Look'n pretty good from a distance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_EEEz1pmsA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESjC5G_glx4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvTOb8Ix7ug
Presented live at GBEM 2016.
And first to begin a confirmation replication is Russ Gries:
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2680.msg37038
If anyone wants to lend a hand, please register at OSE and jump into the fray.
Someday, someone will actually perform a real comparison test between "rodin coils" and ordinary solenoid coils with the same inductance and DC resistance... and they will find out something interesting.
There is no "overunity" shown in the videos you link, just artsy coils that have no special properties, along with bad measurements and faulty interpretations.
I could just as well show you this video and claim massive overunity... and I was invited to present this at GBEM too. But I refuse to dress up my systems with gobbledegook language and make false claims about them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74)
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 02, 2016, 04:11:22 AM
Someday, someone will actually perform a real comparison test between "rodin coils" and ordinary solenoid coils with the same inductance and DC resistance... and they will find out something interesting.
There is no "overunity" shown in the videos you link, just artsy coils that have no special properties, along with bad measurements and faulty interpretations.
I could just as well show you this video and claim massive overunity... and I was invited to present this at GBEM too. But I refuse to dress up my systems with gobbledegook language and make false claims about them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74)
Ha Ha ! you do have a point I suppose about the over unity as far as I could get my coils to go, but you can create a 'Mono Pole Magnet with this device.
But Marco Rodine does have points about the 3 6 and 9 points especially about the 9 being the in resonance with the Universe, and Quantum Entanglement I'm not going to say the Gold, Oil, Diamonds, thing as I know demonic entities exist, but try F at 432 = 9. It might make a good demonic entity repellant who knows, you could be the first to market it ;) it might even work, the way things are going in the world.
Anyway where does M Rodine claim over unity ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6BC8mT5fFk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa0-abFJvfY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OryTPDaKYI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3bR_jcM2qM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gO9-tOaEzk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhHPgvSiH4A
If anyone cares about artsy coils and flawed measurements.
Matt
there are plenty who care..
Thanks.
looking forward to Russ's art work ,and results.
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2680.msg37038
@ Tinsel
Can you comment here on where you feel the Errors are being made in measurement protocol ?
respectfully
Chet
Quote from: Dog-One on June 05, 2016, 05:36:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6BC8mT5fFk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6BC8mT5fFk)
(and more of the same--TK)
If anyone cares about artsy coils and flawed measurements.
You are kidding, right? Compare that first video, for example, with mine which I will link again here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74
Quote from: ramset on June 05, 2016, 08:21:29 AM
Matt
there are plenty who care..
Thanks.
looking forward to Russ's art work ,and results.
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2680.msg37038 (http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2680.msg37038)
@ Tinsel
Can you comment here on where you feel the Errors are being made in measurement protocol ?
respectfully
Chet
I have commented many times and I have even demonstrated how to make such bad and misleading measurements myself. That first video in Dog-One's post is typical. Watch it if you can stand it. Unfortunately _measurements_ don't run loads or provide energy. (I could piss into the wind, too, but still won't get a cheezburger).
Typical errors include measuring reactive power and claiming OU because it exceeds input power. Measuring "output" voltage and current in different branches is another typical error. Failing to properly synchronize probes with different time constants is another typical error (Alek, Steorn). Creating ground loops that allow part of the input power to affect measurements of output power is yet another one. Failing to account for duty cycle (mistaking instantaneous power for average power). Using energy storage, like flywheels or capacitors and failing to account for the energy supplied to the storage system. Battery effects, fluffy charge, heating, etc. Simple fraud and fakery by people who are trying to sell something or attract investment. And I'm sure that people experienced in these matters can think of many more.
None of the Rodin coil fans will ever achieve a "self runner" nor will they ever power another identical setup from the output of a first setup, with extra power left over to run a real load. Why not? I know why... and so do you, and so does Russ.
I have no doubt that Russ will be able to reproduce the _measurements_ from such systems by using the same setups that the claimants are using. And if he's got the savvy, he'll realize what's happening and do some other measurements and tests of his own to show what's really happening.
Tinsel
Thanks for the response and very valid points on "measurement points" Phase ...Timing , stored energy, etc etc .
