voltage is leading the current by around 90*-if you can make any sence of the wave forms.
the scope shots below are without the reactive circuit in place.
1-both voltage and current.
2-voltage alone
3-current alone.
Below are the scope shots that acompany the above,but with the reactive circuit in place and running.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2014, 11:57:29 PM
Okay, I understand. I posted above how to get there but you'll need a 100x probe to display the 240v
Okay, so you're sure by using the Inverted probe that the power I'm using from the grid is 194mW. If so, we have a big problem now! because the load has 8 watts more than the input.
What to do now?
Luc
Luc-one thing is for sure-this is well worth looking at. I mean,who would ever have placed a scope across the exciter circuit of a generator to see what was going on in there?. Well now i have,and what a sight to see lol.
I would like to know more about the above mentioned circuit-could you post a scematic please?.
194mW in and 8.194Watts out-sounds like something i would realy like to try and replicate.
No matter what the outcome of this is,it has been a most enjoyable exercise-thanks so much Luc and Poynt for your efforts.
Brad
I asked about the pixellated resolution of Luc's scopeshots from the Tek, which should be capable of a lot higher resolution.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 01:06:14 AM
Probably because I open them in windows image viewer and use screenshot pilot and make a png file so I can upload then. This site is not accepting bitmap (Tek regular file format) for some reason.
Luc
Hmm... this site doesn't accept .bmp uploads because they are large files and there are better image formats that save space. You can take the Tek's native .bmp output and convert it to jpg or png in just about any graphics application, without loss of resolution.
And as I found out during the Ainslie affair, if you don't actually convert but simply change the extension from .bmp to .jpg, the file will then upload to the forum and display in-line here on the forum, but when it is downloaded to our computers from the download link below the inline display, it will need to have its extension changed back to .bmp to display on our computers. This is a cheat though and overrides Stefan's restriction on uploading .bmps... but it does work.
But what you describe can't be the ultimate reason, because I use the same process and the same screenshot pilot program myself to make screenshots of my old Link DSO, saved as .png for upload here, and I get images that look like this 40 kb image: (a screenshot pilot grab of the DSO window):
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 01:12:45 AM
Here is a zip of the original file.
BTW, the load is 15 Ohm 1% 50w resistors connected to 3 Series 12v batteries at 37 volts DC, so no error on power to the load.
It's 1:25am and been a long day, so I'm closing up for the night. I'll pickup more of my 12v batteries from storage tomorrow so we can see how far we can take this.
Stay tuned and please try to find the error as this is too simple!
Luc
I don't know where the error is, but I see now why the scopeshots are so pixellated, the scope is set to save them at 320x240 resolution. And from looking at manuals it seems that might be as good as you can get. Maybe Poynt99 can give some advice as to how to get better resolution.
Sorry for the distraction, it's not really important, just hard for my old eyes to read your images especially with a lot of cycles and traces displayed.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 01:42:21 AM
Mine does, and I think most variacs do too. Just saying that they can, but yours apparently doesn't.
I suggest checking with an ohmmeter just to be sure that the two sides are actually completely isolated and that the neutral isn't common to both sides of the isolation transformer. I've seen ones (even Solas) that had the neutral common, so they didn't achieve full isolation after all.
Every Variac I've seen has one terminal in common to both input and output sides, so they don't really isolate.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 01:12:45 AM
Here is a zip of the original file.
BTW, the load is 15 Ohm 1% 50w resistors connected to 3 Series 12v batteries at 37 volts DC, so no error on power to the load.
It's 1:25am and been a long day, so I'm closing up for the night. I'll pickup more of my 12v batteries from storage tomorrow so we can see how far we can take this.
Stay tuned and please try to find the error as this is too simple!
Luc
OK, the negative math mean is only about one-twentieth of one vertical division (math trace is 200 V-V per div). This could easily be a sampling or calibration error. The "mean" of an approximately sinusoidal waveform like the math result should be approximately zero. In order for human eyeballs to check the scope's math it would be nice to have only three or four full cycles displayed, so that areas above and below the zero reference could be compared by external means.
Since the negative value is so small compared to the overall signal (nearly 800 V-V p-p) I am skeptical that it is real.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 03:54:23 AM
I don't know where the error is, but I see now why the scopeshots are so pixellated, the scope is set to save them at 320x240 resolution. And from looking at manuals it seems that might be as good as you can get. Maybe Poynt99 can give some advice as to how to get better resolution.
Sorry for the distraction, it's not really important, just hard for my old eyes to read your images especially with a lot of cycles and traces displayed.
And personally; my scope (rigol ds10something), the math is done with the value shown on the screen and not what is in the sample buffer... so it's pathetic low resolution like that even though it's 2Msa stored....like the values change if I change the time...
Quote from: d3x0r on January 05, 2014, 04:44:10 AM
And personally; my scope (rigol ds10something), the math is done with the value shown on the screen and not what is in the sample buffer... so it's pathetic low resolution like that even though it's 2Msa stored....like the values change if I change the time...
I think that's why .99 asked for many cycles on-screen. Maybe Luc's Tek also only does math on the screen display too. It's always a tradeoff, I guess. The old Link pc-DSO that was donated to me can do its math and measurements on the entire sample buffer, or just what's displayed on the screen, as the user chooses, but its math is limited and it can't do trace multiplication. Some other scopes I've used, like the early LeCroy WaveRunner 104x, seem to incorporate the trace offset into the math, so one needs to be very careful about where the baselines are set. Luc is setting them all at the screen center, I think, so that's not likely to be a problem here.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 01:06:14 AM
Probably because I open them in windows image viewer and use screenshot pilot and make a png file so I can upload then. This site is not accepting bitmap (Tek regular file format) for some reason.
Luc
According to the manual, you have the following image file format options to save to:
bmp, pcx, tiff, rle, epsimage, jpeg
I would suggest trying tiff and jpeg. I don't see where one can change the resolution though.
btw, nice scope Luc. Where did you buy it?
Quote from: d3x0r on January 05, 2014, 04:44:10 AM
And personally; my scope (rigol ds10something), the math is done with the value shown on the screen and not what is in the sample buffer... so it's pathetic low resolution like that even though it's 2Msa stored....like the values change if I change the time...
The value changes with the Tek scopes too. Once you have about 10 or so cycles of the MATH trace, the value does not change even if you put more cycles on the screen.
The screen in these DSO's is closely tied to the resolution of the converters. The converters are 8-bit, and there is effectively one for positive and one for negative excursions. So the zero ref line is the LSB and the top and bottom of the screen is the MSB. That's why it is recommended that all your wave forms be placed at the center for best accuracy. You should also try to use most of the "vertical deflection" before clipping.
Until 12 or 16 bit high speed converters are affordable, we just have to live with this limitation.
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2014, 02:10:48 AM
Poynt-How can we get the power factor of the tank circuit?. If i place my scope across the cap for volts,and use a CSR for amp's,and the two wave forms are in phase,dose this mean a power factor of 1?.
If the wave forms are like that posted (i.e. non-sinusoidal), it might be difficult to get the PF.
To get PF with two sine waves, you first obtain the phase angle (in degrees) between them. Then it is just a matter of taking the COS of the angle with your calculator.
COS 0º = 1
COS 45º = 0.707
COS 90º = 0
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2014, 10:47:00 PM
Hi everyone,
I uploaded a video which is unlisted. I did this not to confuse other researcher from other sites and so on since this video is related to the discussion going on here.
So here is a test a la TinMan of my best score yet
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyoT9I3_93w&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyoT9I3_93w&feature=youtu.be)
I may also have another interesting thing in the works and will share when I confirm the ideal values for maximum output.
Stay tuned
Luc
Luc, isn't your watt meter plugged into the output of your generator?
Never mind. I see that it is plugged into the AC feed to the genset, which is feeding your motor.
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2014, 02:10:48 AM
Luc
In regards to your last video-something seems not right. Are your DMM's reading rms voltage?. The reason i ask is this.
The prime mover uses 157-158 watt's-with or with out the reactive circuit switched on.
Without the reactive circuit switched on,your exciter circuit meters read this- 167.2volts @ 1.405 amp's. This is 234.916 watt's ??? -asumeing a power factor of 1.
I'm sure most of that is apparent power. And the wave forms are probably similar to your own so the meter measurements aren't going to be very accurate.
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2014, 03:06:34 AM
Below are the scope shots that acompany the above,but with the reactive circuit in place and running.
By eye-balling it, I would say the PF is pretty close to 0. Obviously it won't be zero because some power is being consumed by the exciter circuit.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 12:52:44 AM
Ah man!... things are getting much worse now :o ... I've got 90 watts out and a negative Mean.
Are you sure this is the right way?
I'm running out of water to cool my resistors :'(
See the scope shot
Luc
Luc,
Please confirm what the MEAN power reading is when NOT inverting CH2.
Thanks.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2014, 03:52:30 PM
So this is what you want to know?
I have shared that 30 watts is the max I can pull out of my gen. Anything above that and the prime mover has to supply more energy in the standard way.
My generator has a 12uf cap for exciter field. Cap connected and prime mover needs about 158 watts to turn gen at 3500 RPM. If I disconnect the exciter cap the prime mover needs about 100 watts to turn the gen head. Prime mover is 3600 RPM max.
Hope this helps
Luc
I see, thanks.
So the gen exciter circuit requires about 60W. I wonder if that 60W increases as the gen is loaded?
So once you start drawing more than 30W from the gen, the motor power indicated on the meter starts to increase as well, and under 30W the motor power remains at a relatively steady 158W?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 12:29:56 PM
So once you start drawing more than 30W from the gen, the motor power indicated on the meter starts to increase as well, and under 30W the motor power remains at a relatively steady 158W?
So, at this point in the investigation, it would appear that Luc has a system electrical efficiency of around 19% with a fixed load of 15R. This seems rather low, so I imagine that the efficiency should increase to some extent as the load is varied?? Hopefully Luc will plot a loading curve to show where optimum efficiency appears on his setup.
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2014, 01:34:02 AM
Hi Luc
Dose your scope have a USB output?-this is how i take my screen shot's.I then open the saved file on the thumb drive in windows paint,and save as a JPEG.They come out just as i see it on the scope.
Hi TinMan,
I'll give it a try. I was saving it on a USB stick then to computer.
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 01:42:21 AM
Mine does, and I think most variacs do too. Just saying that they can, but yours apparently doesn't.
I'm not using my variac as Isolation transformer. I'm using a real Isolation transformer.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 01:44:01 AM
I'm not sure I'm following you there Luc. What are you doing exactly?
What I was doing is using 240v AC through 18uf Series cap through a FWBR in series. The DC of the rectifier is connected to three 12v batteries in series and the 15 Ohm load is connected across the 36v of the batteries.
I made a video demo of it and will soon have it up
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2014, 02:10:48 AM
Luc
In regards to your last video-something seems not right. Are your DMM's reading rms voltage?. The reason i ask is this.
The prime mover uses 157-158 watt's-with or with out the reactive circuit switched on.
Without the reactive circuit switched on,your exciter circuit meters read this- 167.2volts @ 1.405 amp's. This is 234.916 watt's ??? -asumeing a power factor of 1.
Yes, they are true RMS if the sine wave is clean!... I was just showing you what mine did the way you did so you could see the difference.
As far as explaining... your asking the wrong guy.
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 09:35:18 AM
According to the manual, you have the following image file format options to save to:
bmp, pcx, tiff, rle, epsimage, jpeg
I would suggest trying tiff and jpeg. I don't see where one can change the resolution though.
btw, nice scope Luc. Where did you buy it?
Okay, I'll look into it. What if I connect it directly to my computer through USB is there an application for it?
The Scope is a loaner from Thane Heins
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 10:15:54 AM
Luc, isn't your watt meter plugged into the output of your generator?
Never mind. I see that it is plugged into the AC feed to the genset, which is feeding your motor.
No!... it's connected across the gen exciter coil and cap.
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 12:29:56 PM
I see, thanks.
So the gen exciter circuit requires about 60W. I wonder if that 60W increases as the gen is loaded?
As soon as you add a resistive load the power to prime mover goes up in the standard way. 10 watts out takes about 11watts in
Only the reactive circuit if tuned correct will have no effect but seems to have a limit of around 35 watts output.
So once you start drawing more than 30W from the gen, the motor power indicated on the meter starts to increase as well, and under 30W the motor power remains at a relatively steady 158W?
Yes, but I can make it go the other way also. Less watts to the load and drop the 158 watts to 120 watts if tuned that way. TinMan demonstrated this in his video.
Luc
Okay, here is a video demo of the circuit I was getting 90 watts out for an apparently smaller amount in.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr2-qIX9G3U&feature=youtu.be
I'm off for a visit to my girl friend so won't be able to do anything more till Monday some time. I'll have my laptop and may answer questions.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 03:02:13 PM
Okay, I'll look into it. What if I connect it directly to my computer through USB is there an application for it?
The Scope is a loaner from Thane Heins
Luc
Yes, you can connect the scope directly to your PC through the rear USB port, but you will need to install the software in order for the scope to be recognized (drivers) and to port over the images. I'm not sure if Tektronix has the software freely downloadable from their website, but I will check.
That was nice of Thane to do that. You must be one of only a few people that are in his good books.
ETA:
OK, I found the free software. It is called "Openchoice Desktop Application"
http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/tds210-software/openchoice-desktop-application-tdspcs1-v23-0 (http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/tds210-software/openchoice-desktop-application-tdspcs1-v23-0)
You need to log in to download it. I am downloading now. It is 414MB. How may I get this to you?
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 03:08:23 PM
No!... it's connected across the gen exciter coil and cap.
Luc
I meant the Watt meter that is plugged in to your generator, not your DMM meters.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 03:26:11 PM
Okay, here is a video demo of the circuit I was getting 90 watts out for an apparently smaller amount in.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr2-qIX9G3U&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr2-qIX9G3U&feature=youtu.be)
Thank you Luc. You answered my question. For your other tests where you had a negative MEAN and CH2 was inverted, did the MEAN value also change when you went to non-inverted? By change, I don't just mean from negative to positive, but did the actual value change too like it did in this video?
This gives me something now I can investigate.
btw, the MEAN value amplitude should be the same (to the best of my knowledge) when changing from inverted to non-inverted, so something strange may be happening there. ???
OK Luc,
I've figured out a big part of the puzzle.
Thank you for showing the channel settings on your scope. When I changed the coupling on both channels to "AC" on my scope, I got the negative MEAN value. I of course have been using "DC" coupling, and you need to also.
The reason that we can't use AC coupling is because doing so inserts a capacitor in series with the probe input. The capacitor is not large enough in value to pass 60Hz without altering it, and it is this alteration (change in wave shape) that is causing your negative MEAN value.
Even if I only change the CH2 probe back and forth from AC to DC coupling, the MEAN value will change from +2.5W to -2.5W. You can see a slight change in the CH2 wave form shape when changing back and forth.
See the attached for a bit of info. With square waves, you can see how much it changes the wave shape, even at 80Hz. We are not using square waves, but the CSR wave form does contain many higher frequencies than 60Hz.
Try changing both channels to "DC" coupling. I think you might see a significant difference in your results.
Now, I still have to figure out why your scope is not displaying the same MEAN value regardless if CH2 is inverted or not (only the polarity should change). They should be the same, and I have confirmed this again with my measurement. The fact that yours changes tells me that there is some sort of offset somewhere that is causing an imbalance so to speak.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 04:46:36 PM
OK, I found the free software. It is called "Openchoice Desktop Application"
http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/tds210-software/openchoice-desktop-application-tdspcs1-v23-0 (http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/tds210-software/openchoice-desktop-application-tdspcs1-v23-0)
You need to log in to download it. I am downloading now. It is 414MB. How may I get this to you?
Would it not be just as easy for me to download it then for you to upload it to a fileshare place?
So not sure what to answer on this one.
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 10:15:54 AM
Luc, isn't your watt meter plugged into the output of your generator?
Never mind. I see that it is plugged into the AC feed to the genset, which is feeding your motor.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 05:01:42 PM
I meant the Watt meter that is plugged in to your generator, not your DMM meters.
Okay, I now understand!... I modified the gen panel plugs, one is connected to grid (with plug in watt meter) and the other plug is the gen output.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 06:41:16 PM
Would it not be just as easy for me to download it then for you to upload it to a fileshare place?
So not sure what to answer on this one.
Luc
Sure.
You'll have to register with them. Your choice.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 06:16:32 PM
OK Luc,
I've figured out a big part of the puzzle.
Thank you for showing the channel settings on your scope. When I changed the coupling on both channels to "AC" on my scope, I got the negative MEAN value. I of course have been using "DC" coupling, and you need to also.
The reason that we can't use AC coupling is because doing so inserts a capacitor in series with the probe input. The capacitor is not large enough in value to pass 60Hz without altering it, and it is this alteration (change in wave shape) that is causing your negative MEAN value.
Even if I only change the CH2 probe back and forth from AC to DC coupling, the MEAN value will change from +2.5W to -2.5W. You can see a slight change in the CH2 wave form shape when changing back and forth.
See the attached for a bit of info. With square waves, you can see how much it changes the wave shape, even at 80Hz. We are not using square waves, but the CSR wave form does contain many higher frequencies than 60Hz.
Try changing both channels to "DC" coupling. I think you might see a significant difference in your results.
Now, I still have to figure out why your scope is not displaying the same MEAN value regardless if CH2 is inverted or not (only the polarity should change). They should be the same, and I have confirmed this again with my measurement. The fact that yours changes tells me that there is some sort of offset somewhere that is causing an imbalance so to speak.
Okay, something new learned!... DC coupling when wanting accurate math results from an AC source.
Not a problem. I will do that from tomorrow on.
Thanks for finding that one.
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 06:48:18 PM
Sure.
You'll have to register with them. Your choice.
Well, if you're ready to upload it to some file share then I'll take you up on the offer. It would be easier then to register and all.
Thanks for your help.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 06:56:46 PM
Okay, something new learned!... DC coupling when wanting accurate math results from an AC source.
Not a problem. I will do that from tomorrow on.
Thanks for finding that one.
Luc
You're welcome.
I had another gander at the CH2 wave form while changing from AC to DC coupling, and not only does the wave shape change a little, the phase shifts a little too.
This post is for TinMan,
I was thinking over the the battery charging of my last video and thought you are well setup to take advantage of this interesting effect since your prime mover is DC.
After I made the video for you of the meters on the exciter side of my Gen which was tuned to output the most AC on a 15 ohm load, I decided to test with a Series FWBR instead of the 15 ohm load and connect the DC side to a battery. Nothing special other than I could reduce my series cap bank to 15uf instead of 25uf. Then I decided to add a second battery in series so now I would have 24.6vdc on the 15 ohm load, now that was special since I didn't change the 15uf cap and the batteries maintained the voltage and we now have 40 watts on the load. I didn't add a third battery to see if it could keep going up since I decided to test it on the 240vac grid to see the effects and that is the last video I shared.
I would suggest you test it and see how far you can take it and who knows, maybe there will eventually be enough power to feed the prime mover. This is the goal of this research and you are well set up for it now.
I'm also starting to think the smaller batteries not maintaining there charge maybe due to the load being above the batteries charge rate capability.
All the best with your tests
Luc
Here are two scope shots (png format saved to flash drive) illustrating the difference the channel coupling makes on the computed MEAN MATH. I only changed the CH2 (current).
First one is with CH2 on DC coupling (how it should be) yielding a positive MEAN power. Second one is with CH2 on AC coupling, yielding a negative MEAN power of almost equal amplitude.
If you save these to your hard drive, then view them in sequence, you will see that the MATH trace moves in the downward direction when going from the DC to AC coupling shots.
For clear viewing, click on pics to see full size.
Here is a photo of the new parts I am using for these tests. I've only used the 10uF thus far, not the 5uF.
Weren't Luc's sample scopeshots showing both channels DC coupled? On Tek scopes I've used, there appears a little "sine wave" symbol next to the channel settings when the channel is AC-coupled, and nothing when the channel is DC coupled. Inversion is shown by the downward pointing arrow.
Poynt, your test shows the effect of AC coupling of one trace on the resultant Math trace mean. But I have a question about the effect on the mean of the original trace itself. Should an AC-coupled signal produce a "mean" value of zero, for that trace itself, before entering into the multiplication math trace?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 09:06:16 PM
Weren't Luc's sample scopeshots showing both channels DC coupled? On Tek scopes I've used, there appears a little "sine wave" symbol next to the channel settings when the channel is AC-coupled, and nothing when the channel is DC coupled. Inversion is shown by the downward pointing arrow.
I don't know, I didn't check the screen on the video.
All I can say for sure right now is that Luc had both channels set to AC coupling in his last video, and I doubt he has ever changed that setting, at least not for a while. One could go look at the video and see if the little squiggle is there.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 09:10:45 PM
Poynt, your test shows the effect of AC coupling of one trace on the resultant Math trace mean. But I have a question about the effect on the mean of the original trace itself. Should an AC-coupled signal produce a "mean" value of zero, for that trace itself, before entering into the multiplication math trace?
I'm not sure I fully understand all of your question.
A DC coupled trace will produce a zero MEAN if the area of excursions above and below the zero ref line are equal.
An AC coupled trace will always produce a zero MEAN I think because the zero ref line always settles to the average value of the wave form.
It is irrelevant if the voltage or current trace have a MEAN of zero, because the MEAN of the trace doesn't enter into the multiplication. We're only taking the MEAN of the product. Make sense?
OK Luc.
Here is the link to that software for your scope. Hopefully the link works.
http://depositfiles.com/files/89djph9ky
Let me know when you have it, as I'll probably delete it afterwards.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 09:18:30 PM
I don't know, I didn't check the screen on the video.
All I can say for sure right now is that Luc had both channels set to AC coupling in his last video, and I doubt he has ever changed that setting, at least not for a while. One could go look at the video and see if the little squiggle is there.
OK, I checked the screen on the video and it does not indicate AC coupling by the usual squiggle. Very tricky; there doesn't seem to be any way to tell the channel coupling except by going into the setup menu, where we can see that Luc has AC coupling set on both channels. The coupling isn't indicated on the normal scopeshot apparently. That's a "gotcha" that means one needs to be very careful using that particular scope model. As we can see, your higher-end Tek scope indicates clearly the coupling with the sine wave squiggle.
The coupling issue has come up before. Many people seem to think that you need to use AC coupling to measure an AC signal, but as we now know, that's not what it's for at all. Looking at how the scope accomplishes the miracle of AC coupling might help one to understand just what it does and how it's used. AC coupling merely switches in a capacitor in series with the probe input lead, blocking the DC component of any input signal and only letting the AC component pass to the scope's input.
Yeah, good to know that some Tek scopes don't have that squiggly indicating AC coupling.
Well, glad it got sorted though. Will be interesting to see if Luc's results change as dramatically as I showed.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2014, 09:32:10 PM
I'm not sure I fully understand all of your question.