In your Vid I see a nice surprise "Exnihiloest " responded .
He is one talented fellow !
Regarding Russ and his replication of this.
I believe he is One Sincere replicator that would gladly investigate any path towards proper measurement
protocol and not shy away from it for his own personal gain or benefit.
and you can take that to the bank !
Sincerely
Chet K
Screw it guys.
It may not work, but it sure looks cool. 8)
It's the kind of thing I would love to have in my epic fail pile; especially after I die and the scrap collectors come to empty my house. Probably blow their mind.
Might be good though to put a little note on it stating, "Please look-up a fellow that goes by the name of TinselKoala and ask him what it's for and what it does." Just for safety sakes. Wouldn't want anyone falling down some bottomless rabbit hole.
This is for the Rodin fan boys and anybody that is interested in basic electronics, and especially for the lurkers from Russ' forum:
Anybody can look up what the magnetic field is like around a long straight current-carrying wire. Everyone knows that magnetic fields add up together like vectors. That's why the power cord for your toaster (lots of current) does not really give off a noticeable magnetic field. One wire is carrying current say from left to right and generating a clockwise magnetic field around the wire. The other wire is carrying current from right to left and generating a counter-clockwise magnetic field around the wire.
If you are one foot away from the power cord you "see" a clockwise magnetic field and a counter-clockwise magnetic field. They are in opposite directions so they cancel each other out. So what you really "see" is essentially no magnetic field at all.
This is the most basic fundamental stuff about magnetic fields, and it applies to any wire or any coil, including a Rodin coil.
So look at the nice picture of the Rodin coil and visualize it as being composed of a bunch of short one-inch segments that are essentially short segments of straight wire. Now, imagine the magnetic field that is being produced by each one-inch segment. Pay particular attention to how the orientation of each one-inch segment is relative to the other one-inch segments.
So, what do you have when you look at the Rodin coil in this way? You have a whole bunch of magnetic fields at different orientations doing vector summation with each other. You can easy see how there is some vector addition, and some vector cancellation. For sure, there is a whole lot of vector cancellation going on.
What is the final result of all of this? The coil has some resistance and some inductance. Because of the considerable amount of magnetic field vector cancellation taking place, that reduces the net amount of inductance in the Rodin coil compared to a conventionally-wound coil that could be made with the same amount of wire. Or, you can say that you could make a conventional coil with less wire than the Rodin coil and still get the same amount of inductance.
No matter how you look at it, in the final analysis a Rodin coil is just an inductance, and the way it is made is rather inefficient because of all of the undesirable magnetic field vector cancellation that is inherent in the "bird's nest doughnut weave" that is done to make the coil.
If Russ is going to embark on some kind of test regimen, then the smart thing to do would be to make a comparably-sized conventional coil and tweak it so that it will show the same amount of inductance on the inductance meter as the Rodin coil. Call that the "control coil." Naturally the control coil will have less wire resistance compared to the Rodin coil because it generates a magnetic field more efficiently.
Whatever tests that Russ does with the Rodin coil should also be done with the control coil. Any tests related to power out vs. power in should show the control coil is superior because the wire resistance is lower.
Again, you just have to look at the picture of the Rodin coil to see intuitively how there is a whole mess of magnetic field vector cancellation going on that serves no real purpose. Likewise, there is no such thing as a "special coil winding technique that has unique properties." In the final analysis, a coil is just a coil.
Any lurkers from Russ' forum are welcome to post my comments on his forum thread if they want. Right now I am assuming that what I state above is not in the thread on his forum, and if that's the case it should be stated.
MileHigh
Found on YT.
ABHA Coil Analysis 1
https://youtu.be/uiJqlnWTK7w
ABHA Coil Analysis 2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsU-IdHNlaw
ABHA Coil Analysis 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIX3gNR-PBs
The coils show a special, non typical behavior.
Also the design is very important.
Free the world
Love and peace
3K
Quote from: 3Kelvin on June 08, 2016, 11:30:10 PM
The coils show a special, non typical behavior.
Also the design is very important.
What makes them special?
What is the non-typical behaviour?
Why is the design very important?
You posted three clips that are actually from "TheOldScientist." They total almost an hour in length.
Can you answer the questions?
MileHigh
so far
There Pretty to look at [just one reason]
Some love them soo much they would wish them an heirloom or legacy [once found] ...another reason.
Miles
You underestimate Russ's honesty and do diligence !!
Quote from: ramset on June 09, 2016, 10:11:47 AM
so far
There Pretty to look at [just one reason]
Some love them soo much they would wish them an heirloom or legacy [once found] ...another reason.
Miles
You underestimate Russ's honesty and do diligence !!
I glanced through Russ' thread and I don't think my comments posting about what a Rodin coil really is would have any effect and they would be given a very negative reception. I am going to post on his YouTube account asking him to make a control coil.
TheOldScientist is another puzzling guy. I managed to get through his three clips. I have looked at his clips before and he has beautiful state-of-the-art equipment. But unfortunately his clips consistently come up short and the three clips linked to here are the same. No schematic, and he he has a fancy gated signal generator that he feeds into the coil and light bulb setup (whatever it is), but ultimately his clips amount to not much more than looking at squiggly lines on a fancy four-channel DSO display. He speaks something that sounds passably like bench tech, but it never delivers and many times it's pointless sounding. He frequency sweeps, and drops the terms "energy harvesting" and "energy amplification" all over his clips, almost like seasoning. After looking at nearly an hour's worth of "testing" of three different Rodin coils, I am not enlightened at all. I am quite sure the "big guns" would agree with me.
MileHigh
<<< Russ, for your Rodin coil replication and over unity testing and replication project there is an important thing that you want to do. Once you have your finalized build of your Rodin coil, then measure the inductance with an inductance meter. Then, make a conventional "control coil" of roughly the same diameter as the Rodin coil that has the same inductance as the Rodin coil. Just tweak the number of turns and measure with the inductance meter, etc. Naturally this coil will consist of much less wire, and have less resistance, as compared to the Rodin coil. Then, when you do a test with the Rodin coil, make the same test with the control coil. Doing this will open up a whole new dimension of discussion on your thread, and it is simply the right thing to do. >>>
Quote from: ramset on June 09, 2016, 10:11:47 AM
Miles
You underestimate Russ's honesty and do diligence !!
I checked out his thread and his latest clip. He is honest and openly admits that he has very little knowledge about electronics and is taking some preliminary steps to get up the learning curve for this test. I am nearly 100% confident that he would not be able to answer the famous ideal voltage source/ideal coil question, and I seriously doubt anybody participating in the thread on his forum could do it as well. Not surprisingly, nobody is discussing the basics about how a coil works, they are unaware and focusing on other things.
So, unfortunately we are back in uncomfortable territory. Marko Rodin asks Russ to do some tests that will be extremely difficult for Russ to perform. Where will it go, or will it just go in circles?
MileHigh
Meanwhile, 007 has achieved 3rd party validation, cashed investors checks and signed non-disclosure agreements. You have heard and seen all you will ever get from him.
So, if Russ cannot at least replicate the results or possibly/accidentally build a self runner. The game is over. Time to look elsewhere.
Seems like the same story over and over. I'm really starting to doubt if an OpenSource device will ever see the light of day. The guys that really know their stuff aren't talking, leaving only the guys that aren't afraid to try, stumbling. And even if one of these guys is successful, there's no way it will ever be replicated. Plenty pitiful.
Actually, the people who _really_ know their stuff, the ones that are interested anyway, are telling you that these things do NOT work as claimed, they do NOT produce "overunity" in terms of more energy out than in, they will _never_ produce self-runners or power loads at greater efficiency than known ordinary techniques, and many of them (like Akula/Ruslan/Kapanadze; FTW QEG, etc.) are outright hoaxes, frauds and scams.
And if that "007" is the same one that I think he is, he has absolutely no credibility in these matters at all.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 13, 2016, 01:05:45 AM
Actually, the people who _really_ know their stuff, the ones that are interested anyway, are telling you that these things do NOT work as claimed, they do NOT produce "overunity" in terms of more energy out than in, they will _never_ produce self-runners or power loads at greater efficiency than known ordinary techniques, and many of them (like Akula/Ruslan/Kapanadze; FTW QEG, etc.) are outright hoaxes, fraud's even and scams.