A DC coupled trace will produce a zero MEAN if the area of excursions above and below the zero ref line are equal.
An AC coupled trace will always produce a zero MEAN I think because the zero ref line always settles to the average value of the wave form.
It is irrelevant if the voltage or current trace have a MEAN of zero, because the MEAN of the trace doesn't enter into the multiplication. We're only taking the MEAN of the product. Make sense?
Yes, makes sense. Yes, that is exactly what I was asking. Yes, it is in line with my prior understanding and with my empirical experience with scopes.
The issue isn't irrelevant though when the change from AC to DC coupling is considered. It's the change in the trace mean that carries over to the math trace and causes the differences there, even if the trace mean itself isn't explicitly computed. I think.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 09:50:28 PM
The issue isn't irrelevant though when the change from AC to DC coupling is considered. It's the change in the trace mean that carries over to the math trace and causes the differences there, even if the trace mean itself isn't explicitly computed. I think.
Partially true. In this case though I don't believe we are seeing a change in the MEAN value before multiplication.
You don't have to have a shift in the MEAN value of one of the multiplicands in order to see the resulting product exhibit a different MEAN value. A simple phase shift can produce the same result.
Hi Luc,
I just watched your video reactive battery charging. Why the resistor? Since the current through the resistor is not constant the voltage is not either and when the moment the voltage across the resistor is lower than the batteries the batteries are drained and not charged.You don't need the resistor. The high voltage is not seen by the battery, it only sees the current.
To match a cap to a particular battery as to not get too high current do this calculation:
C = Ah / (20 V 2 pi f)
The voltage of the battery is not important as long as it is relative low to V. As an example in my case:
Ah = 24, V = 230, f = 50
C = 24/(20 * 230 * 2 * pi * 50) = 17 uF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSssnbLzTIw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSssnbLzTIw)
This can also be done with a coil, but the calculation needs to be changed:
L = 20 V / (Ah 2 pi f)
As an example in my case:
Ah = 24, V = 230, f = 50
L = 20 * 230 / (24 * 2 * pi * 50) = 610 mH
I tried this with one of my generator-coils but only my MOT test is on video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LSTBMwC_lc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LSTBMwC_lc)
And of cource if You put the cap and the coil in the usual resonance formula You get:
1/(2 pi sqrt(L C)) = 1/(2 pi sqrt(610e-3 * 17e-6)) = 50 Hz (close to)
Back to the battery; it functions as a resistor with external resistance:
RB = VB/I
where RB = battery external resistance and VB = battery voltage
This means that the resistance decrease with higher current, and when the current goes to zero the resistance goes to infinity. So when the current and the voltage are close to 90 deg apart, the battery allows the current to pass but "blocks" the voltage. Kind of.
/Hob
On the question of whether Luc used AC or DC coupling, he shows in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yudbBBSS58&feature=youtu.be) video (from 03:18) that all channels are set to AC.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 07:14:08 PM
This post is for TinMan,
I was thinking over the the battery charging of my last video and thought you are well setup to take advantage of this interesting effect since your prime mover is DC.
After I made the video for you of the meters on the exciter side of my Gen which was tuned to output the most AC on a 15 ohm load, I decided to test with a Series FWBR instead of the 15 ohm load and connect the DC side to a battery. Nothing special other than I could reduce my series cap bank to 15uf instead of 25uf. Then I decided to add a second battery in series so now I would have 24.6vdc on the 15 ohm load, now that was special since I didn't change the 15uf cap and the batteries maintained the voltage and we now have 40 watts on the load. I didn't add a third battery to see if it could keep going up since I decided to test it on the 240vac grid to see the effects and that is the last video I shared.
I would suggest you test it and see how far you can take it and who knows, maybe there will eventually be enough power to feed the prime mover. This is the goal of this research and you are well set up for it now.
I'm also starting to think the smaller batteries not maintaining there charge maybe due to the load being above the batteries charge rate capability.
All the best with your tests
Luc
Hi Luc
It just so happens that i had the same idea,and started testing this very circuit you are talking about yesterday. I must admit that at first i was interested in this setup of your's,but then realised that the power could have been coming from the exciter circuit-and we now know it was.But when i tried the above mentioned circuit (with batteries),one thing led to another,and im now seeing something in this setup that is leading toward you being correct Luc.
So here is the reason i say this. The generator draws 51 watt's at speed 34 on my setup,and this speed is very close to constant regardless of load,until we exceed the rated power of the motors 400 watts.Once the exciter circuit fires up,the motor draws 135-140 watts. So lets look at what real,reactive and apparent power are.
Quote: Practical loads have resistance, inductance, and capacitance, so both real and reactive power will flow to real loads. Power engineers measure apparent power as the magnitude of the vector sum of real and reactive power. Apparent power is the product of the root-mean-square of voltage and current.
Engineers care about apparent power, because even though the current associated with reactive power does no work at the load, it heats the wires, wasting energy. Conductors, transformers and generators must be sized to carry the total current, not just the current that does useful work.
The above statement makes no sense to me,and seems to be an oxymoron.
Quote:Engineers care about apparent power, because even though the current associated with reactive power does no work at the load, it heats the wires, wasting energy.
Is not heating wires doing work,in the form of creating heat?.This is reactive power doing useful work as far as im concerned.
Anyway,once the exciter circuit is loaded,we can see a decent amount of power being disipated within the circuit,and my 5 watt resistor gets red hot very quickly.Now by useing the right size cap on the generators 240 volt output,i can remove all the power being disipated in the exciter circuit,and bring the prime mover power draw back down to 51 watt's. So lets say that the power we see in the exciter circuit,is the power being delivered to our home's via the grid, and if this is the case,then i see it as being very possable to draw power from the grid,without there being any load placed on the generator at the power station-as im doing it in my workshop. But there is a trick to this,so as no real or active power draw is taken from the system as a whole.
My generator is now basically two reactive circuit's that are 180* out of phase with each other. What i mean by this is one cap(on the gen output) is on the high side of the wave,while the cap on the exciter circuit is on the low side of the wave-this is in reference to how each reactive circuit is hooked to the FWBR. Now the system is unballanced,as the 240 volt windings in the generator are heaver that the exciter circuit winding's-but the results are still good. One AC leg of the FWBR is conected to the high side of one of the reactive circuit's,while the other AC leg of the FWBR is conected to the low side of the other reactive circuit. It seems that because we have only one wire hooked to each reactive circuit,there is no load place on the generator when we draw power from the FWBR.
As time permit's,i will tune this setup so as it's as good as i can get it ,with the parts i have-i dont have a lot of high voltage AC cap's,most of my stuff is DC. Once i have it as best i can get it,i will make a video showing my result's.
Quote from: tinman on January 06, 2014, 06:21:43 AM
Engineers care about apparent power, because even though the current associated with reactive power does no work at the load, it heats the wires, wasting energy. Conductors, transformers and generators must be sized to carry the total current, not just the current that does useful work.
The above statement makes no sense to me,and seems to be an oxymoron.
Quote:Engineers care about apparent power, because even though the current associated with reactive power does no work at the load, it heats the wires, wasting energy.
Is not heating wires doing work,in the form of creating heat?.This is reactive power doing useful work as far as im concerned.
That's kinda debatable, Some of the reactive power returning to the supply is converted to real power and dissipated as heat in the wires. No one I know of wants the wires hot, so the work is unwanted and not useful. The only useful work is work done on/by or whatever in the intended load we are powering like a motor or a light ect.. Although some people might want to risk heating their house with "reactive power related losses", I'm sure I wouldn't, the less active power in the house wiring the better in my opinion.
Just sayin it depends how it's read and how we chose to think about it. I'm all for experiments. Going by the complexities of accurately measuring AC power in such systems I personally in my own experiments would want to see some other form of verifying things. Not saying using the scope is not good. Proof is in the pudding, and no one can deny when lots of work gets seen to be done obviously over and above the input.
I've got my scope out practicing and familiarizing myself more with it in fact, though I'm not so sure mine will give much useful Math calculations. I'll try on something simple first and see what I can calculate and see if the scope will do the same.
I did check a while back my true RMS meter against the scope and they seemed very close, so with a good battery some DMM's can be quite accurate.
Cheers
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 09:46:24 PM
OK, I checked the screen on the video and it does not indicate AC coupling by the usual squiggle. Very tricky; there doesn't seem to be any way to tell the channel coupling except by going into the setup menu, where we can see that Luc has AC coupling set on both channels. The coupling isn't indicated on the normal scopeshot apparently. That's a "gotcha" that means one needs to be very careful using that particular scope model. As we can see, your higher-end Tek scope indicates clearly the coupling with the sine wave squiggle.
The coupling issue has come up before. Many people seem to think that you need to use AC coupling to measure an AC signal, but as we now know, that's not what it's for at all. Looking at how the scope accomplishes the miracle of AC coupling might help one to understand just what it does and how it's used. AC coupling merely switches in a capacitor in series with the probe input lead, blocking the DC component of any input signal and only letting the AC component pass to the scope's input.
Well it looks like i have made the same mistake. I asumed that as we are measureing AC then it should be set to AC coupling-now i have learned something new. As you can see in my last scope shot's,i have the ac wave next to the ch1 ch2 indicator(bottom right hand corner). So now to go change scope to DC coupling,and start over lol.
Realy wish i could get this math crap worked out on my scope.
Below is a picture of the circuit i am testing ATM.The picture represents 1/2 cycle,so as to make it clear what i ment by the FWBR being hooked to the high side of one tank,and the low side of the other tank.
Quote from: tinman on January 06, 2014, 07:39:33 AM
Realy wish i could get this math crap worked out on my scope.
I thought you had it sorted some time ago?
Function AC / DC coupling Controller in Oscilloscope
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2014, 09:38:11 AM
I thought you had it sorted some time ago?
I have sorted the part where you add channel A and B,and get the math trace up on the screen,but still cant find where to read the result of the sum,other than a whole bunch of numbers that make no sense to me.
Can you post a screen shot of A x B?
Maybe the result is buried amongst all the numbers.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 05, 2014, 06:56:46 PM
Okay, something new learned!... DC coupling when wanting accurate math results from an AC source.
Not a problem. I will do that from tomorrow on.
Thanks for finding that one.
Luc
Well, you should be using
DC Coupling for 99.9% of your scope measurements actually.
Hi poynt and all,
here is a video update with the scope set to DC coupling. I'm still questioning the channel 2 Inversion.
Can you please confirm which way it is and what is Watts used
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJ8i5unIwQ&feature=youtu.be
Thanks
Luc
from a ground base; (common/neutral), the probe on the outside of a resistor is positive for a positive current draw.
- load(+ side) - battery - (low, negative side, scope common) - CSR - (probe, high level is positive current) - (load)
Should not be inverted. Inversion should be used if you're biased against the positive as the ground reference.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 06, 2014, 06:14:32 PM
Hi poynt and all,
here is a video update with the scope set to DC coupling. I'm still questioning the channel 2 Inversion.
Can you please confirm which way it is and what is Watts used
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJ8i5unIwQ&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJ8i5unIwQ&feature=youtu.be)
Thanks
Luc
In the probe menu as far I can see your probe (which is a voltage probe), you should not chose current probe. Tek has its own current probes and it knows how to deal with their characteristics. While you have your own shunt and measuring voltage across... you get it. same you should not trust agilent current probe on tek, and so on.
Example of a current probe notice the orifice to insert the cable:
http://cdn7.us.yokogawa.com/uploaded/701928_29_5.jpg (http://cdn7.us.yokogawa.com/uploaded/701928_29_5.jpg)
From Tek:
http://www.tek.com/sites/tek.com/files/media/image/TCP202DCCoupledCurrentProbe-1-L.jpg (http://www.tek.com/sites/tek.com/files/media/image/TCP202DCCoupledCurrentProbe-1-L.jpg)
PS: In fact, there are other types of current probes, for IC, etc. Tek will recognize it from the pins on the connector. All pretty expensive. Since you are not looking at the edge of visible spectrum or brain surgery, you can stick with the poor man's tools, shunt & voltage probe.
Quote from: barbosi on January 06, 2014, 08:19:44 PM
In the probe menu as far I can see your probe (which is a voltage probe), you should not chose current probe. Tek has its own current probes and it knows how to deal with their characteristics. While you have your own shunt and measuring voltage across... you get it. same you should not trust agilent current probe on tek, and so on.
Example of a current probe notice the orifice to insert the cable:
http://cdn7.us.yokogawa.com/uploaded/701928_29_5.jpg (http://cdn7.us.yokogawa.com/uploaded/701928_29_5.jpg)
From Tek:
http://www.tek.com/sites/tek.com/files/media/image/TCP202DCCoupledCurrentProbe-1-L.jpg (http://www.tek.com/sites/tek.com/files/media/image/TCP202DCCoupledCurrentProbe-1-L.jpg)
PS: In fact, there are other types of current probes, for IC, etc. Tek will recognize it from the pins on the connector. All pretty expensive. Since you are not looking at the edge of visible spectrum or brain surgery, you can stick with the poor man's tools, shunt & voltage probe.
We've been through this already here in this thread, and it was I that was giving Luc a hard time about using a voltage probe as a current probe. But I have tried this on my Tek scope and not only does it work, but I can see no reason why it is not a valid method.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2014, 08:40:02 PM
We've been through this already here in this thread, and it was I that was giving Luc a hard time about using a voltage probe as a current probe. But I have tried this on my Tek scope and not only does it work, but I can see no reason why it is not a valid method.
So you determined that a Tek current probe is linear as a 0.1Ohm resistor he is using? Others may not have the shunt like that but rather 700mv@200A. They should know they have to use a different approach.
Or make a standard poorman's procedure, but I may be wrong and all would know how to handle it.
Quote from: barbosi on January 06, 2014, 08:56:06 PM
So you determined that a Tek current probe is linear as a 0.1Ohm resistor he is using? Others may not have the shunt like that but rather 700mv@200A. They should know they have to use a different approach.
Or make a standard poorman's procedure, but I may be wrong and all would know how to handle it.
I determined that using a 0.1 Ohm CSR, one can select current for probe CH2, and one can also set the scaling for 100mV/A so that CH2 will read directly in the correct mA.
Yes, the measurement is sufficiently accurate for these measurements at 60Hz. If that CSR was replaced with a good non-inductive resistor, we could do high frequency measurements as well. Actual Current probes are non-intrusive, but they produce a voltage output just as a voltage probe across a CSR does.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2014, 09:10:11 PM
I determined that using a 0.1 Ohm CSR, one can select current for probe CH2, and one can also set the scaling for 100mV/A so that CH2 will read directly in the correct mA.
So poynt, what is your decision on channel 2... Inverted or not Inverted?
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 06, 2014, 06:14:32 PM
Hi poynt and all,
here is a video update with the scope set to DC coupling. I'm still questioning the channel 2 Inversion.
Can you please confirm which way it is and what is Watts used
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJ8i5unIwQ&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJ8i5unIwQ&feature=youtu.be)
Thanks
Luc
EXCELLENT VIDEO LUC!
- Glad to see the power is much closer when switching between inverted and non-inverted. They should be the same however, and hopefully a channel calibrate will take care of that problem (see next point).
- Please run a "cal" on the scope from the "Utility->DoSelfCal" and check your measurements again. Run scope for 20 min. then disconnect all probes before you run the cal. Check your measurement again, as any offset in the channels should now be compensated. It takes about 5 minutes to run its course.
- DC Coupling on both channels...all good.
- Tip1: For low frequency measurements such as these, it may be beneficial to reduce the scope bandwidth limit (BW) to 20MHz on both channels. This is what I usually do and have done for my measurements here. You will get a slightly cleaner trace and triggering is sometimes less jittery (when traces are spiky).
- Tip2: If you haven't already, set the trigger source to "line".
- I am a little confused about your current probe scaling. I am using a x1 probe, 0.1 Ohm CSR, and scaling is 100mV/A. You sure that making it x10 is correct? The 100mV/A scaling already accounts for the fact that the resistor is 0.1 Ohms, so no need to multiply by 10. Also, I noticed your MATH does not read in Watts anymore; I thought it did before.
- CH2 inverted is (still) the correct way.
Sources compute to a NEGATIVE MEAN power. But I will be making a video to explain all this. So yeah, you should have about -20W (CH2 inverted and the current scale setting is correct) GRID power. And a negative GRID power (with CH2 inverted) does not mean power is going back to the grid. A positive power would however mean power is going back to the grid (with CH2 inverted).
- I'm not sure why your MEAN value did not change much when increasing the number of MATH samples on the display, but it does make a marked difference with my measurement. But it is quite dependent on the wave shape. Sometimes it makes a great difference, others not, but the bottom line is that for an accurate MEAN power measurement, you should
always use at least 10 MATH cycles (5 voltage cycles) on the display.
- Your power reading on the DC Wattmeter fluctuates when you remove the batteries because the meter would be seeing a FWR signal rather than a relatively steady DC.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2014, 09:10:11 PM
I determined that using a 0.1 Ohm CSR, one can select current for probe CH2, and one can also set the scaling for 100mV/A so that CH2 will read directly in the correct mA.
Yes, the measurement is sufficiently accurate for these measurements at 60Hz. If that CSR was replaced with a good non-inductive resistor, we could do high frequency measurements as well. Actual Current probes are non-intrusive, but they produce a voltage output just as a voltage probe across a CSR does.
No need to lecture me, I know for many years how to use a scope.
Are you sales rep for Tek? ask them for a group discount because all should be buying Tek. Or you want to keep this as a 2 people thread with Luc which I doubt?
A propos: What happened with polarities and DVM usage and all that theory you fought for? It was just an insertion tool?
Man, in my life I met hundreds of sales reps, but you are... Don't bother to respond, I won't read, I'm out!
Quote from: barbosi on January 06, 2014, 09:57:09 PM
No need to lecture me, I know for many years how to use a scope.
Are you sales rep for Tek? ask them for a group discount because all should be buying Tek. Or you want to keep this as a 2 people thread with Luc which I doubt?
What's your problem fella? You asked a question, and I answered it appropriately. Sorry that you take offense so easily.
Quote
A propos: What happened with polarities and DVM usage and all that theory you fought for? It was just an insertion tool?
The video to explain the proper channel invert selections when using the common probe placement is coming. I first needed to determine why I was not getting the negative MEAN measurement Luc was, and now that I have resolved that, I can move on. But who are you to be making demands on my schedule and method of approach?
I'm not sure what you are inferring with "DVM usage".
Quote
Man, in my life I met hundreds of sales reps, but you are... Don't bother to respond, I won't read, I'm out!
Happy trails! :D
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2014, 09:55:48 PM
EXCELLENT VIDEO LUC!
- Glad to see the power is much closer when switching between inverted and non-inverted. They should be the same however, and hopefully a channel calibrate will take care of that problem (see next point).
- Please run a "cal" on the scope from the "Utility->DoSelfCal" and check your measurements again. Run scope for 20 min. then disconnect all probes before you run the cal. Check your measurement again, as any offset in the channels should now be compensated. It takes about 5 minutes to run its course.
- DC Coupling on both channels...all good.
- Tip1: For low frequency measurements such as these, it may be beneficial to reduce the scope bandwidth limit (BW) to 20MHz on both channels. This is what I usually do and have done for my measurements here. You will get a slightly cleaner trace and triggering is sometimes less jittery (when traces are spiky).
- Tip2: If you haven't already, set the trigger source to "line".
- I am a little confused about your current probe scaling. I am using a x1 probe, 0.1 Ohm CSR, and scaling is 100mV/A. You sure that making it x10 is correct? The 100mV/A scaling already accounts for the fact that the resistor is 0.1 Ohms, so no need to multiply by 10. Also, I noticed your MATH does not read in Watts anymore; I thought it did before.
- CH2 inverted is (still) the correct way. Sources compute to a NEGATIVE MEAN power. But I will be making a video to explain all this. So yeah, you should have about -20W (CH2 inverted and the current scale setting is correct) GRID power. And a negative GRID power (with CH2 inverted) does not mean power is going back to the grid. A positive power would however mean power is going back to the grid (with CH2 inverted).
- I'm not sure why your MEAN value did not change much when increasing the number of MATH samples on the display, but it does make a marked difference with my measurement. But it is quite dependent on the wave shape. Sometimes it makes a great difference, others not, but the bottom line is that for an accurate measurement, you should always use at least 10 MATH cycles (5 voltage cycles) on the display.
- Your power reading on the DC Wattmeter fluctuates when you remove the batteries because the meter would be seeing a FWR signal rather than mostly DC.
.99
Thanks for all the details. I will do them all.
How about in the Acquire menu... what should be selected there?
Luc
Luc, to summarize:
Channel Settings:
- Coupling = DC
- BW = 20MHz
- Termination = 1M
- Offset: 0.0V, 0.0A
- Leave the vertical scaling to default for now. i.e. don't adjust the fine scale to make the traces the same on the display. This shouldn't have any effect, but just in case for now.
- Current scaling with 0.1 Ohm = 100mV/A (or 10A/V) and x1 attenuation.
Acquire Menu:
- Mode = Sample (for now)
- Record Length = 10k (increasing to 100k did not make any difference for me)
- Delay = don't care
btw, I changed the horizontal scale to see what difference the number of cycles makes for my measurements, and it was as follows:
5 MATH cycles, MEAN=2.37W
12 MATH cycles, MEAN=3.59W
So even if it doesn't seem to make a difference, please make it a habit of using 10 or so MATH cycles when making the critical MEAN power measurement. After you get the measurement, you can always decrease the horizontal to see the wave forms better if you wish.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 06, 2014, 10:59:32 PM
Channel Settings:
- Termination = 1M
- Offset: 0.0V, 0.0A
- Leave the vertical scaling to default for now.
Acquire Menu:
- Record Length = 10k
Okay but all the above I don't see in menus?
Also, I think I see a problem. I tested with my 10 Ohm 1% at 10vac which should = 10 Watts and should be identical when I select Invert but see scope shots below. I added Math Max and Min to see what's going on.
I did the scope auto calibrations with probe removed and it's clear the Math has an offset. Can this be adjusted?
Also, I have found that when I use Fine for vertical scaling and adjust each channel to fill the scope window the most that the readings are more accurate then using coarse setting and having two different size wave forms. I mostly see a difference if I make the Math as large as possible to fit the window. Try it, you should see a small change numbers.
I agree with you that it is better to check more sample to be sure the numbers are accurate or stay the same.
Luc
Luc,
You only have about 6 MATH cycles there. Can you increase the number of cycles and see if there is better correlation between inverted and non-inverted?
Regarding those settings that you can't find, I'll check the manual tomorrow (Tue) and find them for you. They should be there somewhere.
Okay, here you go.
I'm done for the night
Luc
@ Poynt
The only way i can select the math as the source,is in the cursor menu. The shots below are set up as this-ch1 x ch2. DC coupling.Voltage probe(yellow trace)set at 10x,and current probe(blue trace) set at 1x,across a .1 ohm 5 watt resistor.I just cant seem to get it to come up like Luc's shows,with it in the menu bar down the right side-math that is.All i can get is the little box of numbers in top left corner.
I can also get all this junk(below),but only on ch1 and ch2,not math.
As you can see,i realy know my way around a scope.
So here is what i did ,just to lead myself up the garden path a bit. I took the Crms of ch2,which is 168 mV,over our .1 ohm resistor,and come up with a current of 1.68 amp's. then multiplied 1.68 x the Crms of ch1 of 66 volt's. This comes to 110.88 watt's. My watt meter says the motor draws 48 watts without the exciter circuit conected,and 158 watts with the exciter circuit conected. 158-48=110-Oh by the way-all the above scope shots are taken on the exciter circuit-just as a demo.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 07, 2014, 12:58:06 AM
Okay, here you go.
I'm done for the night
Luc
OK, still off a bit.
I guess we'll see if any of those other settings are different.
I wonder if it could be the probe you are using. I am not even using a probe, rather a length of coax with a BNC on one end, and alligator clips on the other.
One thing you may try is changing the termination from 1M to 50 Ohm for the current probe channel.
Quote from: tinman on January 07, 2014, 04:18:51 AM
I can also get all this junk(below),but only on ch1 and ch2,not math.
As you can see,i realy know my way around a scope.
LOL. Well the good news is, that you can do A x B and display it! I don't think we were able to do that several months ago.
So the challenge now is to figure out if you can apply a measurement to the MATH trace. But I suspect that is what you are struggling with at the moment, correct?
I see that you have a MEAN measurement in that mess of numbers, but you say you can't get that for the MATH trace? Hmm. Damn, having the MATH trace is almost useless if you can't apply any measurements to it!
Quote from: gotoluc on January 07, 2014, 12:02:25 AM
Channel Settings:
- Termination = 1M
- Offset: 0.0V, 0.0A
- Leave the vertical scaling to default for now.
Acquire Menu:
- Record Length = 10k
Okay but all the above I don't see in menus?
- OK, You don't have the choice of termination on your scope. 1M is the fixed setting.
- Looks like offset is not included. Good.
- Vertical scaling, I will try it with mine and see what effect if any it has.
- Record Length seems to be fixed at 2500. So no adjustment there.
So I think you have it adjusted as best we can get it for our needs. I am going to perform a similar test you just did above to see how close my measurements correlate when inverting CH2.
Luc,
Just for curiosity sake, try running the calibration again, but this time leave the voltage and current probes connected to the scope. Disconnect them from the circuit though and run the cal. Do this once with the probes open-circuited, then remeasure to observe the balance, and once with the probe tip shorted to the gnd lead. Again remeasure to see if the inverted and non-inverted are any closer.
Hopefully one of these two methods will minimize the slight offset we are seeing. Let me know what you find.
I have done this before, and even though the instructions say to disconnect the probes, I have found that passive probes can sometimes cause some sort of offset, and calibrating with them attached removes this offset.
I tried it and it stopped and displays "self calibration failed at step 3"
I'll try it without my 100x probe
Luc
Here are the shots with the factory 10x probe on channel 1. Looks to me about the same offset as using the 100x probe! so I guess it's not the probe causing the offset.
The load is my 10 Ohm 1% 50w Resistor with 10 volts RMS across it = 10 watts
I also took the opportunity to make my own precision CSR (shunt resistor) out of Resistive wire which makes 0.1 Ohm with about 2 1/8" inch of wire. Now I have a precise CSR which also should more reliable then a wire wound CSR.
I think this should be precise enough to get back to testing. What do you think?
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 07, 2014, 04:43:29 PM
Here are the shots with the factory 10x probe on channel 1. Looks to me about the same offset as using the 100x probe! so I guess it's not the probe causing the offset.
I suspected the current probe might be the problem, not the 100x voltage probe.
Quote
The load is my 10 Ohm 1% 50w Resistor with 10 volts RMS across it = 10 watts
I also took the opportunity to make my own precision CSR (shunt resistor) out of Resistive wire which makes 0.1 Ohm with about 2 1/8" inch of wire. Now I have a precise CSR which also should more reliable then a wire wound CSR.
I think this should be precise enough to get back to testing. What do you think?
Luc
The only potential issue with the nichrome wire idea, is that the value may change quite a bit if it warms up. I guess you will have to try it and see.
Your MEAN values seem a little closer to one another now...within 2%, so perhaps that is acceptable for what we are doing here.
Unless I find something else, I see no reason that you can't go back and start remeasuring the tests you wish to remeasure for comparison. I for one would like to see you remeasure the simple cap and resistor load circuit.
I would caution however, that it would be a good idea to check the MEAN power with CH2 both inverted and non-inverted. If there is a big discrepancy between the two, then we should try to figure out why. And remember to get about 10 MATH cycles (5 Voltage cycles) on the display for the measurement (you have 12 in your scope shot above, and that is perfect).
Quote from: poynt99 on January 07, 2014, 05:34:27 PM
I suspected the current probe might be the problem, not the 100x voltage probe.
I have 3 other factory probes, I can try them but quite sure I keep rotating them, so I don't think the probe is the problem. I also do probe comp check quite often.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 07, 2014, 05:34:27 PM
The only potential issue with the nichrome wire idea, is that the value may change quite a bit if it warms up. I guess you will have to try it and see.
Very good point!... I'll make sure to use it only on small loads that don't heat the wire. Anyways, I'm only interested in circuits that don't use much power.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 07, 2014, 05:34:27 PM
I for one would like to see you remeasure the simple cap and resistor load circuit.
Well, I quite sure you know the results!... It should be under unity with probes set to DC coupling. One very valuable lesson learned there. Too bad it took so many pages to figure it out. Also found out many others were doing the same thing.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 07, 2014, 05:34:27 PM
I would caution however, that it would be a good idea to check the MEAN power with CH2 both inverted and non-inverted. If there is a big discrepancy between the two, then we should try to figure out why. And remember to get about 10 MATH cycles (5 Voltage cycles) on the display for the measurement (you have 12 in your scope shot above, and that is perfect).
Yes, I've got that also and now understand your reasoning to use invert as a way to check for potential problems.
Thanks for your help and I do hope you will put up a YouTube video Tutorial to help other researcher with this needed information as I've checked a while back on YouTube and there is nothing on how to use a scope for power calculations.
Luc
Luc.
Thank you.
I sincerely hope there was more than one lesson learned here by all. I certainly learned a few things.
And yes, I still hope to get your buy-in to the CH2 inversion requirement when making power measurements where polarity is an issue (like when claims of OU are involved). My video will hopefully explain clearly why the inversion is required.
So unless there is something you or anyone else would like to see with my setup, I guess this will be the only video I need to make (perhaps a short series of vids is appropriate) . Do let me know.
.99
In that last set of scopeshots the "Ch2" baseline is not set exactly on the center graticule marker. It has a "slight" offset in the negative direction.
I know this seems very weird but I have encountered scopes that put the trace position offset into the math. If this scope behaves that way, then it might make a difference if you get both channel baselines exactly on the center graticule.
This would be a great time to check that, since that last set of traces is so close to being equalized but still has that little displacement of the Ch 2 baseline. Set up just exactly like that but use the vertical position control to get that baseline marker set right on the centerline, and then see if there is any difference between this set and that last set in terms of symmetry and absolute values for the Math.
TK,
I just tried this, and shifting one trace up or down does make a difference in the computed MEAN power, as I noted back when I was doing the Ainslie tests, but there is still no change in the absolute value of the MEAN when I go from inverted to non-inverted on CH2.
Maybe the inverter amp (if they are using one) is just not matched that close on the TDS2004 as it is in other models.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 07, 2014, 08:53:09 PM
In that last set of scopeshots the "Ch2" baseline is not set exactly on the center graticule marker. It has a "slight" offset in the negative direction.
I know this seems very weird but I have encountered scopes that put the trace position offset into the math. If this scope behaves that way, then it might make a difference if you get both channel baselines exactly on the center graticule.
This would be a great time to check that, since that last set of traces is so close to being equalized but still has that little displacement of the Ch 2 baseline. Set up just exactly like that but use the vertical position control to get that baseline marker set right on the centerline, and then see if there is any difference between this set and that last set in terms of symmetry and absolute values for the Math.
Good eye TK! ... my finger must of touch the adjustment at some point and didn't notice.
However, the math must detect that change as it make no difference to the Mean on this scope. I guess the scope needs to be re-calibrated somehow.
I could also use the average between Inverted and non Inverted if I need an accurate amount.
Luc
Actually Luc, the more accurate is probably the non-inverted.
But I would hope the worst difference we would ever see would be 2% or so.
I don't know if there would be a calibration for this, but one could always contact Tektronix if necessary. My gut feeling is that the electronics which inverts the signal is what is causing the difference, and if that is the case, there should be a consistent percentage difference between the two settings.
One test you could perform would be to try CH3 and CH4 for the current probe (keep the voltage on CH1) and see what results you get with them.
Good idea!... I'll try channel 3 and 4 first.
I'll let you know the results
Luc
The big moral of the story here is to stop jumping to conclusions and to be honest about yourself and your limitations. The other big moral of this story is that real debate is what is needed on the forums and the tyranny of the majority of the "believers" is not a good thing at all. There are many winners around here.
That works better!... so it must be out of calibration on ch 1 & 2
Thanks for the good idea
Luc
Quote from: MileHigh on January 07, 2014, 09:54:26 PM
The big moral of the story here is to stop jumping to conclusions and to be honest about yourself and your limitations. The other big moral of this story is that real debate is what is needed on the forums and the tyranny of the majority of the "believers" is not a good thing at all. There are many winners around here.
Hi there MileHigh,
I had to edit out something you said in your post. Lets not do any finger pointing please.
As for being honest about limitations, I feel quite confident that I did that.
By working together we can accomplish much and I think this is the message this forum needs.
Luc
Luc
Quote
By working together we can accomplish much and I think this is the message this forum needs.
--------------------------------------
You are right about working together as well as pointing fingers
and I am Glad you took the poynt at his word.[and the offer of help]
Good to see and a pleasure to read.
we are all the better for it.
Chet
Hello all,
I want to test the Luc reactive power circuit by using inverter 220vac (600w) instead using grid supply.
By doing this i will be able to calculate the battery current(input) to out put on the reactive load.
As inverter has no Neutral or ground, can i connect my scope 1x/10x probe directly across the out put of the inverter, for seeing voltage phase etc?
I am going to use Phillips 3070/ 100Mhz.
Help from the experts are highly appreciated.
Regards,
D.J
Hi DJ,
my tests have had no success using an Inverter. In fact I burnt one. The problem is when a circuit is 90 out of phase the power that goes one way comes back out the other way and the Inverter is not able to do anything with that returned power. It probably just short out in the inverter and will fry the mosfet's.
Luc
Wait just a minute here-were not done yet
Luc-you might need to go back to your genny setup.This was all about drawing power without the genny seeing any load-was it not?. Well please take a look at the circuit I posted.I am now up to 18watts, with no reflected load on the genny.
I have just made a document on what I call "Meta Quantities" that can be found at my google site https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents that might give some new ideas on "Reactive Power" and also on what I call "Reactive Impulse".
/Hob
Quote from: nilrehob on January 08, 2014, 05:59:08 AM
I have just made a document on what I call "Meta Quantities" that can be found at my google site https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents that might give some new ideas on "Reactive Power" and also on what I call "Reactive Impulse".
/Hob
Hi Hob,
impressive stuff!
Quote33. Momentarily inserting a battery to be charged in a LC-tank just when the current is max and the voltage is zero is using the "reactive impulse".
Isn't there a problem with this approach - i.e. that the voltage is at zero for an infinitesimally short time...? Surely, any impulse would have to span the zero point - rather than actually being on it...?
Having a voltage close at zero and trying to only use the current is the whole point.
"Dont kill the dipole" :)
But ok, I'll rephrase that in the next version of the document.
/Hob
So as a thought expansion...
the capacitor on the hot side is an inverter. The voltage on the opposite side of the cap will be inverted from the line. This will happen at a slight lag depending on the size of the capacitor to fill; voltage supply is a voltage, and with 0 ohms of resistance to the capacitor, it will move a lot of current at very low voltage to displace the electrons available.
The load is another delay on the current from common/ground... since a resistance of significant value 10-100ohms will require a lot of voltage on the capacitor (which is already charged electrostatically) and will start to satisfy the cap... displacing current on the other side also; but out of phase with the voltage input...
so by the time you get the the CSR that current really doesn't have anything to do with that input voltage.
Another CSR on the hot side would measure actual power to and from the AC...
think somehow this is a case of comparing apples and oranges....
some notes on the scribbles below;
purple is the voltage; which is a limit on amps too
orange is the voltage on the other side of the capacitor
green/blue is the voltage on the csr
upper right composite denotes where lags happen...
As the scenario continues, the electrostatic exchange will happen at BDC and TDC, right when the diriving field changes from push to pull... but then the whole rest of the pulling phase is delayed until that capacitance has a driving voltage.... until it crosses the zero for voltage again... so the current is delayed more on later cycles than the first cycle.
which I guess is why there's so many spikes at the top and bottom of power...
Quote from: gotoluc on January 07, 2014, 10:04:59 PM
That works better!... so it must be out of calibration on ch 1 & 2
Thanks for the good idea
Luc
Luc,
10.2 to 10.6; in terms of the difference, unfortunately that isn't an improvement over your other results with CH1 and CH2. My guess is it's most likely caused by an inherent limitation in the specs of the scope.
a bit difficult to digest but interesting
http://gestaltreality.com/downloads/Symbolic%20Representation%20of%20the%20Generalized%20Electric%20Wave%20-%20Eric%20Dollard%20-%20New%20and%20Remade.pdf (http://gestaltreality.com/downloads/Symbolic%20Representation%20of%20the%20Generalized%20Electric%20Wave%20-%20Eric%20Dollard%20-%20New%20and%20Remade.pdf)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6BnCUBKgnnc#t=2625 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6BnCUBKgnnc#t=2625)
.....
http://www.energeticforum.com/eric-dollard-official-forum/1631-peter-whatever-happened-eric-p-dollard-41.html#post185949
Quote from: wings on January 08, 2014, 11:33:41 AM
a bit difficult to digest but interesting
http://gestaltreality.com/downloads/Symbolic%20Representation%20of%20the%20Generalized%20Electric%20Wave%20-%20Eric%20Dollard%20-%20New%20and%20Remade.pdf (http://gestaltreality.com/downloads/Symbolic%20Representation%20of%20the%20Generalized%20Electric%20Wave%20-%20Eric%20Dollard%20-%20New%20and%20Remade.pdf)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6BnCUBKgnnc#t=2625 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6BnCUBKgnnc#t=2625)
.....
http://www.energeticforum.com/eric-dollard-official-forum/1631-peter-whatever-happened-eric-p-dollard-41.html#post185949 (http://www.energeticforum.com/eric-dollard-official-forum/1631-peter-whatever-happened-eric-p-dollard-41.html#post185949)
Not exactly reactive power...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DmAyYhnRgc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DmAyYhnRgc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7oPv4cPzJk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7oPv4cPzJk)
Personally I found at resonance, that the network was a 10x multiplier... but one cell was as good as 4 or 6... I did not have extreme increases, or even step increases in the network; it is possible that because the coils weren't EXACTLY the same and the capacitances weren't EXACTLY the same that it reduced the effective performance... but then my results agreed with simulations of the same so I didn't worry too much...
(steinmetz book)
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B812EYiKwtkka1Y0aGdrejNZeTg (http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B812EYiKwtkka1Y0aGdrejNZeTg)
(dollard 4 quandrant theory newer book)
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B812EYiKwtkkS0R3Vzd3TkRMOWs (http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B812EYiKwtkkS0R3Vzd3TkRMOWs)
Quote from: tinman on January 08, 2014, 04:03:01 AM
Wait just a minute here-were not done yet
Luc-you might need to go back to your genny setup.This was all about drawing power without the genny seeing any load-was it not?. Well please take a look at the circuit I posted.I am now up to 18watts, with no reflected load on the genny.
Hi TinMan,
I didn't give up!... yesterday after testing all the different circuits with the correct scope settings, I came to realize I was too quick to accept the MOT is not needed.
When I retested the series cap circuit using one of the better of two 220v MOT's I brought back from South Africa, I could see a positive effect only when the MOT was present.
I really needed the scope readings to be correct to pinpoint the difference.
I like what you've done with the Alternator exciter coil and gen coil. I was thinking last night of your new circuit when I saw my supply wires heat up when the MOT tuned just right and thought we need each leg of the supply to be maybe 45 degrees out of phase with each other so when the cap discharges it won't be wasted in the supply lines. I think this is what you're doing with your 2 phases?
This may also explain why the Valy looped gen had a 3 phase Alternator.
I think the steel box on top that he said was the secret could possibly be a welder transformer between the Gen and prime mover. If you look at his last video you can see the metal box looks just like a welder. He also had a welder on the side which could be the same idea but for loads connected to the gen.
If you can get your hands on a 3 phase alternator I think it would work even better then the 2 phase alternator you have created. You would have a spare phase for loads.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: wings on January 08, 2014, 11:33:41 AM
a bit difficult to digest but interesting
http://gestaltreality.com/downloads/Symbolic%20Representation%20of%20the%20Generalized%20Electric%20Wave%20-%20Eric%20Dollard%20-%20New%20and%20Remade.pdf (http://gestaltreality.com/downloads/Symbolic%20Representation%20of%20the%20Generalized%20Electric%20Wave%20-%20Eric%20Dollard%20-%20New%20and%20Remade.pdf)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6BnCUBKgnnc#t=2625 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6BnCUBKgnnc#t=2625)
.....
http://www.energeticforum.com/eric-dollard-official-forum/1631-peter-whatever-happened-eric-p-dollard-41.html#post185949
https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/7948
I have just made a document on the RC-circuit.
It can be found at my google site https://sites.google.com/site/nilrehob/home/documents .
The document needs peer-reviewing so please go ahead and find any errors if You are interested.
/Hob
For who owns or has a TEK scope, or who is just interested in the ABC of the scope. I was browsing through my 'free energy' files and found a backup of a website (it is not an open website, so you can only see the files if you know the location). I will not have Google or any bot index it, so you must put 1 and 2 together yourself.
1: http://purco.qc.ca/
2: ftp/Learning%20Electronics/scopes/
I know, there is a lot more there, but it is all old stuff (2009 and older).
.99: even some of your files are there at 2: ftp/Overunity.com%20-%20Forum%20members/poynt99 about TPU's in 2008
I found this website merely by following the source of a picture from a website (long ago, 2009), so don't shoot the messenger!
Also, please do not discuss what you find there, unless it is related to this topic. Some threads tend to grow without having useful (project related) information in them.
The second link doesn't seem to work.
Just curious what is there.
So... I would be curious of measurements with the probe on the resistor side of the cap as the voltage for the existing CSR, non inverted vs the differenece across a CSR from power...
to avoid shorting your scope from ground to hot, just move the probe, keep the common... but then the current is inverse, and the current is the difference (a-b) of the probes... which would be nice if you could then have a*(b-a) // maybe a-b there is a negative... but the voltage would be subtracted from the other side.. and inverted.... so a*(a-b) for power on the AC side...
Quote from: poynt99 on January 09, 2014, 09:58:00 PM
The second link doesn't seem to work.
Just curious what is there.
Index of /ftp/Overunity.com - Forum members/poynt99
Parent Directory
Towards_Realizing_the_TPU_1.1.pdf
Towards_Realizing_the_TPU_1.2.pdf
Towards_Realizing_the_TPU_1.3.pdf
Towards_Realizing_the_TPU_1.4.pdf
Link is fine ;-)
You can find those documents (and others of mine as well as other folks') by clicking on "Upload/Download" over to the left under the "Navigation" section of this forum.
Good evening Gentlemen
The world, attending in the debate . You will your succeed or not? That's the question. I personally do not want to get in a dispute (do not speak English), I just want to say that I, at a lower level, I tried without Oscilloscope current probes without alterntive or continue, to put into operation this circuit. How do you like it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT6SsRdU_8
Master Luc or Poynt ......
best regards
I found these documents to be way too complicated and also incorrect.
Especially this sentence:
'Pulsing directly from a 9V battery isn't going to cut it.'
Is incorect.
So then my question is where upon you base that conclusion.
Have you tried it?
I have.
Thanks to a gentleman at energetic forum for this very interesting video of luc's gift to us all hope you enjoy i thought it very interesting, i think luc will if he hsa not seen it yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLiEwfrxX7w
Hi guys,
Does the comments of Doug Konzen add to this subject?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Doug_Konzen_%28Konehead%29_on_Self-Looped_Generators
So feed the power to a capacitor, switch it off and have the capacitor load a battery that feeds the motor again that drives the generator?
Hns
For the most part with low powers and small currents and with the load distribution in the average household power factor correction is not an issue, eg. if I run a transformer from a power strip at part load say 60 Watts real power on the meter and see a PF of 0.6, then all I need do to get a power factor of very close to 1.0 is plug a resistive load into the power strip (like a 60 watt incandescent globe) or other reactive power converting device. And "magically" if the 60 Watt globe requires 60 Watts to run it won't draw 60 Watts extra when I turn it on, it will only draw the difference between the reactive power from the transformer which it will convert to real power by using it and the power it requires in total, that in turn will change the power factor as there is now virtually no power returned through the lines from the power strip back to the wall. That is not using reactive power though that is converting reactive power to real power at almost 1:1 efficiency. So if there is, just say 20 Watts reactive power from the transformer then the globe only needs to draw 40 Watts or so from the wall because it can use the unused power being returned from the transformer before it can leave the power strip. So the devices plugged into the power strip can be power factor 1.00 as a whole when one or more has a bad power factor in itself. There is nothing free about converting reactive power to real power. It is just an improvement in efficiency. A simple cheap Watt meter will tell us this, try it and see. :)
If any reactive power makes it back out of the house to the lines it is not paid for, we only pay for the reactive power related resistive losses on our side of the meter.
However with a high power inductive load correcting the power factor in some way is a good idea if the PF is bad.
Too much reactive power destroys regular inverters, Luc found that out, which is why I suggested he try it. Cheap inverters are very dangerous in a house they can get high resistance shorts when they fail and smoke right up without blowing the fuses. A resistive load in parallel with the inductive load can maybe mitigate that issue.
Inverters with non sinusoidal wave forms might have other issues with inductive loads.
Happy, safe and efficient power usage to all.
Cheers
That is more or less correct but not quite. The power utility looks like a very low, but non-zero impedance. When the load in a home has any reactive loads, the power factor will be less than 1.0 which means that the volt ampere product will be bigger than the real power delivered to the premise. The VA product determines heating in the utility's distribution network, whereas the real power is the actual useful power delivered to the premise. Disc style power meters only register real power. If you have an old fashioned power meter power factor is only an issue when reactive loads turn on and off. At those times the line can sag or peak which can be hard on electronics.