And if that "007" is the same one that I think he is, he has absolutely no credibility in these matters at all.
Maybe and maybe not, I tend to think it's more like making order out of disorder. Henry Moray, Don Smith and Troy Reed and all true inventors.
The thing about energy is like a cake if I cut it into a 100 slices and share it at a cost of 1 % interest how can I expect a return if there is only one cake ? isn't energy the same ? explain that, if you can't create nor destroy energy some part of the equation is missing, try looking at something particles do all the time.
This is a long video best viewed when you can casually watch it in the background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNgnHnXvjbw
As you will see, Russ has to his satisfaction replicated the intended effect--true power out > true power in. His next goal is to understand the power factor relationships that are going on in this device/circuit and attempt to effectively find a way to harness the power that is actually circulating.
You will also notice he has some high quality power measuring instrumentation capable of resolving this mystery. I would expect from his diligent research and learning we will soon get to the bottom of things, be that what they are.
And some more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrH0pfOUSRI
I sampled both clips and I don't think there is anything there. At 35:00 in the second clip Russ says that he has OU based on his input and output analog voltage and current meters but they can't account for power factor. Meanwhile the DSO shot in the same video frame shows a power factor of possibly 0.699. However every single power measurement being made by the DSO has a question mark after the numbers presumably indicating that the DSO is sensing that there is a problem with the sampling of the waveforms. It looks like for the entire second half of the second clip the DSO is showing question marks.
I don't have all of the information because I am not watching the clips in their entirety and I may not be able to see attachments in Russ' forum thread and I mostly skimmed through the thread. That being said, this is what I believe:
I don't think that a schematic of the Rodin coil has been published, and the exact electrical configuration of the coil may be unknown. I don't think he has shown any schematics of his test setups or where his measurement probes are on his test setups. That is a cardinal sin in the realm of electronics testing. On top of that this is the first time ever that he is doing any of this stuff and is feeling it out as he goes along. Then of course he is a family man with a full time job and he is doing this all late at night and doesn't have time to properly document himself.
With all of his good intentions, and his limited time, right now it would appear that he has nothing and unfortunately it looks like he has picked up the bad habits of TheOldScientist. The only way he could get even close to making a case would be to follow up on the live streaming clips with a short five-minute clip showing the measurements backed up with a full schematic showing the test points.
MileHigh
Watching the first clip,i notice at 2:13:35,he mentions that he is using AC coupling on the scope.
Is Russ making the same mistake as EMJ here?-using AC coupling to make power measurements.
Brad
Quote
Actually, the people who _really_ know their stuff, the ones that are interested anyway, are telling you that these things do NOT work as claimed, they do NOT produce "overunity" in terms of more energy out than in, they will _never_ produce self-runners or power loads at greater efficiency than known ordinary techniques, and many of them (like Akula/Ruslan/Kapanadze; FTW QEG, etc.) are outright hoaxes, fraud's even and scams.
Yes, many of them are scams. And the term Overunity may also be unlogical.
But there are definitely selfrunners. Basicly it is all about the search for a new and convenient energy source. It does not matter if we, at some point in time, will become able to explain where the energy comes from, seen from the POV of presence it is free energy, overunity if you want. Eg. a crystal radio set. Or beta decay, which people couldn't explain and seriously begun to question the validity of the law of conservation of energy. Or why helium does not freeze at 0K. The casimir force and zero point energy flux. We're just beginning to realize that there are endless amounts of energy all around us. Reality is not constructed after our "laws", but our "laws" are shortsighted observations of the fraction of reality we glimpsed so far.
Before it's always magic, unbelievable or overunity. But after its introduction to our daily lifes it's simply science, and tk etc. will say "oh I knew that, I always did."
Yes Brad,
Russ did start out using AC coupling and I told him directly to never do that again unless he only intends to see an AC signal riding atop a highly DC biased waveform. It's possible the AC coupling is why the scope is showing a question mark since it has to assume the waveform is zero centered.
@MileHigh,
The attachments at OSE do discuss the schematic, but basically it is two 12 conductor bundled windings arranged as (semi litz wire) shown below. One of them is L1 (input) and the other L2 (output). Currently, Russ doesn't have the full 50/50 split as 007 did because he was worried he would fry the amplifier with the DC ohms being below 4. I think he only has two wires used as the "copper core" and the other ten running zig-zag.
The major challenge comes into play from this point forward in figuring out what 007 had done to the output PSU that was engineered to accept 2000 volts input. My understanding is it uses a mass of diodes for some purpose, which is why Russ is now using LED lamps instead of filament lamps. Russ was told the filament lamps simply will not work. Maybe Brad can walk him through how to make an effective light-box and do power recovery that way until we understand the configuration of the power supply.
All-in-all, this is becoming a rather challenging project and may take many more weeks to uncover whatever may be hidden, if anything is hidden. For the moment I cannot isolate any significant difference between using a Rodin Coil and some other air core transformer. I've spent a lot of time with the Ruslan and Daly devices--they still seem to have a little magic associated with them and I suspect this Rodin Coil device will be no different.
To be quite honest, Tinsel may turn out to be right yet again. And if so, he can chalk this one up to knowledge and experience. I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong. I hope though Tinsel & Milehigh are not too proud either should Russ and others find some sweet spot. Let's give Russ the freedom to explore and help him when known mistakes are being made, unless any of you all have a better idea.
Dog-One:
Okay if I understand you then from the diagram L1 is say six wires in parallel all part of the Litz wire twisting. That really just means that the six wires look like one conductor, and the skin effect is reduced at high frequencies. I am honestly not sure at what frequency the skin effect comes into play but I assume that there are charts out there that show skin effect vs. wire diameter as it affects the wire resistance per unit length.
For L2, you show an even number of wires. That would cause total cancellation of the inductance, so I will assume that it is an odd number of wires. When you factor in the cancellation effects, then L2 ends up looking like a single pass through the "bird's nest" but with five or seven times the amount of resistance compared to a single pass. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are five wire passes through the bird's nest.
To summarize, let's say that a single strand of wire has a resistance of "R." That means that L1 makes a single pass through the bird's nest with a resistance of R/6. L2 makes a single effective pass through the bird's nest with a resistance of 5R.
So, between L1 and L2 you simply have a 1:1 transformer, but the wire resistance on the two sides of the transformer is vastly different.
This is what my rational analysis is telling me about the Rodin coil when you strip it down to its bare essentials. It's just a 1:1 transformer with a certain amount of inductance per coil, and an asymmetrical amount of resistance when you compare the two coils.
For the amplifier, I think it is a bass amplifier for a bass guitar. The amplifier will probably tolerate a DC resistance of 4 ohms but here is where it looks like Russ is off track because presumably he will be working more with both impedance and resistance. If he uses the Rodin coll as a 1:1 transformer and has a load higher than four ohms and excites the coil at a high enough frequency then the DC resistance of the primary should not be an issue. If he just drives the coil with no load for a test, then as long as the frequency is high enough the impedance will be higher than four ohms.
As far as the amplifier itself goes it depends on what type of amplifier it is. I am not familiar with all of the different amplifier classes so it's hard for me to comment. However, knowing that it is an amplifier for a bass guitar, I am going to assume that it is very tolerant of reactive loads and will not flinch when the load pushes current back into the amplifier. In that sense the amplifier is acting like an AC ideal voltage source.
For the output power supply accepting 2000 volts input, not sure what that is all about. However, it sounds to me like a simple step-down transformer would come in handy here.
As far as a load goes in general, I would think that using big power resistors would be the smartest route to go. This assumes that they will look like a nearly pure resistance when driven at a reasonably low AC frequency.
Russ indeed needs some time and people should not push him, he has a full life on his plate. At the end, let's hope he presents good data.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on June 13, 2016, 09:28:30 PM
Okay if I understand you then from the diagram L1 is say six wires in parallel all part of the Litz wire twisting. That really just means that the six wires look like one conductor, and the skin effect is reduced at high frequencies. I am honestly not sure at what frequency the skin effect comes into play but I assume that there are charts out there that show skin effect vs. wire diameter as it affects the wire resistance per unit length.