Smart meters record both real power and VA product. Some power utilities are lobbying to change residential billing from real power to VA product. If they do that, then correcting power factor may be worthwhile. Unless premise wiring is really bad, and that would be a fire hazard, to a first approximation all loads act in parallel. A resistive light bulb or heater doesn't so much use up the stored energy from a reactive load like a big single phase pool pump, it just dilutes the effect of such a reactive load on the overall power factor value. In other words to a first approximation reactive and resistive loads act independently: resistive loads draw their current in phase with the line voltage whether or not reactive loads are present, and the reactive loads draw their current at whatever phase offset their complex impedance dictates. This is because of that low power utility impedance.
The discouraging parts of this to anyone looking for an advantage by manipulating reactive circuits are: The power utility already gets their due for all real power taken by a residence. Making the power drawn more reactive doesn't reduce the real power taken, it increases it slightly due to imperfect inductors and capacitors. Making the the power drawn more reactive can have negative side effects on electronics. Making the power drawn more reactive heats up the utility wiring more. If power is made very reactive the additional wire heating can become a fire hazard. If the power utilities get their way, eventually we will all pay for reactive power even though it doesn't do any useful work. If that day comes then depending on what's in the house and the cost of a PFC corrector, an automatic power factor corrector could save money. Energy efficient motor / drive combinations such as found in energy efficient washing machines and pool pumps have built-in PFC correction, just like most PC power supplies now do.
So enjoy playing with reactive components and making measurements. It is a good learning experience. If you are in the unusual circumstances that the utility charges for VA product and you often have a low power factor then making or installing an automatic PFC corrector could save money. Under all other circumstances messing around with reactive circuits will at best be a damn it all.
Luc,
Thanks for the summary given in your other locked thread.
http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg383646/#msg383646 (http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg383646/#msg383646)
I plan on making my "Basic Power Measurements" video(s) either today or tomorrow. In addition to the basics, the reasons for inverting the current measurement scope channel will be illustrated.
Quote from: Mobigozer on January 12, 2014, 05:31:34 PM
Hi guys,
Does the comments of Doug Konzen add to this subject?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Doug_Konzen_%28Konehead%29_on_Self-Looped_Generators (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Doug_Konzen_%28Konehead%29_on_Self-Looped_Generators)
So feed the power to a capacitor, switch it off and have the capacitor load a battery that feeds the motor again that drives the generator?
Hns
Interesting circuit to try. It could be a way to use reactive power to an advantage?
Thanks for bringing it to our attention
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on January 18, 2014, 03:10:25 PM
Luc,
Thanks for the summary given in your other locked thread.
http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg383646/#msg383646 (http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/msg383646/#msg383646)
I plan on making my "Basic Power Measurements" video(s) either today or tomorrow. In addition to the basics, the reasons for inverting the current measurement scope channel will be illustrated.
Been and still am looking forward in watching 8) your video tutorial.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
I hear you Mark, So I'll outline what I did.
I took an extension lead from the wall outlet and plugged into that a "in line" safety switch, then the energy meter then I plugged the power strip into that, I ran a transformer from the power strip at PF 0.60, drawing 40 Watts and noted the current and voltage as well as the Watts of course the current x voltage was more than the watts, the meter show real power in Watts. The exact figures I cannot remember, but I can redo it on video if someone asks. Then when I plugged in a 60 Watt incandescent globe and turned it on the PF went to 0.98 and the volts x amps almost matched the Watts, so the globe used converted the reactive power or offset it, whatever it made the volts x amps match the Watts from the wall. So almost all power drawn from the wall behind the meter was real power, only a very small amount went back through the extension cable as reactive power to the wall.
Now, if I had plugged in the correct sized capacitor I would be correcting the power factor also, but that would be returning the converted reactive power and sending back to the transformer as apparent power again. The capacitor has losses as well.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just at present we do not pay for reactive power, I do agree it is a good idea to correct PF where possible as much as possible.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on January 18, 2014, 09:43:35 PM
I hear you Mark, So I'll outline what I did.
I took an extension lead from the wall outlet and plugged into that a "in line" safety switch, then the energy meter then I plugged the power strip into that, I ran a transformer from the power strip at PF 0.60, drawing 40 Watts and noted the current and voltage as well as the Watts of course the current x voltage was more than the watts, the meter show real power in Watts. The exact figures I cannot remember, but I can redo it on video if someone asks. Then when I plugged in a 60 Watt incandescent globe and turned it on the PF went to 0.98 and the volts x amps almost matched the Watts, so the globe used converted the reactive power or offset it, whatever it made the volts x amps match the Watts from the wall. So almost all power drawn from the wall behind the meter was real power, only a very small amount went back through the extension cable as reactive power to the wall.
Now, if I had plugged in the correct sized capacitor I would be correcting the power factor also, but that would be returning the converted reactive power and sending back to the transformer as apparent power again. The capacitor has losses as well.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just at present we do not pay for reactive power, I do agree it is a good idea to correct PF where possible as much as possible.
Cheers
Farmhand most residences do not pay for reactive power ... yet. But remember that what makes power reactive is that the energy is drawn in one part of a cycle stored and released back to the utility in another part of the cycle. All energy that is taken and not returned is real energy. When one does not return all energy stored in one part of a cycle back to the utility in the next part of a cycle, the utility sees that as real energy drawn and bills for it, whether the premise has old rotating disc power meters or smart meters. If the utilities get their way, they will charge residences a penalty for power factors less than 1.0 the way that they charge many businesses for that now.
Yes I realize all that, I wasn't claiming anything for free. I was demonstrating that reactive power is not used for free. As soon as we use it it becomes real power and we pay for it.
The meter ended up reading the 100 Watts made up of the real 40 Watts of the transformer and the 60 Watts of the globe. at PF 0.98 :) for the power strip in total. Pretty much all power accounted for and paid for by the sun. hehehehe
But there can be load balancing to negate reactive devices within a given system, such as I described. The system could be the power strip only, or it could be the entire house. The difference being the length of wiring within the system. So likely never see PF 1.00 always.
I agree with you 100%, if they charge us for "volts x amps product" we will soon correct our PF if we are smart.
Cheers
Farmhand it sounds like we are in violent agreement.
The folks who believe that they can get something out of the power utility cheaper or for free by using reactive networks will learn one way or another that just isn't so.
MarkE
Isn't that one of the reasons why Tesla invented curious circuit which electronic gurus spoiled forming DC-DC converters ? You take a source DC power or AC if you wish, the procedure is almost the same. You shunt source with a coil or solenoid of very large inductance so the power taken is minimal, you then open connection in special moment (in case of AC at the peak of voltage) and charge capacitor with inductive flyback like in DC-DC converter. However when next step is to shunt power source again the same time capacitor is shorted to coil of low resistance, low inductance and so on formin high Q-factor tank circuit. Energy is re-used few times in secondary ringing down oscilaltions. let's take 230V/50hz AC source and short at zero crossing while break at every 5ms using the transformer high inductance of more then 20H.
Do you think in such setup reactive power returned back to power company is minimized ? I appreciate any comment I don't state I discovered something knew...
Quote from: forest on January 19, 2014, 04:49:50 AM
MarkE
Isn't that one of the reasons why Tesla invented curious circuit which electronic gurus spoiled forming DC-DC converters ? You take a source DC power or AC if you wish, the procedure is almost the same. You shunt source with a coil or solenoid of very large inductance so the power taken is minimal, you then open connection in special moment (in case of AC at the peak of voltage) and charge capacitor with inductive flyback like in DC-DC converter. However when next step is to shunt power source again the same time capacitor is shorted to coil of low resistance, low inductance and so on formin high Q-factor tank circuit. Energy is re-used few times in secondary ringing down oscilaltions. let's take 230V/50hz AC source and short at zero crossing while break at every 5ms using the transformer high inductance of more then 20H.
Do you think in such setup reactive power returned back to power company is minimized ? I appreciate any comment I don't state I discovered something knew...
Forest, Tesla conducted many experiments so unless you identify a specific experiment I cannot see what Tesla had to say about it that would indicate his intentions.
I reiterate: Reactive circuit elements store and release energy. Reactive power is power that gets stored in a load before being returned to the source. Any energy that is not returned to the source is real. If we construct a tuned circuit with a high quality inductor and capacitor that circuit will have a high Q, which means it stores a high percentage of the energy that moves through it each cycle. That is a highly resonant tank. Any energy that we draw out each cycle lowers the Q. It doesn't matter when we take the energy out. It is the fact that we remove energy and how much energy we take out each cycle that determines the Q. Directly answering your question: If you take a 20H inductor and put it into a circuit like you are talking about, all the energy you direct to your load through your switching circuit gets replenished by the line and appears to the power company as real energy / power.
Aha, I see.. you state that energy is doing work so case closed, it can't be re-used in tank circuit
However I state that power is doing work and by releasing the same energy as a larger power spike in tank circuit we are re-using the same energy many times in oscillations... not a magic just more efficient usage of energy and because it is re-used while stored in load it is not returned to power supply immediately (if ever).
Sorry if that sounds like a totally crazy idea... I always thought why there is a return wire to the power station and what is returned if energy is used and I found it easy to explain by water analogy - the same water is returned just without initial pressure.
If so then pressure is the key and if we can isolate a small chamber when pressure is used in low friction mode in cycle then it can do a lot more work in oscillations then by using it once. It's like using CFL lamp instead of incandescent one : less heat (in this case less flow of current from the power station) just more light (more work locally done). Another example is pendulum - here the friction is limited to the one point of attachment to the wall and the same energy will do more work then just pushing the same mass against frictional surface....
Forest, perhaps this will help:
A purely reactive circuit has no resistance. If we apply a pure sine wave to such a circuit, the impedance is all reactive and equal to: |Z| = |X| = Xl - Xc. For X>0 the current lags the voltage by 90 degrees, and for X<0 the current leads the voltage by 90 degrees. In both cases: the source delivers energy to the circuit for two quarters of a cycle, and the circuit drives energy back into the source for the other two quarters each cycle.
If you shut off everything in your house except a big transformer with no load, then the only load will be the transformer's magnetizing inductance in series with the primary resistance. For any good transformer the primary resistance will be very small compared to Xl at 60Hz, so what you will be looking at is almost completely the primary magnetizing inductance. If you hook this up, then your power meter will barely move because of the: energy in / energy out balance across each cycle.
If you then connect a power resistor to the secondary of the transformer all current that flows through the resistor cancels flux in the transformer primary, and for a good transformer, the resistance reflects across the primary by the square of the turns, IE step-down ratio. You can connect whatever resistors you like that are within the transformer's ratings and watch what that does to your power meter.
So there you have it: Reactive power = storage, and anything you place in parallel with that storage that actually uses or otherwise consumes power consumes real power, and is registered by your power meter.
the solution is to think out of the EGO box.
if we add the effect of asymmetry described by ufopolitics to a circuit as below.
everything should work note the use of multiple transformer with high transformation ratio (few turns on the primary to reduce the diode shorting effect?)
looking for
Ufopolitics experiment and "ASYMMETRY TO ENLIGHTENMENT" & "SYMMETRY OF DARKNESS"
Wings we can test whether that circuit achieves an "asymmetry" that provides value:
Pick values for each of the circuit elements that should provide the best results for the ratio of input power to power dissipated in the resistor: 16. The we can use the resistor 16 to heat a thermal mass to establish the output power delivered, and connect a power analyzer to the power source to determine the power drawn. Then we can pick two resistors: One to match the input power measured, and one to match the output power delivered. If we use adjustable resistors we can match precisely. We can connect those resistors directly to the supply in the same measurement arrangement and then record the input power and output heating power evolved. In order for the LC networks to provide value we should see that the for the matched input power case the output power of the LC network case produces more heat than the case of the simple resistor, we should also see that for the case of the matched output heat, that the LC network case draws less power than the simple resistor matched to generate the same heat.
Quote from: MarkE on January 19, 2014, 09:01:20 AM
Wings we can test whether that circuit achieves an "asymmetry" that provides value:
Pick values for each of the circuit elements that should provide the best results for the ratio of input power to power dissipated in the resistor: 16. The we can use the resistor 16 to heat a thermal mass to establish the output power delivered, and connect a power analyzer to the power source to determine the power drawn. Then we can pick two resistors: One to match the input power measured, and one to match the output power delivered. If we use adjustable resistors we can match precisely. We can connect those resistors directly to the supply in the same measurement arrangement and then record the input power and output heating power evolved. In order for the LC networks to provide value we should see that the for the matched input power case the output power of the LC network case produces more heat than the case of the simple resistor, we should also see that for the case of the matched output heat, that the LC network case draws less power than the simple resistor matched to generate the same heat.
not in this life
Wings: Why not?
Exactly, why not? I just made reference to it on another thread. You go to a big-box store and get a few basics: Styrofoam, a plastic bucket with a tight-fitting top, some insulation, and some plastic bags. You line the inside of the bucket with insulation and insert the plastic bag. Place the bucket on top of the Styrofoam. Cut a small notch in the rim of the bucket to pass your wires. Wrap the bucket in another layer of insulation.
The wrap up your circuit component and put it in the bucket and run your tests. It's an easy and very useful project that you will always have a need for.
Or you can just buy one of these: http://www.igloocoolers.com/Coolers/MaxCold/70-Quart-Ice-Cube-MaxCold-Roller (http://www.igloocoolers.com/Coolers/MaxCold/70-Quart-Ice-Cube-MaxCold-Roller) That puppy holds over 60 liters ~= 250kJ/C of water with a low thermal leak rate. You can easily run a 125MJ test with that, IE the HHV of a gallon of gasoline, or over 30kWh. You can always wrap one in radiant barrier to drive the leak rate down further.
Wow! 90 bucks! That's well within many budgets. It doesn't have "kludge" written all over it. ;D
If their 120 hour claim is based on filling half the thing with ice: 35 quarts @ 316kJ/quart ~= 25W leak for ~30C delta T, so call it a 1C/W thermal resistance.
Target sells them for less than $40.
http://www.target.com/p/igloo-ice-cube-maxcold-70-quart-roller-cooler/-/A-10281497?ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001&AFID=Google_PLA_df&LNM=|10281497&CPNG=Sports&kpid=10281497&LID=PA&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=10281497&gclid=COjGgoeci7wCFdNrfgoduDYAiA (http://www.target.com/p/igloo-ice-cube-maxcold-70-quart-roller-cooler/-/A-10281497?ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001&AFID=Google_PLA_df&LNM=%7C10281497&CPNG=Sports&kpid=10281497&LID=PA&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=10281497&gclid=COjGgoeci7wCFdNrfgoduDYAiA)
Here you go Luc; the first part of my "Power Measurement Basics" series. I was tired while making this video, so apologies for the quality of my presentation. I'm not that good at making these videos anyway. ;D
http://www.overunity.com/14220/power-measurement-basics/msg383908/#msg383908
Let me know if anything requires clarification.
.99
I just realized that the order of the individual parts of my video are all messed up. I will have to re-assemble and upload them again.
Here are the links to the re-assembled Power Measurement Basics videos.
Part 1a: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIbQUUp9S9o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIbQUUp9S9o)
Part 1b: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH9QYimSO7E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH9QYimSO7E)
Sorry about the mess-up.
for an input wattage of [/size] [/size]We can reduce the input voltage down to 48V once we are in the upper mode (jump resonance) and have tuned for resonance at 6.09 kHz before cuttoff occurs. The input wattage stays constant though (input current increases). Since the phase shift between voltage and current in the tank is less than 90° there is real wattage (heat loss) involved. This [/size] is much greater than the measured input wattage!? What could it mean?[/size]
......
http://www.advanced-science.com/DiodePlugExperiments.html (http://www.advanced-science.com/DiodePlugExperiments.html)
[/font][/size]
[/font][/size]
Here is a relevant video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY) showing reactive power.
Note that at one time the input bulb is off while the output bulb is on, suggesting an infinite O/I power ratio.
P.S.
The light bulb on the input side is not a reliable power indicator, because it does not constitute a load itself and due to MPTT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem).
I think what the input bulb IS good for is indicating the amount of current in the primary. If I recall correctly.
Luc was working with a very similar setup a few years ago, and I did a fair bit of analysis of it at that time. I would have to go back to my notes to confirm what I found.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 24, 2014, 09:46:44 AM
I think what the input bulb IS good for is indicating the amount of current in the primary. If I recall correctly.
Luc was working with a very similar setup a few years ago, and I did a fair bit of analysis of it at that time. I would have to go back to my notes to confirm what I found.
Yes, this goes back to 2008 when I was experimenting with resonance, titled: "Resonance Effects for Everyone to share"
Luc
If you look closely in the video you can see that the "input" bulb is still glowing very dimly at the resonant point. This means of course that there is still current flowing, at a low level. The voltage, however, rises, so there is still power being supplied to the primary. It would be interesting to see some actual instrumental measurements of current and voltage in the primary and secondary circuits.
Great demonstration, though, thanks for posting it.
When coupled with an available current path through each coil, the inductance of the coupled coils effectively changes from that of the coils when uncoupled. As you say, it would be revealing to see real measurements of voltage and current on an oscilloscope for both sides of the circuit.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 24, 2014, 09:46:44 AM
I think what the input bulb IS good for is indicating the amount of current in the primary.
Of course, an input bulb with a straight filament will convert I
2R to heat and light almost perfectly, but current is not power and the bulb will "ignore" power carried by high voltage and low current.
Quote from: verpies on January 24, 2014, 01:23:39 PM
Of course, an input bulb with a straight filament will convert I2R to heat and light almost perfectly, but current is not power and the bulb will "ignore" power carried by high voltage and low current.
Hi Verpies,
My experience doesn't agree with this... Bulbs show any real power...
I've found I can run an incandescent bulb on the output of a car ignition coil (maybe 5000v, 1000Hz) at 40w, or an MOT (2000v ish), and it's exactly as bright as it is with 40w mains (at 240v AC, 50Hz). Just the same...
Regards, Tim
To poynt99 or anyone who wants to take a go at it
I have a toroid which I wound myself in Bifilar on a Ferroxcube toroid core. It is under test connected to a sine wave output of my SG set at 4.33 Mhz.
My 200Mhz DSO scope is set to DC Coupling and I'm using my non Inductive 2 inch long nichrome wire which I adjusted to 0.1 Ohm. Both scope probes are connected in the standard way to measure power. Ch 1 is voltage and Ch 2 is current.
It seems from the scope math that 3.8W is being returned. I have attached both Non Inverted and Inverted of Ch 2 scope shots so not to have another debate on that matter and also many samples of each versions.
I have checked my DSO scope against Thane's Tektronic before returning it to him just to make sure it was accurate and found mine to be better as far as comparing math data between Ch 2 inverting or not. So I don't think this is a scope error.
Let me know what you think
Luc
I would say double check your probe connections and invert settings on both channels of the scope. Maybe your CH1 is already inverted for example. If those check out, put a diagram up here and double check your connections to that.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 24, 2014, 09:46:44 AM
I think what the input bulb IS good for is indicating the amount of current in the primary. If I recall correctly.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 24, 2014, 03:42:47 PM
To poynt99 or anyone who wants to take a go at it
I have a toroid which I wound myself in Bifilar on a Ferroxcube toroid core. It is under test connected to a sine wave output of my SG set at 4.33 Mhz.
My 200Mhz DSO scope is set to DC Coupling and I'm using my non Inductive 2 inch long nichrome wire which I adjusted to 0.1 Ohm. Both scope probes are connected in the standard way to measure power. Ch 1 is voltage and Ch 2 is current.
It seems from the scope math that 3.8W is being returned. I have attached both Non Inverted and Inverted of Ch 2 scope shots so not to have another debate on that matter and also many samples of each versions.
I have checked my DSO scope against Thane's Tektronic before returning it to him just to make sure it was accurate and found mine to be better as far as comparing math data between Ch 2 inverting or not. So I don't think this is a scope error.
Let me know what you think
Luc
Luc,
Are you sure your 2" length of nichrome is "non-inductive"?
I do not know how the nichrome composition would affect the inductance calculations, nor do I know your nichrome wire's actual diameter.
However, a 2" length of .05" copper wire has about 40nH of inductance.
The reactance of 40nH at 4.33MHz is a bit over 1 ohm.
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on January 24, 2014, 09:46:44 AM
I think what the input bulb IS good for is indicating the amount of current in the primary. If I recall correctly.
I dont think they are very good for that at all,infact my experiments show the complete opposite.The effect verpies showed,can be done with a simple pulse motor,where we can get the output bulb to light up bright,while the input bulb remains unlit.And this is not done by haveing the input bulb in series with the drive coil,but having the input bulb in series with the power supply and large cap's. The power to drive the pulse motor then is drawn from the cap's. So any power the motor uses must be a stedy DC flow through the bulb.
Looking at the circuit below,how is it possable for G2 to light up brightly,and G1 to remain unlit?.How is the flow of steady DC power through G1 on the p/in side, less than the flow of steady DC power through G2 on the P/out side?.
In short, what it amounts to is this:
The input circuit is of high voltage and low current (hence little to no illumination of the series input bulb), and the output circuit is low voltage and high current, hence the output bulb lights.
And if one was to take the time and effort to measure the source power and the power in the output bulb, they would see UU.
And a related explanation from my 8 page document I did up for Luc from July 2009:
QuoteThe Rbulb [input bulb] intensity (or heat) can not be used reliably to indicate the total amount of power used by the entire circuit! (as confirmed by the results above). IF the bulb is the ONLY element in the circuit, i.e. it is placed across the power source alone, then YES it will indicate directly how much total power is being taken from the power supply by the "circuit", but the circuit in this case only consists of the bulb, the battery, and the connecting wires.
When there are other components in the circuit (such as resistors and coils) and the bulb is in series with them and the power supply, the bulb's intensity is only indicative of the power being dissipated in the bulb itself. It does not indicate how much total power is being taken from the power supply and being used in the whole circuit.
Actually what the bulb intensity DOES indicate is the RMS CURRENT (and only current) from the supply (ask me about this if you do not understand how or why). But as I mentioned before, current is only one half of the power equation, and without taking power supply RMS VOLTAGE into account, you can not know how much total RMS POWER is being taken from the supply and being used in the circuit.
This effect CAN and HAS been simulated.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 24, 2014, 10:09:59 PM
In short, what it amounts to is this:
The input circuit is of high voltage and low current (hence little to no illumination of the series input bulb), and the output circuit is low voltage and high current, hence the output bulb lights.
And if one was to take the time and effort to measure the source power and the power in the output bulb, they would see UU.
My point exactly Darren. This was in relation to Tim's comment-
Quote: My experience doesn't agree with this... Bulbs show any real power...