Yes, each bundle contains 12 strands of 23 AWG mag wire, approximately 30 feet in length. The bundle is twisted at a ratio of one turn per 1.5 inch.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 13, 2016, 09:28:30 PM
For L2, you show an even number of wires. That would cause total cancellation of the inductance, so I will assume that it is an odd number of wires. When you factor in the cancellation effects, then L2 ends up looking like a single pass through the "bird's nest" but with five or seven times the amount of resistance compared to a single pass. Let's assume for the sake of argument that there are five wire passes through the bird's nest.
And that assumption was identical to mine at first, but incorrect. There is an even, symmetrical distribution of the wires and one would think as you have stated, a complete cancellation. But as we can see, this is not the case. How induction is happening in this coil is beyond my understanding. I can guess as well as anyone else, but the only semi-reasonable one I can come up with is that there are two forms of induction happening here--magnetic and electrostatic. My guess here is that one of them must propagate faster than the other, or be dominant to the other.
I also do not understand the purpose of the "copper core"--even count of strands, half of the total, shunted together at each end. What this does? No idea. You may note when Russ was initially playing with these wires, he managed to rapidly heat the coil up, which is why he now has a thermal probe attached for monitoring.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 13, 2016, 09:28:30 PM
For the amplifier, I think it is a bass amplifier for a bass guitar. The amplifier will probably tolerate a DC resistance of 4 ohms but here is where it looks like Russ is off track because presumably he will be working more with both impedance and resistance. If he uses the Rodin coll as a 1:1 transformer and has a load higher than four ohms and excites the coil at a high enough frequency then the DC resistance of the primary should not be an issue. If he just drives the coil with no load for a test, then as long as the frequency is high enough the impedance will be higher than four ohms.
As far as the amplifier itself goes it depends on what type of amplifier it is. I am not familiar with all of the different amplifier classes so it's hard for me to comment. However, knowing that it is an amplifier for a bass guitar, I am going to assume that it is very tolerant of reactive loads and will not flinch when the load pushes current back into the amplifier. In that sense the amplifier is acting like an AC ideal voltage source.
The good news here is this particular amp seems to have an accurate clipping indicator that Russ is using to prevent overload, though he has mentioned at least twice now that he can smell something getting hot in his little work space. He specifically purchased this amplifier on the basis 007 had the same kind.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 13, 2016, 09:28:30 PM
For the output power supply accepting 2000 volts input, not sure what that is all about. However, it sounds to me like a simple step-down transformer would come in handy here.
We know this custom power supply is some sort of switching power supply with a high input capability. How it differs from an off-the-shelf Universal Input PSU is unknown at this time.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 13, 2016, 09:28:30 PM
As far as a load goes in general, I would think that using big power resistors would be the smartest route to go. This assumes that they will look like a nearly pure resistance when driven at a reasonably low AC frequency.
I can't say. 007 told Russ he needed to run LEDs for the output load or the special PSU. He specifically mentioned diodes. I was thinking if you can make a voltage multiplier with diodes and caps, can you change things around some and make a voltage divider from those same components as well? Surely 007 gave Russ some kind of hint by mentioning diodes. We'll have to poke around and find a lead somewhere before diving into this aspect I suspect.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 13, 2016, 09:28:30 PM
Russ indeed needs some time and people should not push him, he has a full life on his plate. At the end, let's hope he presents good data.
He's been pushing himself hard to this point and will be going on vacation for a week in a couple of days. I know he really wanted to have enough under his belt to chew on in his mind while on vacation. I think he has mostly accomplished that, best I can tell. He's open for comment and criticism as long as it is constructive. Probably best to not overwhelm him and just take a small piece at a time and give him a chance to make the needed corrections. I think this is actually a really good OpenSource research project. Everyone should be able to learn a little something if they have an interest and are willing to accept none of us know it all, but understand together we can know an awful lot.
Quote from: Dog-One on June 13, 2016, 04:12:15 PM
And some more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrH0pfOUSRI
Interesting that the analog meters agree with the scope,showing more out than in.
But how accurate are those analog meters under those conditions?
Do you have a direct link to the thread in question Dog-One?