I've found I can run an incandescent bulb on the output of a car ignition coil (maybe 5000v, 1000Hz) at 40w, or an MOT (2000v ish), and it's exactly as bright as it is with 40w mains (at 240v AC, 50Hz). Just the same...
As in the scematic i posted,and an actual build of the setup-bulbs dont give an indication of real power being consumed in some setup's.
If current is a flow of electric charge,then this would mean we have a higher electric charge flowing through G2 than that of G1. This charge is carried by moving electron's,so dose this mean we have a higher electron flow through G2,than that of G1?.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 24, 2014, 03:42:47 PM
To poynt99 or anyone who wants to take a go at it
I have a toroid which I wound myself in Bifilar on a Ferroxcube toroid core. It is under test connected to a sine wave output of my SG set at 4.33 Mhz.
My 200Mhz DSO scope is set to DC Coupling and I'm using my non Inductive 2 inch long nichrome wire which I adjusted to 0.1 Ohm. Both scope probes are connected in the standard way to measure power. Ch 1 is voltage and Ch 2 is current.
It seems from the scope math that 3.8W is being returned. I have attached both Non Inverted and Inverted of Ch 2 scope shots so not to have another debate on that matter and also many samples of each versions.
I have checked my DSO scope against Thane's Tektronic before returning it to him just to make sure it was accurate and found mine to be better as far as comparing math data between Ch 2 inverting or not. So I don't think this is a scope error.
Let me know what you think
Luc
Luc,
This online calculator yields 40nH for a 2" length of .05" diameter copper wire and a whopping 1440nH for the same length/diameter of nickel wire.
http://chemandy.com/calculators/round-wire-inductance-calculator.htm
As your nichrome is a nickel chromium alloy, the inductance is likely different than that of a pure nickel wire, but it is very likely that your 2" of nichrome wire has a much higher inductance than the 40nH of a 2" copper wire.
PW
It depends on the bulbs and the circuit particulars. I agree with Poynt99.
Cheers
Quote from: tim123 on January 24, 2014, 01:47:37 PM
I've found I can run an incandescent bulb on the output of a car ignition coil (maybe 5000v, 1000Hz) at 40w, or an MOT (2000v ish), and it's exactly as bright as it is with 40w mains (at 240v AC, 50Hz). Just the same...
I was talking about a circuit with only the bulb in it, and maybe a spark-gap... Maybe I missed the finer points of the argument... Apologies...
Quote from: picowatt on January 25, 2014, 02:14:17 AM
Luc,
This online calculator yields 40nH for a 2" length of .05" diameter copper wire and a whopping 1440nH for the same length/diameter of nickel wire.
http://chemandy.com/calculators/round-wire-inductance-calculator.htm (http://chemandy.com/calculators/round-wire-inductance-calculator.htm)
As your nichrome is a nickel chromium alloy, the inductance is likely different than that of a pure nickel wire, but it is very likely that your 2" of nichrome wire has a much higher inductance than the 40nH of a 2" copper wire.
PW
Hi PW and poynt99
I'm away for a day, so can't do more tests.
@ poynt, I'm quite positive the probes are correct and I had just calibrated the probe and scope.
I think PW has possibly found what could cause this anomaly. Thanks for looking into this PW
I didn't think it was real, I was just trying to find out what could cause this.
Is there a test I can do just to test my nichrome wire?... like if I remove the coil would that do it?
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 25, 2014, 11:23:20 AM
Hi PW and poynt99
I'm away for a day, so can't do more tests.
@ poynt, I'm quite positive the probes are correct and I had just calibrated the probe and scope.
I think PW has possibly found what could cause this anomaly. Thanks for looking into this PW
I didn't think it was real, I was just trying to find out what could cause this.
Is there a test I can do just to test my nichrome wire?... like if I remove the coil would that do it?
Thanks
Luc
Hook up something that makes pulses with reasonably fast edges through a 100 Ohm resistor and look at the response.
Luc,
Before you change anything I would suggest one very simple test to prove if the 180º phase shift is due to the nichrome wire inductance or not, and that is to perform the same test at a frequency of 1kHz.
If the phase shift is still there, then there is a signal inversion somewhere. If the phase shift changes to what we would normally expect, then it is most likely due to the inductance in your nichrome wire CSR.
Quote from: tim123 on January 25, 2014, 08:01:53 AM
I was talking about a circuit with only the bulb in it, and maybe a spark-gap... Maybe I missed the finer points of the argument... Apologies...
Sorry Tim. I thought you were talking in reference to Verpies video.
Ofcourse there is no rocket science involved with the schematic i posted-it was just a simple way to show that what verpies showed in his video,can be achieved in many way's. Ofcourse we know that G1 only has the potential difference in voltage from B+ to C1+,so the voltage is very low,but the current remains the same across the input side of the system as a whole.My questions wernt me asking for answers,they were directed at those who may have wanted answers them self. It's realy nothing more than a buck boost converter with a mechanical/electromagnetic trigger.
Hi Poynt and anyone else interested.
I made a video of the Bifilar Toroid under test and found another coil which happen to be the same DC resistance 0.6 Ohm as the toroid and connected it to compare the two at different frequencies.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IinbBzcjojY&feature=youtu.be
I'm not claiming anything, I just find it interesting and would be interested to know what can cause this.
Thanks for your time
Luc
I don't know for certain Luc, but if I was to guess, I would say that your bifilar connection may be in error, and your toroid is actually a small capacitor, not an inductor. Can you measure a DC resistance between those two leads?
Your toroid seems to be working like a capacitor; low current at low frequency, higher current at higher frequency.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 26, 2014, 06:48:14 PM
Hi Poynt and anyone else interested.
I made a video of the Bifilar Toroid under test and found another coil which happen to be the same DC resistance 0.6 Ohm as the toroid and connected it to compare the two at different frequencies.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IinbBzcjojY&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IinbBzcjojY&feature=youtu.be)
I'm not claiming anything, I just find it interesting and would be interested to know what can cause this.
Thanks for your time
Luc
Hey Luc
The 2 coils have the same resistance, but they have way different inductance, and capacitance.
The toroid has more inductance and capacitance. That coil may not allow much current above 100 or even 200hz let alone 1khz as a coil alone, not in resonance. Does your sig board do sweeps? I might think that there is a lower than 4mhz resonant freq for the toroid, by the looks of it anyways, especially if it is series bifi.
If it really is set as series bifi, and it really only conducts well at around 4mhz, then the other coil will be way above that before it rings.
Mags
Quote from: poynt99 on January 26, 2014, 08:56:45 PM
I don't know for certain Luc, but if I was to guess, I would say that your bifilar connection may be in error, and your toroid is actually a small capacitor, not an inductor. Can you measure a DC resistance between those two leads?
Your toroid seems to be working like a capacitor; low current at low frequency, higher current at higher frequency.
Hi poynt,
there's no error in my bifilar connections! I've been winding series bifilar for some years, so that's not a possibility. Also, I can measure DC resistance between leads and posted it above ( 0.6 Ohms ) in my post with the video.
I would agree that it's an Inductor behaving like a capacitor!... that's why I wound this toroid to test the possibilities.
Maybe we can make Inductive Capacitors... what do you think about that?
I'll be working on this and posting videos.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on January 26, 2014, 06:48:14 PM
Hi Poynt and anyone else interested.
I made a video of the Bifilar Toroid under test and found another coil which happen to be the same DC resistance 0.6 Ohm as the toroid and connected it to compare the two at different frequencies.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IinbBzcjojY&feature=youtu.be
I'm not claiming anything, I just find it interesting and would be interested to know what can cause this.
Thanks for your time
Luc
Luc,
All three of the resistors in your video are wirewound.
The LVR series is specified as "low inductance", but the actual inductance is not given in the data sheet.
The RS series was available in a "non-inductive" wind, but they would have then had the "R" replaced with an "N" (i.e., "NS" series), so I would consider the RS inductive.
Be aware that a lot of manufacturers consider anything under 100nH as being low or non-inductive, which, for low value resistors used at higher operating frequencies, is way too much inductance. The best I have been able to find are Caddock units specified as 4nH when measured .1" from the resistor body (which adds 0R1 at 4MHz).
A rough estimate to follow for a "normal" sized straight wire is ~20nH per inch, which is ~0R5 of reactance at 4MHz. Therefore, a 0.2" length of wire is ~0R1 at 4MHz. That's means that just 0.1" of wire at each end of a "non-inducive" 0R1 resistor will add another 0R1 of reactance to that resistor at 4MHz (effectively doubling its value). A six inch cliplead has about 3R of reactance at 4MHz.
Don't you have some small wattage (1/4W or 1/2W) carbon or MF resistors that you can neatly parallel (very short leads) to make a low value CSR? Putting resistors in parallel (with very short/neat leads) also places their inductance in parallel which reduces the total inductance.
Using a larger value resistor for your CSR (=/>1R) will also reduce CSR measurement errors due to inductive reactance. Roughly speaking, assuming zero inductance resistors, a 0R1 CSR with 0.1" leads is 0R2 at 4MHz (100% error), a 1R CSR with 0.1" leads is 1R1 at 4MHz (a 10% error), and a 10R CSR with 0.1" leads is 10R1 at 4MHz (a 1% error).
PW
Quote from: Magluvin on January 26, 2014, 09:34:49 PM
Hey Luc
The 2 coils have the same resistance, but they have way different inductance, and capacitance.
The toroid has more inductance and capacitance. That coil may not allow much current above 100 or even 200hz let alone 1khz as a coil alone, not in resonance. Does your sig board do sweeps? I might think that there is a lower than 4mhz resonant freq for the toroid, by the looks of it anyways, especially if it is series bifi.
If it really is set as series bifi, and it really only conducts well at around 4mhz, then the other coil will be way above that before it rings.
Mags
Hi Mags,
yes, I'm aware the 2 coils have different Inductance and Capacitance. The prior posts were questioning the CSR (shunt) to be the possible source of causing the Negative mean. So, the idea of changing coils with a coil of the same DC resistance was to see if the CSR would still be the same. If the mean was negative for both cases then we would know the CSR is the cause.
My SG doesn't do an auto sweep. However, I did a full manual one. On the bifilar Toroid from 1hz to 200hz you can see current. From 200hz to 200khz there is nothing. From 200khz it starts to go negative means and peaks at 4.7Mhz.
I tried it with my old Wavetek 134 SG and it is exactly the same thing. The only thing with the Wavetek is I can only go to 2Mhz. However, the output is higher so at 2.23Mhz I can get -395 mean or 392 mean with ch 2 inverted.
See scope shots of using Wavetek at 2Mhz on Toroid.
Luc
Those are all good comments. The other thing that can be done is to run the signal from a current sense resistor through a low pass filter that cancels the L/R pole of the CSR. But there are other pitfalls to watch out for as well, including the fact that the frequency response of an oscilloscope probe using the probe hook and a 4" or 6" ground lead is anything but flat. A great find are high frequency ground adapters available from Probe Master in San Diego, California: 4983HG. These look like little wound springs that fit snugly over the ground ring of a scope probe when the probe hook is removed. It places the ground connection a quarter inch from the probe tip center. Probing this way is almost as good as probing with a board level coaxial connector for the scope probe. Probe Master sells those things for less than $3.00 each. In my opinion they are a must have in any measurement kit.
Another useful trick is to go buy extra scope ground clips and insert a 50 Ohm resistor at the alligator clip between the clip and the lead. A little 1/8 Watt resistor works great. This damps out most of the overshoot that results from the stray inductance. It's not a perfect solution, but it cleans things up quite a bit.
The bottom line is that one needs to be careful measuring current especially with signals that content in the MHz.
Quote from: picowatt on January 26, 2014, 10:48:20 PM
Luc,
All three of the resistors in your video are wirewound.
The LVR series is specified as "low inductance", but the actual inductance is not given in the data sheet.
The RS series was available in a "non-inductive" wind, but they would have then had the "R" replaced with an "N" (i.e., "NS" series), so I would consider the RS inductive.
Be aware that a lot of manufacturers consider anything under 100nH as being low or non-inductive, which, for low value resistors used at higher operating frequencies, is way too much inductance. The best I have been able to find are Caddock units specified as 4nH when measured .1" from the resistor body (which adds 0R1 at 4MHz).
A rough estimate to follow for a "normal" sized straight wire is ~20nH per inch, which is ~0R5 of reactance at 4MHz. Therefore, a 0.2" length of wire is ~0R1 at 4MHz. That's means that just 0.1" of wire at each end of a "non-inducive" 0R1 resistor will add another 0R1 of reactance to that resistor at 4MHz (effectively doubling its value). A six inch cliplead has about 3R of reactance at 4MHz.
Don't you have some small wattage (1/4W or 1/2W) carbon or MF resistors that you can neatly parallel (very short leads) to make a low value CSR? Putting resistors in parallel (with very short/neat leads) also places their inductance in parallel which reduces the total inductance.
Using a larger value resistor for your CSR (=/>1R) will also reduce CSR measurement errors due to inductive reactance. Roughly speaking, assuming zero inductance resistors, a 0R1 CSR with 0.1" leads is 0R2 at 4MHz (100% error), a 1R CSR with 0.1" leads is 1R1 at 4MHz (a 10% error), and a 10R CSR with 0.1" leads is 10R1 at 4MHz (a 1% error).
PW
Thanks for checking on those resistors PW
I don't have anything at 1 Ohm that's not wire wound. So I tried it with the Dale LVR 0.1 Ohm, see scope shot. I set my ch 2 menu at x10 so the mean is the final value.
Last week I ordered these resistors: http://www.ebay.com/itm/221065910130?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/221065910130?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649) the idea is to group 5 together to have a 0.1 Ohm MF precision resistor capable of handling 10W. They come from China so it's going to take a while before I have them.
I do have a 10 ohm 5% MF Resistor but I think it eats up the negative mean. See 10 Ohm scope shot.
Thanks for your help
Luc
Quote from: MarkE on January 26, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
Those are all good comments. The other thing that can be done is to run the signal from a current sense resistor through a low pass filter that cancels the L/R pole of the CSR. But there are other pitfalls to watch out for as well, including the fact that the frequency response of an oscilloscope probe using the probe hook and a 4" or 6" ground lead is anything but flat. A great find are high frequency ground adapters available from Probe Master in San Diego, California: 4983HG. These look like little wound springs that fit snugly over the ground ring of a scope probe when the probe hook is removed. It places the ground connection a quarter inch from the probe tip center. Probing this way is almost as good as probing with a board level coaxial connector for the scope probe. Probe Master sells those things for less than $3.00 each. In my opinion they are a must have in any measurement kit.
Another useful trick is to go buy extra scope ground clips and insert a 50 Ohm resistor at the alligator clip between the clip and the lead. A little 1/8 Watt resistor works great. This damps out most of the overshoot that results from the stray inductance. It's not a perfect solution, but it cleans things up quite a bit.
The bottom line is that one needs to be careful measuring current especially with signals that content in the MHz.
MarkE,
Good comments Mark. I have something similar to those Probe Master probe ground contacts. A few are a bit distressed from bending and soldering...
Those attempting to make accurate measurements of non-sinusoidal waveforms, and in particular when square waves or pulses are involved, should appreciate the higher frequency harmonics present in their waveforms and the effects CSR/ stray inductance (and capacitance) has on those harmonics. Even severely distorted or clipped sine waves contain very significant amounts of harmonic content.
One might consider a 10Kc square wave or rectangular pulse as a 1OKc signal because that is what a scope or frequency counter reads out. But that is just the trigger or repetition rate of the signal. The actual frequency content of that 10Kc waveform is dependent on its rise and fall times, with faster edges (and sharp, square corners) representing higher frequency harmonics. Only when measuring a pure, undistorted sine wave does a frequency counter or scope readout tell the full story regarding frequency content.
Many people are now using a digital scope of some type and many of those scopes have an FFT mode for spectral analysis. Using and familiarizing one's self with that mode would allow the experimenter to gain a better appreciation of the actual frequencies they are attempting to measure, and the required measurement bandwidth for which they must reduce or eliminate errors due to undesired stray L's and C's.
I would encourage anyone with a digital scope to connect an FG to their scope so that both the FG's wave shape (normal mode) and spectral display (FFT mode) are visible on the scope simultaneously and observe the frequency content as the FG wave shape, frequency, and duty cycle are modified.
PW
Quote from: gotoluc on January 26, 2014, 11:40:25 PM
Thanks for checking on those resistors PW
I don't have anything at 1 Ohm that's not wire wound. So I tried it with the Dale LVR 0.1 Ohm, see scope shot. I set my ch 2 menu at x10 so the mean is the final value.
Last week I ordered these resistors: http://www.ebay.com/itm/221065910130?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/221065910130?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649) the idea is to group 5 together to have a 0.1 Ohm MF precision resistor capable of handling 10W. They come from China so it's going to take a while before I have them.
I do have a 10 ohm 5% MF Resistor but I think it eats up the negative mean. See 10 Ohm scope shot.
Thanks for your help
Luc
Luc,
As I mentioned, using a CSR with a value of 0R1 is difficult to do. Just 0.1" of wire at each end can cause a 100% error at 4MHz.
Could that "eats up the negative mean" with the 10R MF actually indicate a less inductive/more accurate CSR reading?
Does your FG have a 50R output, and can you identify the 50R on its PCB (should be close to and connected to the FG output terminal)?
What is the FG's maximum open circuit output amplitude at 4MHz and would you be concerned with shorting the FG output?
PW
Quote from: tim123 on January 24, 2014, 01:47:37 PM
Hi Verpies,
My experience doesn't agree with this... Bulbs show any real power...
I've found I can run an incandescent bulb on the output of a car ignition coil (maybe 5000v, 1000Hz) at 40w, or an MOT (2000v ish), and it's exactly as bright as it is with 40w mains (at 240v AC, 50Hz). Just the same...
But that's different. You are referring to measuring output power and I am referring to measuring input power.
When the bulb is the measuring device and the sole load at the same time (as it is on the output side), then it is an accurate indicator of power.
However, an incandescent bulb does not work well as an input power indicator because it is not the
entire load on the input side. Read about
MPTT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem).
Quote from: poynt99 on January 24, 2014, 10:09:59 PM
The input circuit is of high voltage and low current (hence little to no illumination of the series input bulb), and the output circuit is low voltage and high current, hence the output bulb lights.
That's true.
Now all that's missing is an explanation why the input circuit of a 1:1 transformer operates at higher voltage than the output circuit.
P.S.
According to the video, the primary winding forms a parallel LC circuit and the secondary winding forms a series LC circuit.
Quote from: verpies on January 31, 2014, 03:14:34 PM
That's true.
Now all that's missing is an explanation why the input circuit of a 1:1 transformer operates at higher voltage than the output circuit.
P.S.
According to the video, the primary winding forms a parallel LC circuit and the secondary winding forms a series LC circuit.
As at high frequencies, rules changed, now the 1:1 transformer will not behave same as at low frequencies.
Just my thoughts, looking for the experts opinion.
Quote from: verpies on January 31, 2014, 03:14:34 PM
That's true.
Now all that's missing is an explanation why the input circuit of a 1:1 transformer operates at higher voltage than the output circuit.
P.S.
According to the video, the primary winding forms a parallel LC circuit and the secondary winding forms a series LC circuit.
Because the circuit(s) are in resonance (Fo), and a parallel LC circuit (input) has a high impedance and high voltage at Fo, while a series LC circuit (output) has a low impedance and high current at Fo.
Hi PW, poynt99 and all,
I have a new video of the same Bifilar Troid under test but using a 1 Ohm 5% Metal Film Resistor as CSR.
The other change is I thought of the trick of using a magnet on the toroid core with a pickup coil to see if I could pickup power at a lower frequency then Mhz range.
Turns out I can light an LED at 625Hz with zero cost to the input power. However, we still have a problem as the mean is Positive with Ch 2 inverted or a Negative with it not inverted.
I'll leave it to you Pros to figure out. Anyone is welcome to join in if you feel up to the task.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQe49jH_3lA&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQe49jH_3lA&feature=youtu.be)
Please note an error on my part in the video, I keep saying the time division is micro seconds when it's mostly all in milli seconds.
Luc
Interesting Luc.
There are a number of things going on that are affecting the scope measurement. Also note that most of the power from the FG is being wasted inside the FG's 50 Ohm output resistor.
If you look at the wave forms when the circuit is connected, you will notice that the math trace indicates almost as much negative power as positive power. You judge this by estimating the area inside the trace. It comes down to comparing the area inside the positive triangular shape vs. the area inside the long/shallow negative shape. They seem pretty close, but I would guess judging by eye (not always a reliable method) that the positive area is larger. A good indicator if you are searching for OU.
Another way you can try to see what the net MEAN is, is to adjust the time (horizontal axis) so that precisely one cycle is displayed on the screen. You may have to go out of horizontal cal for this. Then see what the math mean indicates.
The "modulation" you are seeing can be due to one of two things, or even both; 1) Moire patterns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern) and 2) undersampling in the scope. The fact that the mean varies so much as you change the time base settings is cause for concern. When those math peaks appear and disappear, or seem to jump up and down in amplitude, that is usually the result of undersampling. The longer you make the time base setting to display more cycles, the worse the problem becomes. If the scope has a relatively short or small (http://www.circuitspecialists.com/memory-depth-and-oscilloscopes) memory depth (http://www.picotech.com/applications/oscilloscope_tutorial.html) then these problems can rear their ugly heads.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 31, 2014, 07:54:08 PM
Because the circuit(s) are in resonance (Fo), and a parallel LC circuit (input) has a high impedance and high voltage at Fo, while a series LC circuit (output) has a low impedance and high current at Fo.
Intriguing stuff, as it LOOKS like we have 2 parallel LC circuits, but indeed, one (the output) is also (and here acts like) a series LC circuit.
I made a replication of this circuit and made some voltage and current measurements with the scope.
We do have some coupling between the both coils as, when at resonance, both bulps light up at the same time.
Also it seems to me that the both bulb voltages act as CSR's and can be used to indicate the current (leading / trailing the SG voltage at the input)
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WU2SrKDNY4&feature=youtu.be
Regards Itsu
Quote from: gotoluc on January 31, 2014, 11:59:31 PM
Hi PW, poynt99 and all,
I have a new video of the same Bifilar Troid under test but using a 1 Ohm 5% Metal Film Resistor as CSR.
The other change is I thought of the trick of using a magnet on the toroid core with a pickup coil to see if I could pickup power at a lower frequency then Mhz range.
Turns out I can light an LED at 625Hz with zero cost to the input power. However, we still have a problem as the mean is Positive with Ch 2 inverted or a Negative with it not inverted.
I'll leave it to you Pros to figure out. Anyone is welcome to join in if you feel up to the task.
Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQe49jH_3lA&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQe49jH_3lA&feature=youtu.be)
Please note an error on my part in the video, I keep saying the time division is micro seconds when it's mostly all in milli seconds.