I probably missed it
Brad
Quote from: Dog-One on June 13, 2016, 11:41:58 PM
Yes, each bundle contains 12 strands of 23 AWG mag wire, approximately 30 feet in length. The bundle is twisted at a ratio of one turn per 1.5 inch.
And that assumption was identical to mine at first, but incorrect. There is an even, symmetrical distribution of the wires and one would think as you have stated, a complete cancellation. But as we can see, this is not the case. How induction is happening in this coil is beyond my understanding. I can guess as well as anyone else, but the only semi-reasonable one I can come up with is that there are two forms of induction happening here--magnetic and electrostatic. My guess here is that one of them must propagate faster than the other, or be dominant to the other.
I also do not understand the purpose of the "copper core"--even count of strands, half of the total, shunted together at each end. What this does? No idea. You may note when Russ was initially playing with these wires, he managed to rapidly heat the coil up, which is why he now has a thermal probe attached for monitoring.
The good news here is this particular amp seems to have an accurate clipping indicator that Russ is using to prevent overload, though he has mentioned at least twice now that he can smell something getting hot in his little work space. He specifically purchased this amplifier on the basis 007 had the same kind.
We know this custom power supply is some sort of switching power supply with a high input capability. How it differs from an off-the-shelf Universal Input PSU is unknown at this time.
I can't say. 007 told Russ he needed to run LEDs for the output load or the special PSU. He specifically mentioned diodes. I was thinking if you can make a voltage multiplier with diodes and caps, can you change things around some and make a voltage divider from those same components as well? Surely 007 gave Russ some kind of hint by mentioning diodes. We'll have to poke around and find a lead somewhere before diving into this aspect I suspect.
He's been pushing himself hard to this point and will be going on vacation for a week in a couple of days. I know he really wanted to have enough under his belt to chew on in his mind while on vacation. I think he has mostly accomplished that, best I can tell. He's open for comment and criticism as long as it is constructive. Probably best to not overwhelm him and just take a small piece at a time and give him a chance to make the needed corrections. I think this is actually a really good OpenSource research project. Everyone should be able to learn a little something if they have an interest and are willing to accept none of us know it all, but understand together we can know an awful lot.
The fact that the coils are wound so as they should cancel out,but instead produce a great deal of power,is an indication that normal transformer action is not taking place here.
Perhaps some were to quick to dismiss this as not being anything special.
Brad
The thread link to OSE is:
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2680.msg37306
Quote from: Dog-One on June 14, 2016, 12:06:56 AM
The thread link to OSE is:
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=2680.msg37306
So upon reading the thread,it would seem that Russ has the wires all running in one direction,and not back and forth. So this would mean no cancellation of magnetic fields around the coil.
In saying that,it is hard to get any sort of clear answer as to how the two coils are wound--some say one thing,and others say another thing.
Brad
I think you are probably correct Brad. Indications are that all wires are connected in the same direction. No cancellation.
Back to square one...
Quote from: Dog-One on June 14, 2016, 07:36:05 PM
I think you are probably correct Brad. Indications are that all wires are connected in the same direction. No cancellation.
Back to square one...
I will be catching up with Russ on skype soon,so i will get the answer,and post here when i have it.
Anyone have any idea as to how accurate those analog meters will be in those conditions?
Brad
I've read through the thread on Russ's site but I can't see diagrams, etc. there, so I still have no idea just what schematic is being tested, or how. But what I DID see in that thread is that the Power Analysis software that Russ's scope has in it is giving him results that are different from what he gets by just multiplying everything together willy-nilly.
I also noted that the Current Probe he has bought has its own phase shift that needs to be accounted for, and the Data Sheet for the probe only lists the phase shift from DC to 65 Hz, whereas the useful range of the probe is 100 kHz. Why doesn't the data sheet give full information about the phase shift/response latency of the probe?
http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/AEMC/pdf/sl261.pdf
As I've recommended before, anyone using active current or voltage probes needs to understand that they will inevitably have some delay (phase shift) of their own and so must be calibrated in whatever setup is being used in order to give accurate results. Most Tek high-end scopes have a "De-skew" function that allows this calibration to be inserted into the scope's readings. Even my bottom-end Rigol has a delay feature that allows this correction to be inserted and corrected for in a channel's readings. At the very least, for active current probes, one should do a simultaneous reading with the active current probe, and a normal passive voltage probe looking across an inline non-inductive current-viewing resistor, to see how much the active probe shifts phase compared to the passive voltage probe.