Luc
625 hertz is divisible by the Shumman constant of 7.8, nearly exactly 80 times. Does this indicate the possible existence of an oscillating frequency of magnetisem harmonic?
Another awesome clip Itsu!
It depends on the globes used, power applied ect. and the current caused. If the globe in series with the primary requires more current to glow than is supplied to the transformer to light up the other globe then it won't even glow.
I think one point that should not be overlooked is that when Itsu tuned it to full resonance the bulb in the primary glowed a bit, showing more input at full resonance than when just off a fraction. To me this says the current input at full resonance is just enough to light the bulb in the primary circuit.
By the way Itsu how did you get an Oscilloscope with "Australian Defence Force" written on it ? ???
Cheers
Was thinking exactly the same thing. Aussie gear.
Penno
Quote from: poynt99 on February 01, 2014, 10:51:56 AM
Interesting Luc.
There are a number of things going on that are affecting the scope measurement. Also note that most of the power from the FG is being wasted inside the FG's 50 Ohm output resistor.
If you look at the wave forms when the circuit is connected, you will notice that the math trace indicates almost as much negative power as positive power. You judge this by estimating the area inside the trace. It comes down to comparing the area inside the positive triangular shape vs. the area inside the long/shallow negative shape. They seem pretty close, but I would guess judging by eye (not always a reliable method) that the positive area is larger. A good indicator if you are searching for OU.
Another way you can try to see what the net MEAN is, is to adjust the time (horizontal axis) so that precisely one cycle is displayed on the screen. You may have to go out of horizontal cal for this. Then see what the math mean indicates.
The "modulation" you are seeing can be due to one of two things, or even both; 1) Moire patterns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern) and 2) undersampling in the scope. The fact that the mean varies so much as you change the time base settings is cause for concern. When those math peaks appear and disappear, or seem to jump up and down in amplitude, that is usually the result of undersampling. The longer you make the time base setting to display more cycles, the worse the problem becomes. If the scope has a relatively short or small (http://www.circuitspecialists.com/memory-depth-and-oscilloscopes) memory depth (http://www.picotech.com/applications/oscilloscope_tutorial.html) then these problems can rear their ugly heads.
Thanks for the reply and information poynt ;)
I was doing like you say (looking at the surface area of consumption and return) and why I started the video that way so you could see how close they are.
I'll try it with one cycle to see what the math comes up with but I think I did try that already and the math mean wasn't stable.
I think you're right, there must be a sampling limit and that's why the data changes so much.
I was testing the toroid today with 12vdc pulses and collected the flyback to another 12vdc battery using my best Shottkey diode.
At 650Hz with 10% duty cycles I was able to collect back around 95% of the energy after dc rectification. I didn't bother calculating the LED power, which I don't think is much, as you know these LED's make a good show with short pulses in the 1khz with next to no power.
After spending the day doing tests I've concluded it's under unity but one of my better power return scores.
Thanks for your reply
Luc
Quote from: Farmhand on February 01, 2014, 10:03:56 PM
I think one point that should not be overlooked is that when Itsu tuned it to full resonance the bulb in the primary glowed a bit, showing more input at full resonance than when just off a fraction.
That is because the system is not tuned precisely under load.
Itsu is using two identical caps and loosely coupled coils but the current flowing in the secondary winding under load, effectively DECREASES the inductance of the primary winding (due to Lenz law, reflected impedance, etc...)
If Itsu had searched for the precise primary LC resonance frequency (f
P)
under load - while the secondary winding was connected only to the output bulb (no cap), then he would find that f
P is higher with a loaded secondary winding than with an unloaded or open secondary winding.
Finally, if he tuned* the secondary LC tank's resonance frequency (f
S) to be equal to the primary resonance frequency (f
P) under load, according to the procedure just outlined above, then the whole system would behave more perfectly (like in the
first (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY) video).
P.S.
* e.g.: by decreasing the series capacitance in the secondary LC tank.
Quote from: Farmhand on February 01, 2014, 10:03:56 PM
By the way Itsu how did you get an Oscilloscope with "Australian Defence Force" written on it ? ???
Cheers
Simple:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-TDS3054B-Digital-Phosphor-Oscilloscope-/321215388314?pt=AU_B_I_Electrical_Test_Equipment&hash=item4ac9edda9a (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tektronix-TDS3054B-Digital-Phosphor-Oscilloscope-/321215388314?pt=AU_B_I_Electrical_Test_Equipment&hash=item4ac9edda9a)
Regards itsu
Quote from: verpies on February 02, 2014, 05:21:39 AM
That is because the system is not tuned precisely under load.
Itsu is using two identical caps and loosely coupled coils but the current flowing in the secondary winding under load, effectively DECREASES the inductance of the primary winding (due to Lenz law, reflected impedance, etc...)
If Itsu had searched for the precise primary LC resonance frequency (fP) under load - while the secondary winding was connected only to the output bulb (no cap), then he would find that fP is higher with a loaded secondary winding than with an unloaded or open secondary winding.
Finally, if he tuned* the secondary LC tank's resonance frequency (fS) to be equal to the primary resonance frequency (fP) under load, according to the procedure just outlined above, then the whole system would behave more perfectly (like in the first (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY) video).
P.S.
* e.g.: by decreasing the series capacitance in the secondary LC tank.
Thanks verpies,
my idea was that i had created an overcoupled bandpass filter, but i can have a go at your suggestion/solution.
Regards Itsu
Gentlemen its a pleasure watching you work, your teaching the rest of us with limited experience,
Thank you very much.
dave
You may consider this circuit by Mr Lindman, some of you have probably already seen it but thought I would bring it to your attention if you havent.
Quote from: verpies on February 02, 2014, 05:21:39 AM
That is because the system is not tuned precisely under load.
Itsu is using two identical caps and loosely coupled coils but the current flowing in the secondary winding under load, effectively DECREASES the inductance of the primary winding (due to Lenz law, reflected impedance, etc...)
If Itsu had searched for the precise primary LC resonance frequency (fP) under load - while the secondary winding was connected only to the output bulb (no cap), then he would find that fP is higher with a loaded secondary winding than with an unloaded or open secondary winding.
Finally, if he tuned* the secondary LC tank's resonance frequency (fS) to be equal to the primary resonance frequency (fP) under load, according to the procedure just outlined above, then the whole system would behave more perfectly (like in the first (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY) video).
P.S.
* e.g.: by decreasing the series capacitance in the secondary LC tank.
The fact still remains that all the current supplying the primary to power the load (via transformation) is delivered through the globe in the primary circuit, and if the load is using most power at full resonance in the secondary circuit the maximum current should flow through the bulb when maximum power is dissipated in the secondary load ( assuming an ideal supply ). Or to be more correct when the maximum power is dissipated in the secondary load the most power will be delivered by the supply via the primary. Not much else matters in the big scheme of things.
Cheers
The insinuation by some is that when the secondary load is dissipating the most power the supply is outputting the least power or the (primary is consuming the least power). Completely illogical.
..
Ok, i toke a quick shot at trying to get a flatline response on the parallel (left) bulb during resonance by manipulating the cores inside the coils.
This should also manipulate the inductance like decreasing the capacitance as mentioned by verpies, but its not working as expected.
I get a async resonance response when doing so and still the left bulb has some signal during resonance allthought i can bring the overall
resonance signal down meaning that the left bulb won't light anymore, but the cost is that also to right bulb is less intense.
So i leave it as it is.
I got more questions about the input and output power when in resonance.
The next 3 pictures show:
1 the output bulb (right) power at resonance (2x 122mW = 244mW), (Ch1 RMS x Ch4 RMS)
2 the input power of the whole system at resonance (2x 147mW = 294mW), (Ch3 RMS x Ch4 RMS)
3 the input bulb (left) power at resonance (2x 13.5mW = 27mW). (Ch2 RMS x Ch4 RMS)
(i use 2x as my current probe is at the 2mA/mV setting).
So we have still 23mW unaccounted for, but that will be found in some thermal losses i guess.
Regards Itsu
If you have a phase shift between voltage and current... which apparently you do... is it still legitimate simply to multiply RMS voltage by RMS current to get a power figure?
Quote from: itsu on February 03, 2014, 04:24:50 AM
Ok, i toke a quick shot at trying to get a flatline response on the parallel (left) bulb during resonance by manipulating the cores inside the coils.
This should also manipulate the inductance like decreasing the capacitance as mentioned by verpies, but its not working as expected.
I get a async resonance response when doing so and still the left bulb has some signal during resonance allthought i can bring the overall
resonance signal down meaning that the left bulb won't light anymore, but the cost is that also to right bulb is less intense.
So i leave it as it is.
...
Hi Itsu,
You are surely familiar with the coupling coefficient, k, between coils in mutual induction, two coils can be under, critical or over coupled, for those wishing to learn about these, here is a link:
http://www.crystal-radio.eu/enkoppelfactor.htm (http://www.crystal-radio.eu/enkoppelfactor.htm)
When you tried to move (manipulate) the ferrite cores in your coils, both the coupling and the inductance of each coil changed at the same time, a better method is to change the distance between the coils and fine tune the coils for a voltage peak each time. To do this in your case, no ferrite cores should overlap between your two coils and individual cores should be used for each coil to do the fine tuning which is needed because changing the distance detunes both coils and it is not enough to change the generator frequency for compensating this detuning: you would need to fine tune the coils by their cores at each new distance (ideally, in fact you would need a trimmer capacitor in parallel for each coil too because moving the cores can also change the coupling albeit the coils are just not moved).
Of course, such tuning can be a tedious process, the final goal would be to achive the critical coupling which would insure maximum power transfer with a single peak response (notice that you also get a single peak response when the coils are undercoupled).
Regarding the flat line response of the left hand side bulb, you can achieve that by slightly reducing your generator output level... and I say this because in your present setup the maximum current which is drawn and governed by the right hand side bulb at resonance is just able to make the left hand side bulb to slightly glow. (The voltage drop across this left hand side bulb increases at resonance because the resistance of the bulb increases as the small glow is starting (typical nonlinear resistance increase/response of the filament to heat.)
I am not saying you should undertake a tedious fine tuning process to achieve the max power transfer with critical coupling, (that would involve separating the two coils) you have already done an excellent series of tests on this.
Greetings, Gyula
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 03, 2014, 08:44:46 AM
If you have a phase shift between voltage and current... which apparently you do... is it still legitimate simply to multiply RMS voltage by RMS current to get a power figure?
Hi Tinselkoala,
i guess its not, as when testing a simple 1.2uF MOV capacitor (with 10M Ohm bleeder) with a 1.3KHz sign wave signal,
it shows a phase shift of 76 degrees with 6.21V Rms at 62mA Rms current.
Doing the numbers by hand P= U * I * Cos Phi shows a power of 93mW, while my scopes math shows 84mW mean (remember, current and thus power times 2 because i use a probe terminator in 2mA/mV setting)
Its close but not spot on :o
So allthough the above pictures of the in-/output show only a "slight" phase shift, we better forget the mentioned power figures.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: gyulasun on February 03, 2014, 02:32:08 PM
Of course, such tuning can be a tedious process, the final goal would be to achive the critical coupling which would insure maximum power transfer with a single peak response (notice that you also get a single peak response when the coils are undercoupled).
Hi Gyula,
yes tell me about it :)
Whenever i moved a core, the whole setup had changed and i had to move the coil again etc.
Guess its best like you said to use a trimmer to fine tune this and leave the cores fixed.
Anyway, thanks for the link and info, allways good to have some information handy.
The over coupled picture in there i had in mind when i spoke earlier of my idea of an overcoupled bandpass filter
Regards Itsu
Quote from: itsu on February 03, 2014, 03:54:49 PM
...
Whenever i moved a core, the whole setup had changed and i had to move the coil again etc.
Guess its best like you said to use a trimmer to fine tune this and leave the cores fixed.
...
Hi Itsu,
If you wish to tinker with this parallel-series LC circuit to get the maximum power transfer (i.e. to achieve critical coupling between the coils), first you would need to separate the two bobbins so that different distances could be set between the coils i.e. to be able to vary the coupling.
Then divide the tuning ring cores equally: I assume you have say 6 then 3 of them would be inserted for the left and the other 3 for the right hand side coil or if you have only 3 ring cores, then just use 1-1 and look for the new (increased) resonant frequency. I edited a snap shot from your video to show how I think the positioning of the ring cores inside the bobbins, this way the changing distance could influence the resonant frequency of the LC circuits in the least degree (the cores that give the permeability would be the furthest away from each other).
You could use an L meter for each separate coil to position the cores in each bobbin to their outer edge area as I tried to indicate in the photo by ring symbols, and adjust both coils separately for the same uH or mH value by fine positioning the cores and fix them, then attach the bulbs and the tuning caps and look for the new resonance at an initial distance of say 5cm.
Then try to decrease the distance by say 1cm and watch the brightness of the right hand side bulb whether it increases: here I have assumed of course that the 5cm distance causes an undercoupled response. IF this turns out to be the case, then the brightness of the right hand side bulb will be increasing as you reduce the distance between the coils, till the brightness starts decreasing at certain closeness: it may indicate you have reached the overcoupled case where two voltage peaks start to appear below and above of the resonant frequency which so far has been kept more or less at the same value. (In the overcoupled case the response will have a dip at the original resonant frequency as you surely know.) By positioning the cores towards the opposite edges of the bobbins, you may not have to use trimmer capacitors for fine tuning: if you carefully retune the generator a little when you reduced the distance to say 3cm then you have compansated the detuning effect of the increasing mutual inductance (here I assume of course that at 3cm you still have not reached the overcoupled case and brightness would further increase when you go to a 2.5cm distance from the 3cm). At the critically coupled state the single peak response widens with respect to the undercoupled case, meaning the bandwidth of the two LC circuits gets widened but still there is a single peak.
This is briefly the tuning process, if you have questions please ask.
Gyula
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 03, 2014, 08:44:46 AM
Quote from: itsu on February 03, 2014, 04:24:50 AM
1 the output bulb (right) power at resonance (2x 122mW = 244mW), (Ch1 RMS x Ch4 RMS)
2 the input power of the whole system at resonance (2x 147mW = 294mW), (Ch3 RMS x Ch4 RMS)
3 the input bulb (left) power at resonance (2x 13.5mW = 27mW). (Ch2 RMS x Ch4 RMS)
If you have a phase shift between voltage and current... which apparently you do... is it still legitimate simply to multiply RMS voltage by RMS current to get a power figure?
I think Itsu's scope is multiplying the instantaneous samples of current and voltage. He should have simply written (Ch1 * Ch4), (Ch3 * Ch4), (Ch2 * Ch4), etc...
I hope, his scope only displays the RMS averages for each channel but makes multiplications for each sample.
I'm not sure what type of average his math channel is displaying/applying to the results of these multiplications ...I think it's an arithmetical mean - not RMS, because it displays the word "mean".
Quote from: gyulasun on February 03, 2014, 06:26:11 PM
This is briefly the tuning process, if you have questions please ask.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula,
Its a clear process to follow, i will take a shot at it later this week.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: verpies on February 03, 2014, 08:03:50 PM
If you have a phase shift between voltage and current... which apparently you do... is it still legitimate simply to multiply RMS voltage by RMS current to get a power figure?
I think Itsu's scope is multiplying the instantaneous samples of current and voltage. He should have simply written (Ch1 * Ch4), (Ch3 * Ch4), (Ch2 * Ch4), etc...
I hope, his scope only displays the RMS averages for each channel but makes multiplications for each sample.
I'm not sure what type of average his math channel is displaying/applying to the results of these multiplications ...I think it's an arithmetical mean - not RMS, because it displays the word "mean".
verpies,
not sure what the scope is using, i can try to use PP values instead of RMS and see the difference in the math function, if any.
The documentation is not very enlightening about this subject either, i have to do some digging here i guess
Regards Itsu
In the mean time i tried to replicate what Gotoluc is doing/measuring with this bifilar coil.
My bifilar coil is measured 1.3 Ohm and 127mH.
I tried to use the same setup as Luc did (625Hz square wave 10V rms as input)
I measure the voltage across and the current through the coil and using the math function (ch1 * Ch4) to show the power.
I am using a current probe which is set at 2mA/mV, meaning that the current (and the power) needs to be multiplied by 2
As i have a slightly higher ohms value in my coil, my signal on ch1 is somewhat stronger then yours.
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgZcIavM_Oc&feature=youtu.be
Regards Itsu
Quote from: itsu on February 04, 2014, 07:19:29 AM
I tried to use the same setup as Luc did (625Hz square wave 10V rms as input)
That's a good place to recall, that the inductive reactance to a square wave is always 81% of the inductive reactance to a sine wave of the same frequency and RMS value. See
here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reactance#Inductive_reactance).
Quote from: itsu on February 04, 2014, 07:19:29 AM
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgZcIavM_Oc&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgZcIavM_Oc&feature=youtu.be)
The first scopeshot shows that the green current waveform
curves up inside one of the blue ellipses...most likely due to beginnings of saturation.
In an ideal inductor the current waveform would never curve up like this. See
here (http://www.overunity.com/8411/steorn-demo-live-stream-in-dublin-december-15th-10-am/msg360397/#msg360397).
The second scopeshot shows a discontinous current (a current spike) in an alleged RL circuit.
The current in an ideal RL circuit will never be discontinuous like this.
In other words - current spikes are
abnormal in an ideal inductor, even if that inductor is switched rapidly (...but voltage spikes are normal).
However, the interwinding parasitic capacitance
is capable of creating such current spikes when stimulated by a rectangular waveform.
This parasititc capacitance will and does form a parallel LC tank with the inductance of the coil. This LC tank will and does ring/oscillate.
If you know this ringing frequency and the inductance of the coil, then you can approximate this parasitic interwinding capacitance as C=1 / [ L(2πf)
2].
The third annotated scopeshot shows the energy returned to the power supply (the SG) as the blue area above the red curve and the energy delivered by the power supply (the SG) as the white area under the red curve.
P.S.
How high are these current spikes anyway?
If I were you, I'd place the current probe
after the voltage measuring probe, as a matter of principle. Imagine, that the red crocodile clip is a small resistor...and the voltage sensed by the scope is subjected to the voltage drop of that resistor. Now the voltage sensed depends on the current flowing and no longer reflects the true voltage output of the SG....in this case by μV.
Quote from: itsu on February 04, 2014, 07:19:29 AM
In the mean time i tried to replicate what Gotoluc is doing/measuring with this bifilar coil.
My bifilar coil is measured 1.3 Ohm and 127mH.
I tried to use the same setup as Luc did (625Hz square wave 10V rms as input)
I measure the voltage across and the current through the coil and using the math function (ch1 * Ch4) to show the power.
I am using a current probe which is set at 2mA/mV, meaning that the current (and the power) needs to be multiplied by 2
As i have a slightly higher ohms value in my coil, my signal on ch1 is somewhat stronger then yours.
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgZcIavM_Oc&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgZcIavM_Oc&feature=youtu.be)
Regards Itsu
Thanks itsu for the replication attempt and making a video to share your results.
Luc
Quote from: verpies on February 04, 2014, 08:32:34 AM
P.S.
How high are these current spikes anyway?
Thanks again verpies for this piece of information.
Here a picture of the current spike.
Again times 2 = 144mA pp @ ringing frequency 7.2MHz
Regards Itsu
Quote from: gyulasun on February 03, 2014, 06:26:11 PM
This is briefly the tuning process, if you have questions please ask.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
i followed your instructions, but i do not see a clear point where the right bulb starts to decrease while getting both coils closer together.
Still the left bulb is showing an increase in voltage (not visible anymore in the bulb itself because of the moved cores to the outside).
I have 7 cores in each coil, measuring 9.33mH each, see end of the video.
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOWQntycJA&feature=youtu.be
Regards Itsu
Quote from: itsu on February 05, 2014, 04:21:13 PM
Hi Gyula,
i followed your instructions, but i do not see a clear point where the right bulb starts to decrease while getting both coils closer together.
Still the left bulb is showing an increase in voltage (not visible anymore in the bulb itself because of the moved cores to the outside).
I have 7 cores in each coil, measuring 9.33mH each, see end of the video.
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOWQntycJA&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOWQntycJA&feature=youtu.be)
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Unfortunately, the dip at the original resonant frequency is small, this means the change in the brightness can only be also very small and hard to notice by the eye, perhaps by monitoring the AC voltage by an analog voltage meter and not relying on the bulb brightness could help notice the dip by watching the needle. Here is a dip in the center frequency of an overcoupled, mutually coupled two LC tanks: http://www.crystal-radio.eu/koppelinghoog.jpg (http://www.crystal-radio.eu/koppelinghoog.jpg)
However, in your video I noticed the double peak behaviour which indicates overcoupling: I mean the blue trace which shows the voltage across the left hand side bulb, in video time between 3:02 and 3:10 or so the blue trace shows two peaks as you sweep the frequency in one direction, (I assume you did either upwards or downwards and you did not do it suddenly backwards just after an upwards peak). And because of the coils are very close in that situation, please increase the distance between the coils and watch the blue trace when the two peaks disappear in the function of the separation, at a certain distance there should be only one peak remain in the blue trace (and not two) at the resonant frequency when you slowly sweep the generator.
Sorry for this, and I said the 5cm at random of course, coupling depends on several factors.
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on February 05, 2014, 06:28:05 PM
so the blue trace shows two peaks as you sweep the frequency in one direction, (I assume you did either upwards or downwards and you did not do it suddenly backwards just after an upwards peak).
Correct.
Quoteplease increase the distance between the coils and watch the blue trace when the two peaks disappear in the function of the separation, at a certain distance there should be only one peak remain in the blue trace (and not two) at the resonant frequency when you slowly sweep the generator.
I did that lateron when moving away the both coils untill the blue line was flat.
However as i mentioned then, there is no light in the right bulb then, so i probably have the correct coupling distance, but the
coupling power is not enough to light the bulb which makes it in this case somewhat useless.
Anyway, i get the picture, thanks.
Regards itsu
Dear
I am a highschool student and surely don't have that much knowledge as most of here have.
I have seen a video where gotoluc shows how he uses capacitors for having an overunity transformer, I drawed a picture of how I explain it simplfied, is this correct?
Kind regards, Julien
Quote from: itsu on February 06, 2014, 03:48:27 AM
Correct.
I did that lateron when moving away the both coils untill the blue line was flat.
However as i mentioned then, there is no light in the right bulb then, so i probably have the correct coupling distance, but the
coupling power is not enough to light the bulb which makes it in this case somewhat useless.
Anyway, i get the picture, thanks.
Regards itsu
Hi Itsu,
Well, I believe the inherent difficulty in this setup is the use of incandescent bulbs to indicate the tuning process and the power relations... While the bulbs are spectacular indicators and were introduced in the original video, the tuning process which is problematic in itself (due to the mutual coupling) is further complicated by the nonlinearly changing bulb resistance as the strength of the current changes: when the filament is cold or only hardly glow (when the input frequency is coming near to the resonance but not yet spot on), the filament resistance is low, this is 'good' for input side on the left because input current is not influenced too much. And the low resistance at right hand side is also good because it does not ruin too much the Q quality factor of the right hand side (series) L2C2 circuit, selectivity is preserved there.
Nearing to resonance and reaching it with the generator, the right hand side bulb's resistance increases to a maximum as it brightens up (this resistance increase is true for the input bulb too but its current is still low due to the resonant impedance of the input parallel L1C1 circuit) and at resonance the Q of the L2C2 circuit gets much reduced because the filament already has its higher value hot resistance in series with L2C2, so the resonant current in L2C2 is limited by the increased bulb resistance.
The best would be to use fix resistors of a few Ohms (say 1 to 5 Ohm) instead of the bulbs and watch current drops across them by the scope. Even so, very careful adjustments are needed to get the most power out by inductive resonant coupling.
Thanks for all your efforts!
rgds, Gyula
I put together this crazy two phase generator setup. ;D With a bit of maintenance on the motor it will be much more efficient. I was thinking i could do some experiments with it since the universal motor can be powered from a Battery with DC or with AC from the wall socket via a power meter and variac. And with two phases I could compare differences between two separate outputs at the same time. It can do 50/60 hz or even up to 80 or 100 Hz maybe. Voltage traces of the two phases is shown on the scope. It's not as loud as it sounds on the video.
Small two phase generator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GSRtEKqh48
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on February 06, 2014, 11:48:17 AM
I put together this crazy two phase generator setup. ;D
Is there anywhere I can see how that thing is constructed?
I could not hear and understand anything you said. Is that tight bearing really the only component responsible for that racket?
Quote from: JulienVictor on February 06, 2014, 07:07:31 AM
I am a high school student and surely don't have that much knowledge as most here have.
I have seen a video where gotoluc shows how he uses capacitors for having an overunity transformer, I drew a picture of how I explain it simplfied, is this correct?
I'd need to know more about the theory of operation of this circuit, such as the mutual inductance coefficient and the relationship of the primary LC tank resonance frequency [ 1/2π(LC)
0.5 ] to the AC power supply frequency. I did not read this thread from the beginning.
This appears to be a simplified version of of Itsu's experiment. It is different though, because Itsu forms a parallel LC tank with the primary winding and a series LC tank with the secondary winding. Your drawing shows only a series LC tank formed with the primary winding. A series LC tank achieves minimum impedance at resonance.
The way you had drawn the flux seems to be correct conceptually, but you must understand that 3 separate fluxes do not really form inside the ferromagnetic core. Also windings that do not cover the whole core, create a flux leakage that looks as in the illustration below. The opposing action of the secondary winding (due to Lenz law) actually expels the flux from under the secondary and aggravates the flux leakage outside of the core.
P.S.
What country are you from?
Quote from: itsu on February 05, 2014, 04:21:13 PM
Hi Gyula,
I followed your instructions, but i do not see a clear point where the right bulb starts to decrease while getting both coils closer together.
Did you ever do this measurement below?
Quote from: verpies on February 02, 2014, 05:21:39 AM
If Itsu had searched for the precise primary LC resonance frequency (fP) under load - while the secondary winding was connected only to the output bulb (no cap),...
Quote from: verpies on February 06, 2014, 12:44:29 PM
Did you ever do this measurement below?
I did, and in response i wrote this:
Quote from: itsu on February 03, 2014, 04:24:50 AM
Ok, i toke a quick shot at trying to get a flatline response on the parallel (left) bulb during resonance by manipulating the cores inside the coils.
This should also manipulate the inductance like decreasing the capacitance as mentioned by verpies, but its not working as expected.
I am lost now what was "not working as expected" (to many things going on :) ), so i will retry your suggestions.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: itsu on February 03, 2014, 04:24:50 AM
Ok, i took a quick shot at trying to get a flatline response on the parallel (left) bulb during resonance by manipulating the cores inside the coils.
Actually, for this experiment I had in mind a maximal and symmetrical fill with the ferrite "core sausage".
I was expecting to read:
Without the sole bulb connected across the secondary, the resonance of the parallel LC tank formed by the primary winding is A
...and with the sole bulb connected across the secondary this primary resonance frequency is B.
Quote from: verpies on February 06, 2014, 12:07:27 PM
Is there anywhere I can see how that thing is constructed?
I could not hear and understand anything you said. Is that tight bearing really the only component responsible for that racket?
It's just a universal motor from a 240 volt vacuum cleaner with a plate and rotor bolted to it and the entire motor and rotor is bolted to the wooden platform (which magnifies the noise a bit). The toroid is just a transformer I had with "four separate transformers" wound on the core and the opposite ones are connected in series. The magnets are diametrically magnetized.
The bearing isn't responsible for the noise most of that is from the stuff on the bench and the brushes in the motor, plus I was in a tin shed with all the windows shut at midnight, so there was no other noise and I was not trying to talk over it as there was not much to say. The bearings are both tight, the shaft has no longitudinal play and the bearings are pressing hard on each end of the armature which makes it use a bit more power than normal. The brushes do make a bit of noise, they need replacing.
Not much was really said in the video, no claims being made, but I must say it has a lot less drag than most generators I have made (aside from the tight shaft in the bearings). It does "load down" when loaded though in normal operation. I've got some idea's to get the wave form better. And I should get much better voltage/power with a better rotor ( that one I had already laying around), I whipped up that setup in a couple of hours. Basically I have a rotating "permanent magnet field" and an annular armature/stator wound Tesla motor/converter style. I intend to make the rotor and magnet placement so the waveform is more classically sinusoidal.
Each Phase has two opposite coils and together they measure about 460 mH that's per phase. It also has some thicker shorter coils wound on there in bifilar pairs ( they were for using the transformer as an inverter ) It may help if I connect all the coils in each quarter in series then connect the opposite quarters in series to get the highest output (use all the wire).
The brushes in he universal motor need attention as well, they are cut down, I have plenty of spares, I even have a 1200 Watt motor the same and a 2000 watt one as well, the one i'm using now is a 1600 Watt motor and has seen a lot of use and abuse, they are designed for 240 AC but I just power them with DC mostly. I use a 5 amp 40 volt boost converter mostly. 70 Watts max. But it can run from AC as well.
Cheers
P.S. Having no pole projections there is no cogging. ;) Good for wind generator. But if Luc can help me make one phase power the other for free I won't need wind. :)
To explain the bearing situation I replaced the bearings and the new ones are a bit higher and I left in the spacing washer, I just need to shim the frame or remove the spacing washer or replace it with a thinner one to give some up-down shaft play and let it spin freely..
Theoretically I should be able to power the coils with two phases of current and turn the rotor to generate DC from the universal motor.
..
The magnets aren't even centered vertically to the coils yet, the new rotor will be double thickness and totally encase the magnets.
..
Quote from: verpies on February 06, 2014, 01:11:37 PM
Actually, for this experiment I had in mind a maximal and symmetrical fill with the ferrite "core sausage".
I was expecting to read:
Without the sole bulb connected across the secondary, the resonance of the parallel LC tank formed by the primary winding is A
...and with the sole bulb connected across the secondary this primary resonance frequency is B.
Ok, i gave it another try and now know why i mentioned that it did not work as expected.
Probably i misunderstand something, but the resonance frequencies differ only 80Hz, which makes it very hard to tune/compensate i guess.
The figures are:
Without the sole bulb connected across the secondary, the resonance of the parallel LC tank formed by the primary winding is 3.520KHz
...and with the sole bulb connected across the secondary this primary resonance frequency is 3.6KHz
So it is like you mentioned in an earlier post, but very marginally:
Quotehe would find that fP is higher with a loaded secondary winding than with an unloaded or open secondary winding.
But the next line is, as mentioned before, not that easy to perform:
QuoteFinally, if he tuned* the secondary LC tank's resonance frequency (fS) to be equal to the primary resonance frequency (fP) under load, according to the procedure just outlined above, then the whole system would behave more perfectly (like in the first video).
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSEGV_MOMwY&feature=youtu.be
Regards Itsu
Quote from: itsu on February 06, 2014, 05:53:31 PM
OK, I gave it another try and now I know why I mentioned, that it did not work as expected.
Probably I misunderstand something, but the resonance frequencies differ only 80Hz,
You did not misunderstand anything, but I apologize for using two words interchangeably ("open" and "unloaded"). The were synonymous.
The difference in frequency would be larger than 80Hz if you moved the "ferrite sausages" to the middle of the two coils (because that would increase the coefficient of their mutual inductance).
The only thing I would do differently, is sensing the voltage across the primary capacitor and tune for max voltage there, because the signal would be less noisy across this capacitor than across the primary bulb.
P.S.
That double dip is what Gyulasun was driving at.
If you did the frequency sweep with the SG and the scope connected like we did once in the past, you'd actually see the double dip on the screen of the scope.
BTW: I am not asking you to do a frequency sweep for this simple experiment - I know it's a hassle to set up ;)
I am interested, however, if your new scope has adjustable persistence in the XY mode (...or a 'Clear Screen" input).
I remember that the old scope did not have it, and because of that shortcoming we could not do fast exponential frequency sweeps (only slow linear sweeps).
Quote from: verpies on February 06, 2014, 06:23:10 PM
You did not misunderstand anything
The difference in frequency would be larger than 80Hz if you moved the "ferrite sausages" to the middle of the two coils (because that would increase the coefficient of their mutual inductance).
P.S.
I am interested, however, if your new scope has adjustable persistence in the XY mode (...or a 'Clear Screen" input).
I remember that the old scope did not have it, and because of that shortcoming we could not do fast exponential frequency sweeps (only slow linear sweeps).
Ok, great.
I can move the core and see what happens.
Let me check this scope for this "adjustable persistence in the XY mode"
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Farmhand on February 06, 2014, 11:48:17 AM
I put together this crazy two phase generator setup. ;D With a bit of maintenance on the motor it will be much more efficient. I was thinking i could do some experiments with it since the universal motor can be powered from a Battery with DC or with AC from the wall socket via a power meter and variac. And with two phases I could compare differences between two separate outputs at the same time. It can do 50/60 hz or even up to 80 or 100 Hz maybe. Voltage traces of the two phases is shown on the scope. It's not as loud as it sounds on the video.
Small two phase generator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GSRtEKqh48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GSRtEKqh48)
Cheers
Very good generator design idea Farmhand. I was also thinking of experimenting with something of this style but as a motor. Could you make a motor out of it?
Hope you get your bearing issue fixed. looks like you have much waste there.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: JulienVictor on February 06, 2014, 07:07:31 AM
Dear
I am a highschool student and surely don't have that much knowledge as most of here have.
I have seen a video where gotoluc shows how he uses capacitors for having an overunity transformer, I drawed a picture of how I explain it simplfied, is this correct?
Kind regards, Julien
Hi Julien,
your 3rd drawing is what I was using with a microwave oven transformer. Capacitor in series on the primary and a resistor on the secondary.
I have not claimed over unity but have had some interesting effects. Be careful this is dangerous experiments.
Luc
Quote from: Farmhand on February 06, 2014, 11:48:17 AM
I put together this crazy two phase generator setup. ;D With a bit of maintenance on the motor it will be much more efficient. I was thinking i could do some experiments with it since the universal motor can be powered from a Battery with DC or with AC from the wall socket via a power meter and variac. And with two phases I could compare differences between two separate outputs at the same time. It can do 50/60 hz or even up to 80 or 100 Hz maybe. Voltage traces of the two phases is shown on the scope. It's not as loud as it sounds on the video.
Small two phase generator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GSRtEKqh48 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GSRtEKqh48)
Cheers
Actually I have another idea, keep the generator as is for now and make a trigger circuit that will short the gen coil or coils at their peak of the sine wave for a small fraction (duty cycle) and see what that does for the output. It maybe enough to kick the magnets at the right time and boost the output also.
Luc
Hi Luc, I do have a circuit that i can use for shorting the coils, but I need to change the optical sensor module for a hall effect sensor module. I found if I add 13 uF to each phase i get resonance at just over 60 Hz and the voltage is rediculous, I'm talking over 300 volts peak to peak and I still am not at full resonance, also one set of coils has more wire on it than the other, I need to fix that, originally I fixed it by adding some wire to the lesser inductance/resistance set but that made those coils exceeded the inside diameter limits. So the only option is to remove half a layer from the higher inductance/resistance set to even them up..
I'll try to motor it by just using the active line split and one phase powered with the 14 uf capacitor in series to get a difference in the phase of the currents. One thing I've learned with Tesla's devices is that the direction of wind of the coils can not be taken for granted. Things must be wound a certain way to be able to match the wiring of the diagrams, so it is important to understand what the result of a certain connection will be.
By connecting one end of the two phases together I can get a three wire system grounded return.
I can already get good speed up under load and short effects even at low frequency, 40 Hz.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on February 07, 2014, 03:24:37 PM
Hi Luc, I do have a circuit that i can use for shorting the coils, but I need to change the optical sensor module for a hall effect sensor module. I found if I add 13 uF to each phase i get resonance at just over 60 Hz and the voltage is rediculous, I'm talking over 300 volts peak to peak and I still am not at full resonance, also one set of coils has more wire on it than the other, I need to fix that, originally I fixed it by adding some wire to the lesser inductance/resistance set but that made those coils exceeded the inside diameter limits. So the only option is to remove half a layer from the higher inductance/resistance set to even them up..
I'll try to motor it by just using the active line split and one phase powered with the 14 uf capacitor in series to get a difference in the phase of the currents. One thing I've learned with Tesla's devices is that the direction of wind of the coils can not be taken for granted. Things must be wound a certain way to be able to match the wiring of the diagrams, so it is important to understand what the result of a certain connection will be.
By connecting one end of the two phases together I can get a three wire system grounded return.
I can already get good speed up under load and short effects even at low frequency, 40 Hz.
Cheers
Thanks for the reply Farmhand
have you already experimented with coil shorting?... I think you need bidirectional mosfet's to do it?
I prefer optical to halls sensors. I don't see why you couldn't use the optical sensors?... sorting timing should be in the same place once you find the best location and you can vary the length of the reflector for pulse duration. But you may need two opticalsensors if your magnets are not at exact opposites.
It's nice that you can also get resonance at such a low frequency!... but I would guess if you attach a load it probably has more Lenz then non resonance?
I'll be interested in your results.
Thanks for testing and sharing
Cheers
Luc
My Pleasure Luc, I love to experiment. :) With my particular setup I made the toroid more for a transformer ( a motor would be better with the core higher than it is from inside to outside diameter) and with a circuit I can get similar effect by switching the thick (primary windings for a step up), but the timing is odd and requires a 4 Phase signal, two phases can do it using resonance I guess. I'll make a few changes and probably mount the new rotor on a shaft. then I can couple to different motors ect.
Cheers
Luc and all others,
Has there been any attempt to design a controller that would:
test the power factor and trigger some relais to connect the right amount of capacitance to get a 90° phase shift (eg. like an autofocus), and probably stepup the voltage simultanously to maintain the initial or required voltage?
A circuit that can indicate the power factor in a simple way would be useful anyway. How are wattmeters doing that?
With 10 caps and relais, with values of 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512 uF the controller could handle anything between 1 and 1023 uF.
Regards
BTW. your research is some of the best I've seen in the field of FE, so respect and thank you!
Keep going Farmhand you are now playing in my world. GREAT work there.
One suggestion though. Get rid of the magnets and wind up the two phase coils on the rotor. What this will do is bring variability to the generator which will adjust to the field coils. You can still use the magnets as a magneto like setup and mount them on the shaft to energize 4 coils of the magneto section to power the field coils. What this does is remove the power input requirements after the system is brought up to speed.
Remember the Tesla patent I have been showing about this system. Try to stay on that course because it does work exactly how it is shown. All of the connections are shown as well to where to pull current from once the system is running.
This thing uses the transformer action to loop the magnetic field and electric field. Since both are tied together it guides one (magnetic) through the machine and converts it to the electric (inductive) action of the transformer. This will only be as good as the magnetic pathway you have designed into the field cores and rotor. More pathway there and the stronger the output will be.
You are sooooooooo close now.
Have fun,
jbignes5
Hi everyone,
I have an interesting effect (to me anyways) in a Solid State generator of my design that I've been working on part time for the past couple of months.
Could .99, TK or MH confirm if this has value. Since I recall .99 said that until I have a positive means when current prob is inverted my circuit would be using power.
Well I now have a positive means with current probe inverted and the generator circuit is outputting power to a resistive load (GE 53 12v 2w bulb).
Video has some corrections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5AlbQHILI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5AlbQHILI)
Luc
Luc,
I believe those are 18 Ohm resistors (8 is grey if I recall), so you likely have 18 of them in parallel.
Once again, a drawn out circuit can reveal things we may miss when thinking about the circuit strictly in our heads. I have taken the liberty to drawn one for you.
First thing of note, is your metal mass of MOT's etc, is probably just providing a capacitive coupling to ground to complete the smps transformer primary circuit (shown with dotted line to CMM).
Second, you should notice that the FG has a 50 Ohm output resistor RG, and with your measurement probes P1 and P2, you are not strictly measuring the output power of the FG; you are also measuring the output power dissipated in RG. This is going to skew the polarity of your power measurement.
When doing power measurements with your FG as the source, I would suggest you build, buy, or use some kind of low impedance buffer after your FG so that you can measure the true output, not through a 50 Ohm output resistor. Here is a suggested buffer from MarkE.
http://www.overunity.com/13743/rosemary-ainslie-quantum-magazine-circuit-cop-17-claims/msg396139/#msg396139 (http://www.overunity.com/13743/rosemary-ainslie-quantum-magazine-circuit-cop-17-claims/msg396139/#msg396139)
@Mark, perhaps this is not entirely suitable for this application. Can you suggest something else if not? Actually, now that I think about it, this output buffer is aimed at pulse output boosting, not for sine waves. We would need some biasing in this stage to minimize the cross-over distortion.
Luc,
This may be helpful in resolving the low impedance drive issue with your FG. It provides a few options, including Mark's buffer in an op-amp feedback loop to minimize cross-over distortion.
Thanks for the reply poynt
I'm not sure I understand why the power going into the circuit cannot be measured in the standard way?
I looked at the circuit you propose and since electronics is not my strong side it doesn't help me understand either.
So here's what I propose, instead of building a circuit to avoid a possible problem with the 50 Ohm output resistor in the SG, how about showing me a simple circuit I can build that will make a higher voltage sine wave output then the SG can in the 700 to 800KHz range. This would eliminate the SG altogether and further test the circuit capabilities.
Thanks for your help
Luc
Hi Luc,
I would suggest to replace the bulb with a real metal film resistor of some ten Ohms and measure the AC voltage across it too. You can get acceptably low inductance load resistor from several metal film types connected in parallel like your 1 Ohm was assembled but no need for using higher than 4 or 5 pieces of them as a maximum. Say you have 5 pieces of 220 Ohm metal film or carbon type (say 1/8 or 1/4 W rated each) and you parallel them so you get 44 Ohm and can use this in formula P=V*V/44 to get output AC power (V is in rms). If you have other resistor values in the some hundred Ohm range, just use them in parallel and check their value with a digital Ohm meter.
When using a bulb as a load, one can never know the output power dissipated in it if its instanteneous current is not measured together with the voltage across it, and a further problem is the bulb repesent a varying resistor as per its brightness changes, altering its loading effect to the circuit driving it, which may cause other unwanted effects in certain circuits (like changing the loaded Q of an LC tank, for instance)
All I mean with a real resistor instead of the bulb is that output power can also be measured, beside the MATH function of the scope.
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on April 20, 2014, 05:16:25 PM
Hi Luc,
I would suggest to replace the bulb with a real metal film resistor of some ten Ohms and measure the AC voltage across it too. You can get acceptably low inductance load resistor from several metal film types connected in parallel like your 1 Ohm was assembled but no need for using higher than 4 or 5 pieces of them as a maximum. Say you have 5 pieces of 220 Ohm metal film or carbon type (say 1/8 or 1/4 W rated each) and you parallel them so you get 44 Ohm and can use this in formula P=V*V/44 to get output AC power (V is in rms). If you have other resistor values in the some hundred Ohm range, just use them in parallel and check their value with a digital Ohm meter.
When using a bulb as a load, one can never know the output power dissipated in it if its instanteneous current is not measured together with the voltage across it, and a further problem is the bulb repesent a varying resistor as per its brightness changes, altering its loading effect to the circuit driving it, which may cause other unwanted effects in certain circuits (like changing the loaded Q of an LC tank, for instance)
All I mean with a real resistor instead of the bulb is that output power can also be measured, beside the MATH function of the scope.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
thanks for your post.
I used the bulb just as a visual display to show the circuit outputs real current. My first question was and still is, when a circuits voltage and current is 180 degrees out of phase does this mean the input power is reflected back to the source?
Once that question is answered I would post the RMS voltage across a 10 Ohm 1% metal film resistor as load instead of the bulb.
I do know not to use bulbs to make power calculations but thanks for bringing it up.
Luc
Hi Luc,
To answer your question, yes, the output (not input) power seems to be reflected back to the source.
Here is an animation of Power Factor when the phase angle between the AC voltage and current changes between -90° and +90°. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ACPowerFactorPrinciple/ (http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ACPowerFactorPrinciple/)
You can read explanations in the Details section (under the 3 Snapshots) and the last sentence is:
"If the phase angle were to be shifted to be greater than 90 degrees in either direction, the load would effectively become the source."
This means from the explanations that if the power curve is shifted in the negative direction (below the time axis as in your scope shot) then the load "delivers" power back to the generator.
Whether this is really happening in your circuit I do not know, the scope shows that to be the case. Further circuit explorations are needed.
Gyula
Any circuit element other than the pure source itself, is part of the load.
The RG of any function generator is actually part of the load, not the source. Therefore, if one does a source power measurement without somehow excluding RG (either mathematically, or with buffering), then one does not obtain an accurate source power nor polarity.
In this case, it appears only a fraction of total power is lost in RG, perhaps 18%, so the polarity should be correct. I am working on a sim that will hopefully help explain the apparent polarity reversal.
OK Luc,
I've figured out why the phase of the current probe is reversed, but you'll need to try a test to see if we can get the circuit to operate close to the same without the MOT's. Please replace the MOTs with a small capacitor (CMM) as I am showing in the attached diagram. You may need to try a few different values, and obviously retune for resonance.
Thanks poynt, I'll give it a try
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on April 21, 2014, 11:36:46 AM
OK Luc,
I've figured out why the phase of the current probe is reversed, but you'll need to try a test to see if we can get the circuit to operate close to the same without the MOT's. Please replace the MOTs with a small capacitor (CMM) as I am showing in the attached diagram. You may need to try a few different values, and obviously retune for resonance.
OK poynt,
I replaced the pile of MOT coils and cores with a variable air capacitor to ground like your in diagram. At 27pf I can get the same output 1.5v to the bulb and close to the same phase shift except with the MOT pile the mean is -82mv and with the air capacitor to ground the mean only goes to -65mv.
If this was just capacitance then I don't understand why there would be a difference, so I'm going to do other tests to try to get to the bottom of this.
Thanks
Luc
Luc,
I'm not sure where that wire going to the MOTs was actually connected once it got there, but you're right, there would be some inductance in series with that capacitor as well. How much, I'm not sure, but at least a few hundred nano-Henries from the connecting wire.
Not sure if that would make the difference or not.
Hi poynt,
none of the copper wires or coils are connected to anything. The single wire is only connected to the steel cores, so I wouldn't think there's any Inductance.
Please have a look at the next post for an update.
Thanks
Luc
Hi everyone,
please find the test 2 video where I was able to Isolate and accurately calculate all power fed to the signal generator.
This test demonstrates to the best of my ability that power to the load is not coming from the signal generator.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SucknHDgE6E&feature=youtu.be
Luc
Hi Luc,
My first notice is that the signal generator continuously feeds the ferrite rod coil: the 1.263A-1.254A=0.009 Amper i.e. 9 mA change (no problem you mentioned 10 mA in the video) so this change in the input supply current of the sig gen shows that nicely when you remove then reconnect the BNC cable from the sig gen output (video time 6:40 or so) and the green cable to the transformer is unconnected.
And my second notice is that by connecting the green cable to the transformer input to complete its circuit and tuning the sig gen to the 180° out of phase V-I condition, you create an energy balance between the output of the sig gen and the energy picked up by the green cable in that while the sig gen continues to take up the same (or very nearly the same) 9-10 mA extra current (part of which surely continues to go into the ferrite coil like in the case of the unconnected green cable), and the green cable picks up the electromagnetic field of the ferrite coil and feeds it back as additional energy to the transformer input, this is why the green LED lites up. (When I mention the green cable I mean its associated (distributed) capacitance and small inductance what the cores of the MOTs and their hanging wires represent.)
I understand you mentioned removing the (yellow) transformer and substituting it with a Tesla coil what you would also feed with the single wire output of the center tap of the ferrite coil: in this case the green wire and its MOT enviroment would not be needed, I accept this and I think this would confirm that your load (now a LED and earlier a bulb, both coupled to the single wire output via the transformer) is (or would be) fed by an Avramenko-plug-like circuit. In case of a Tesla coil (instead of the yellow transformer) the green wire (and its associated 'network' may not be needed, this would depend also on some factors.
My speculation that the green cable and its 'network' pick up and feed back energy to the transformer input, taken from the transmitted EM field of the ferrite rod coil, could be checked by wrapping up the ferrite coil (and its C core) in a metal box (Faraday cage) so that the ferrite coil should not be able to transmit much EM energy to its enviroment. Of course the enclosure surely would detune the sweet frequency spot so retuning the generator would be needed and notice that the green LED my not lite up at all in this case: this would prove the picked up EM energy by the green wire in the un-enclosed case. In such metal enclosure, the ferrite cores would be positioned in the middle point of the inside volume and the three insulated coil wires would come out through tiny openings on 3 sidewalls (up, down and left side).
Of course I do not mean you build this enclosure, as I said I believe the Avramenko-plug-like energy transfer manifests in your setup and it is known for having high efficiency and a very little load back effect to the energy source (which I think is the generator through the center tap of the ferrite coil...).
Thanks for showing your findings. Further deductions on energy balance may be done by learning about the real power consumed by the load and comparing it to the output power of the generator. The transmitted energy in the form of EM field by the loopstick antenna would be difficult to estimate though.
Opinions are welcome.
Gyula
Thanks for your post Gyula,
here is test 3 with the LED on a Tesla coil and ferrite stick and yellow transformer in a Faraday cage.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j28oX7rYWHU&feature=youtu.be
Luc
Hi Luc,
When I mentioned the use of a Faraday cage I did not mean to use the Tesla coil, I did not mean to change your setup in any other respect, except the presence of an eclosure around the ferrite core coil because in that setup it was the only transmitting antenna. Now you enclosed the ferrite rod coil, that is fine but created a new 'transmitting antenna' in the shape of the air cored Tesla coil... and I did not mean this, sorry.
I meant to enclose the loopstick, yes, and then trying to achieve the same result shown in the now last but one video by connecting the green wire to the yellow transformer to lite the LED again in the same way. Because I think that in that setup the green wire adds picked-up energy to the LED via the yellow transformer and the energy comes from the near field radiation of the loopstick. I may be mistaken of course.
I will try to interpret your new test of course, I need some more time due to some other commitments.
Gyula
Hi Luc,
On your latest video: The LED is connected in series with the Tesla coil and completes the circuit via the yellow transformer output coil and I think the Tesla coil receives energy via the single wire of the center tap of the ferrite coil (also in Avramenko-plug fashion) and via the yellow transformer.
I assume you tuned the setup in the same way to have the 180° out of phase V-I relationship at the ferrite coil input and your Tesla coil may have also a resonance at or near this "sweet" frequency.
You did not show whether the LED remains lit when you remove the green cable from the center tap of the Tesla coil. If it remains lit, it may mean the LED receives enough power from the Tesla coil current, and if the LED gets off when removing the green cable then it may mean two things:
1) the green cable detunes the Tesla coil and there remains no circulating current enough to lite the LED,
2) the green cable brings some additional energy from somewhere which adds to the energy coming from the Avramenko plug direction (yellow trafo + single wire of the ferrite coil).
Some more comments: your signal generator is surely a piece of art and due to its high level output capability the oscillator levels inside and the power amplifiers inside to drive the output attenuator / resistor divider chain surely create several Watts of power at any output frequency. This means that even though the metal box of the generator and circuit technics involved were designed to minimize any leakage of any set frequency and to prevent to let any unwanted signal out from the enclosure, still, I think that such elderly generators may let out some energy at other than its output BNC socket. Your AM radio receiver may sense such leakage if you leave the BNC output of the generator terminated with an 50 Ohm BNC termination and try to tune in the radio for some output frequency set at the generator, at similar output levels you have used in these tests. Maybe a small pocket sized AM radio would be better because it is ground independent (it has no mains supply but batteries) and it would be easier to probe around the generator. (If the generator has a built-in AM modulation feature, you may wish to use it, it would make probing around more audible.)
I am not stating your generator leaks and fools the tests that way, I mention it as a possibility. I worked with high level signal generators and am aware of such unwanted "features".
One more comment: your green wire and its MOT core coupling may function as an antenna too, besides its "capacitive" nature for completing the circuit as a CMM capacitor as poynt99 mentioned and drew in his schematic. On the"antenna" function I mainly mean the EM field which is established at any place by the mains wires, local electrical equipment, local AM FM or TV stations etc. Again, I am not saying your green wire drives the LED exclusively from whatever such source, it may only contribute to it.
A question: could you check any change in the current consumption of the sig gen when you connect a 300-400 OHm metal film resistor across its BNC output? (nothing else but a few hundred Ohm resistor) I know you showed how sensitively the current changes when you adjust output level or frequency but cannot recall if you mentioned or did such test, the point being if there is a small load i.e. a high value resistor across the output.
I would also be interested in reading other opinions on Luc's questions.
Thanks for making the 'Faraday cage' video.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
thanks for your post and detailed analyses.
I have said there are many ways to make this circuit and I think there are many other versions also.
In the video below I present another way.
All 5 coils are connected in series and have a DC resistance of 10.5 Ohms and inductance of 10.5mH
I have also included a few test for you.
Link to test 4 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6JlFEYyvw&feature=youtu.be
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on April 21, 2014, 10:52:22 PM
Hi poynt,
none of the copper wires or coils are connected to anything. The single wire is only connected to the steel cores, so I wouldn't think there's any Inductance.
Please have a look at the next post for an update.
Thanks
Luc
Luc,
Any and all conductors with a changing current through them exhibit inductive reactance, including the connecting wire between your circuit and the MOTs.
Luc,
Despite a lower power output with the capacitor experiment I asked you to perform, you were still able to show a negative mean power.
The current is inverted because the return path for the smps transformer primary bypasses your 1 Ohm CSR. If you try that experiment again but connect the return to the CSR rather than ground, you should see the current wave form reverse phase. Don't use a scope probe on the output bulb though, as it may wreak havoc on the measurement.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2014, 12:04:24 AM
Luc,
Despite a lower power output with the capacitor experiment I asked you to perform, you were still able to show a negative mean power.
The current is inverted because the return path for the smps transformer primary bypasses your 1 Ohm CSR. If you try that experiment again but connect the return to the CSR rather than ground, you should see the current wave form reverse phase. Don't use a scope probe on the output bulb though, as it may wreak havoc on the measurement.
Hi poynt,
forget about that circuit for now. Have a look at my newest test with no SMPS transformer, MOT core and wire pile.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6JlFEYyvw&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl6JlFEYyvw&feature=youtu.be)
Let me know where the power to light the LED comes from.
Thanks
Luc
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2014, 12:04:24 AM
Luc,
Despite a lower power output with the capacitor experiment I asked you to perform, you were still able to show a negative mean power.
The current is inverted because the return path for the smps transformer primary bypasses your 1 Ohm CSR. If you try that experiment again but connect the return to the CSR rather than ground, you should see the current wave form reverse phase. Don't use a scope probe on the output bulb though, as it may wreak havoc on the measurement.
Hi poynt,
Would like to understand what you suggest to connect exactly what to where and the best would be if you could modify your schematic and show it.
I attempted to modify your schematic as I guess you suggested but I am not sure my drawing reflects correctly your suggestion, see below.
Thanks, Gyula
Gyula,
I am at work and don't have my Visio drawing to show you.
However, if you take my last drawing which shows that CMM capacitor connected between the primary and ground, simply connect it to the right side of the CSR (at P2) instead of ground. Now all the current goes through the CSR and it is not bypassed.
You could also install the CSR right under the FG negative terminal (in series with the negative lead), and that would work as well, but this time one would not need to invert the signal on the scope, because the probe placement would not be inverted. Also, CMM would be connected between the primary and ground once again as shown in the diagram.
Quote from: poynt99 on April 24, 2014, 08:52:39 AM
However, if you take my last drawing which shows that CMM capacitor connected between the primary and ground, simply connect it to the right side of the CSR (at P2) instead of ground. Now all the current goes through the CSR and it is not bypassed.
You could also install the CSR right under the FG negative terminal (in series with the negative lead), and that would work as well, but this time one would not need to invert the signal on the scope, because the probe placement would not be inverted. Also, CMM would be connected between the primary and ground once again as shown in the diagram.
Well, I have just modified the drawing as per your first suggestion above and I replaced my previous (wrong) modification to this new description, see the attachment in my previous post. Is that correct now?
Yes, looks correct.
Hi poynt99,
Thanks and in the meantime I edited your drawing to show your other suggestion on the placement of the CS resistor, in the 'negative' lead of the signal generator, see the attached file. Is this also correct as you described?
Gyula
Okay poynt,
see the below unlisted video with a return to the CSR.
Since the MOT pile had no second wire to return to CSR I had to find something else. I used a long Tesla coil that has 200 Ohm and 36mH and should have a good amount of capacitance.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB3V104oJQo&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB3V104oJQo&feature=youtu.be)
Luc
Quote from: gyulasun on April 24, 2014, 03:13:06 PM
Hi poynt99,
Thanks and in the meantime I edited your drawing to show your other suggestion on the placement of the CS resistor, in the 'negative' lead of the signal generator, see the attached file. Is this also correct as you described?
Gyula
That's correct Gyula.
Not sure why the current wave form phase did not change there Luc. Can you try connecting the TC to gnd and see if there is any change in the phase, as opposed to connecting it to the CSR?
Hi everyone,
maybe the research on reactive power is not done yet
Have a look at this video Dog-One has pm me and share your thoughts
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk)
Luc
Luc,
With that level of apparent power gain, a self-runner should be a piece of cake. The fact that they don't have one speaks volumes.
My money is on measurement error.
Hi poynt,
they started with a mechanical version and got a small effect which they re-produced and fine tuned in a solid state version. It seems hard to believe with all that work and quality measuring equipment they have measurement error. But you never know :-\
Somehow I don't think this will be shared in public domain.
I wonder if they just created a grid mirror circuit that at a precise time rocks back and forth in that big transformer?
Luc
Luc,
I watched the clip. I am going to read between the lines for you and I am not going to mince words.
The cost for the conference is $400 per person and they state that the attendance is limited to 150 people and they state that there are 72 seats left. So they are only half-sold and the conference is less than two months away. I am going to guess that if they sell out they will actually over-sell and sell 175 seats. So that's 175 x 400 = $70,000 that they want to split up amongst themselves.
Reactive power is nothing more than power that you originally put into a reactive device, i.e.; an inductor or a capacitor, that is spat back at you by the reactive device. Think of a training center for boxers where there is that thing where you punch a bag and it's on a vertical shaft with a stiff spring. I just looked it up it's called a "speed bag." You punch the speed bag and it punches you back. That's all reactive power is, period.
Think of slowly charging a capacitor through a resistor, and then slowly discharging the same capacitor to ground through the same resistor - energy in then energy out. Now replace that with a sine wave excitation and you more or less get the same thing - energy in then energy out. "Reactive power" is not some "other form of power" - it's nothing more than the power you yourself supplied a fraction of a second before, just like the boxing speed bag. In a sense, reactive power doesn't even exist. Think of playing with a big spring, do you sense that there is some "new power" coming from the spring?
Anyway, here is the reality as I see it: Aaron's clip is nothing more than a cynical ploy to sell more tickets so that he can hit his $70K target. I have to believe that it is a staged clip where there are pitchmen for the fake setup, and the rest of the people are just casual observers who are not aware of what's going on. I know saying that almost sounds crazy, but look at the model of John Rohner as an example.
All that we saw was a scope waveform and some boxes and a variac and a 100-watt resistor.
You want a clue that it is a fake? That looks like a legit 100-watt power resistor in the setup. It's supposed to be mounted vertically so the heat can be drawn away by the hot air flowing up the center of the tube like a chimney. The bozos have it mounted horizontally.
When I see things like this sometimes I get offended. That clip is an insult to every legitimate scientist and engineer involved in the electronics industry, and in a more general sense it's an insult to everyone.
Think about this: If you were to scope the entire signal chain between the input to the load resistor, at some point you would have find a place where the voltage or current or both are much more than they are supposed to be. Like somehow the average power or energy per cycle increases 20-fold like some magic energy is raining down like manna from heaven. Do you get me? Put your scope probes on point A and see 5 watts, then put your scope probes on point B and see 100 watts. With your scope you should be able to see where the "magic power" enters the circuit.
Don't forget, these are the same people that at a previous conference projected a computer animation of a 10-coiler Bedini motor alternately charging battery banks back and forth while the unused bank was running an inverter and powering a house. "Use a 10-coiler and you never have to pay for power again" was the message in that animation. That's total crap and has never ever been proven and they had the audacity to project that at a conference.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
thanks for posting your impressions of this video demo.
I've never been to any energy conference and not planing on changing my style. Had no idea they wanted so much money for a ticket. I would agree that the price of the ticket alone should be a caution sign since over all the years of books, videos and conferences no one has been able to build a free energy device out of it.
Now the sad news, if they have staged this video just to sell tickets then all of them are thief's and not researchers let alone have any morals.
If it has come to that, then it is truly sad for the research comunity. Time will tell
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on May 05, 2014, 08:52:02 PM
Hi everyone,
maybe the research on reactive power is not done yet
Have a look at this video Dog-One has pm me and share your thoughts
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDjWwoD83Rk)
Luc
Sorry shinz62 I removed your post since it's too close to advertizing
Luc
Quote from: shinz62 on May 06, 2014, 12:10:15 PM
...
The catch is that the resonate frequency is very sensitive to the load so it is not a piece of cake to self loop because you must re-tune it for each change in the loading.
He is showing the simplest case, a fixed resistive load.
For me personally this would not be a problem at all because I believe in setting the high COP
process to the minmum constant setting that I need for it to run at continously, to minimize any
environmental effects, then put normal power to a battery bank and play it out normally as
needed. It removes the demand equation from OU system design.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on May 06, 2014, 02:27:18 PM
For me personally this would not be a problem at all because I believe in setting the high COP
process to the minmum constant setting that I need for it to run at continously, to minimize any
environmental effects, then put normal power to a battery bank and play it out normally as
needed. It removes the demand equation from OU system design.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Not so fast... the battery bank will not provide a consistent load; as it charges up it will reduce its current draw.
It appears to me to be maybe an Ainsley type setup. ::)
I don't know what to say about this except that if it is true then the MIB angle is negated because he still lives, also he keeps talking of the grid but if he can actually return energy to the grid then he does not need the grid, he can use his own AC generator and produce his own AC power and either return energy to it and burn up his generator or tune it to zero consumption, or export power to the grid from his non grid powered device. The fact he doesn't touch on these issues speaks volumes, disconnect the thing from the grid, power it with a conventional fuel powered generator or batteries, produce the OU then loop it.
The thing they always overlook is the cost of the power station facility and maintenance the staff to run it and the fuel to produce the AC they are using in the first place. Claimed free energy or OU devices with inputs from the grid make me sick. It's crazy, why do they need or want the grid if they can produce their own free energy at a C.O.P. of 2000. Is the only loop they know of a "fruit loop" maybe. :D
They should be able to power the setup with batteries then switch over from the battery supply to a capacitor and a resistor with a value to stop the capacitor from exploding due to the 30 Watts being fed back to the supply.
I call major bunk. If it is true and they don't release a schematic then they are just as bad as the power companies. However I think there is a mistake.
He said Tesla too many times in a cloud of vagueness.
Oh i get it, only the people who go to the conference will get a hint at the secret and some dubious trails to follow, I doubt any hard evidence or schematic will be shown to anybody. Ever. Time will tell. Considering the past performances I'm not counting on any hard evidence.
Would be easy to engineer a demonstration to show what they did. Ask Tinsel.
..
Sorry shinz62 I removed your post since it's too close to advertizing
Luc
Oops... sorry about that.
--- I did find this review... about his book.
http://changingpower.net/paul-babcock-uses-magnetic-flyback-for-our-benefit/
It drops some hints about using very short pulses, like a very short duty cycle.
It sounds like that is the fundamental idea. That there is more energy to be had from the collapse of the field.
Odd they didn't make it into a trilogy...
Milehigh you are right you sound crazy. You've gone off the deep end on this one. It must be difficult keeping up with crushing all the new things that seem to be coming out faster and faster every day. Firstly if that is a 100 watt resistor rather than a 50 watt resistor like they said in the video and it's getting hot then they must be getting even more power out so that sort of defeats your purpose of trying to call this fake. It actually looks just like a resistor I've got that is 225 watts. Whether it's 50, 100 or 225 if it's getting hot on 5 watts input they are onto something good IMO. I also disagree that it should be mounted vertically. IMO heat dissipation would be better in the horizontal position. Heat comes more off the outside of that type resistor than it does the inside. If it was vertical the heat from one end would be adding to the heat of the middle and the top end would be getting extra hot. I would have liked to hear your honest evaluation on this but you are sounding like a raving lunatic in your last post.
Farmhand, looping can be tricky but didn't they say in the video they were going to work on that? It's been awhile since I watched the video but I thought I recalled some mention of that.
E2matrix,
You need to learn how to crunch heat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOXgTC0SRc
MileHigh
Quote from: e2matrix on May 07, 2014, 09:26:59 PM
I would have liked to hear your honest evaluation on this but you are sounding like a raving lunatic in your last post.
NO-he sounds like the rest of us, that is sick and tired of Arron the rookie,and his band of cohert's that peddle there rubbish in order to fill there pocket's with the hard earn'd cash of those that know no better. How many time's have we heard-This is it,we have it. And year after year,nothing but more rubbish,book's,video's and expencive conferences-all of wich produce nothing new.
Good on you MH,for saying what so many of us think.
While conversely conventional electronic dogma has everyone in a perpetual loop of stagnation.
At least from out of the box thinking we have an influx of NEW ideology - a fertile ground for inspiring others to become explorers in the field.
We need something NEW in this world...not simply more of the same old same old.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on May 08, 2014, 09:00:31 AM
While conversely conventional electronic dogma has everyone in a perpetual loop of stagnation.
At least from out of the box thinking we have an influx of NEW ideology - a fertile ground for inspiring others to become explorers in the field.
We need something NEW in this world...not simply more of the same old same old.
Regards...
While it is important to keep an open mind to new evidence, it is a colossal waste of time to chase arbitrary unevidenced claims.
...as opposed to running aropund in circles chasing your tail ?
IOW, we need fresh NEW ideas added into the mix.
Regards...
Too bad though, because it's old hat to trot out an alleged free energy machine that comes from "professionals." The context of the quotes is that the people have created the aura of serious professional researchers, but they really aren't.
The "professionals" display over unity machines, but they aren't like the rest of the experimenters. You "know" that you aren't allowed to ask questions because it's confidential and proprietary information. Oooooo. In the back of the mind is the knowledge that the measurement devices and the switcher are plugged into the mains power and a five-minute soldering job by a decent box hacker could run power into the resistor. Suppress these thoughts and feelings!
Instead, watch the puppies from behind the glass!
That's the tragedy!
Quote from: MileHigh on May 08, 2014, 08:41:59 PM
Too bad though, because it's old hat to trot out an alleged free energy machine that comes from "professionals." The context of the quotes is that the people have created the aura of serious professional researchers, but they really aren't.
The "professionals" display over unity machines, but they aren't like the rest of the experimenters. You "know" that you aren't allowed to ask questions because it's confidential and proprietary information. Oooooo. In the back of the mind is the knowledge that the measurement devices and the switcher are plugged into the mains power and a five-minute soldering job by a decent box hacker could run power into the resistor. Suppress these thoughts and feelings!
Instead, watch the puppies from behind the glass!
That's the tragedy!
This just a bunch of mush!
Not so. I am going to assume that the alleged COP 20 system will be demoed at the conference with no independent third-party validation. Attendees will not be allowed to scrutinize the equipment and there will be no liberal use of clamp-on meters and such and we can't forget about not seeing what's inside the boxes. There will be no big news after the conferences. After all, if the technology is real, the next step is obviously a steam turbine generating station, perhaps a 10 megawatt experimental plant?
After the conference it will just become a thread.
I'm investing in Upsidaisium!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Vug3nREyU
Gee, that sure sounds like the brother to Unobtainium to me. Course,
they had a gov credit card to play with. (insert the pic of the three guys
rolling on the floor laughing hysterically) and , yea, I have had too many
beers again.
But I still remember the reason I lapsed out of OUR.