My impression from reading the thread is that not many people there actually know what's going on. It's good to see Matt Watts posting there. The fact that Russ was using AC-coupling initially is not a very good sign.... it indicates that he has his hands more than full with respect to making power measurements on the scope.
Hopefully he will take advice, learn to use his equipment properly, and especially, learn to use the Power Analysis software addon in his scope.
I can probably still borrow a proper wideband power analyzer, and I'd be more than happy to perform some tests, if I had the properly wound Coils to work with.
I don't see anything in what Russ or others have posted that indicate that they are doing or even considering doing the proper control experiments, that is, comparing the performance of the Rodin coil with an ordinary air-core solenoidal coil of matching inductance, resistance etc.
The videos are just too long. If someone who has watched them can point out some timestamps where something significant is shown, I'd be grateful.
Meanwhile, I'll still bet a cheezburger that the real issue here is simply one of reactive power being mistaken for real power.
Quote from: tinman on June 14, 2016, 07:43:32 PM
I will be catching up with Russ on skype soon,so i will get the answer,and post here when i have it.
Anyone have any idea as to how accurate those analog meters will be in those conditions?
Brad
The meters may give a good "average" of voltage and current. They will _not_ tell you the phase difference between voltage and current, which is the critical point. They will also introduce errors and phase shifts of their own. There simply isn't enough detail in what I've seen to be able to tell for sure just how useful the analog meters can be. The setup needs to be calibrated in various ways.
Again, my MicroQEG playlist covers a lot of the possible effects and possible measurement errors in this type of reactive power situation. (And the whole list is not that long to watch....) I wonder if Russ has watched it.
Maybe the MicroQEG circuit is even appropriate to drive the Rodin coil, instead of the expensive audio amplifier+signal generator setup, since it is auto-resonating and will automagically drive the coil at the resonant frequency set by the coil and the parallel capacitors used to form the output tank circuit.
A proper power analyzer, or maybe Russ's scope's Power Analyzer software, needs to be understood and correctly applied to this problem.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 15, 2016, 08:17:02 AM
They will also introduce errors and phase shifts of their own. There simply isn't enough detail in what I've seen to be able to tell for sure just how useful the analog meters can be. The setup needs to be calibrated in various ways.
Again, my MicroQEG playlist covers a lot of the possible effects and possible measurement errors in this type of reactive power situation. (And the whole list is not that long to watch....) I wonder if Russ has watched it.
Maybe the MicroQEG circuit is even appropriate to drive the Rodin coil, instead of the expensive audio amplifier+signal generator setup, since it is auto-resonating and will automagically drive the coil at the resonant frequency set by the coil and the parallel capacitors used to form the output tank circuit.
QuoteThe meters may give a good "average" of voltage and current. They will _not_ tell you the phase difference between voltage and current, which is the critical point.
Yes,this is true.
But in saying that,if they were out(phase angles)to much,then the output would have also been low,and it would seem,looking at the load,that there is a good amount of power being delivered to the load. Once again,i know the brightness of lights is in no way any sort of power measurement,but it is there--how much?,who knows ATM.
QuoteA proper power analyzer, or maybe Russ's scope's Power Analyzer software, needs to be understood and correctly applied to this problem.
Indeed.
I see in his first video,he was using AC coupling on the scope. Maybe the results would be different if he used DC coupling?.
Brad
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 15, 2016, 08:10:25 AM
I also noted that the Current Probe he has bought has its own phase shift that needs to be accounted for, and the Data Sheet for the probe only lists the phase shift from DC to 65 Hz, whereas the useful range of the probe is 100 kHz. Why doesn't the data sheet give full information about the phase shift/response latency of the probe?
TK,
See page 10 of the pdf linked below...
http://www.chauvin-arnoux.us/pdfs_aemc/user-manuals/SL261_EN.pdf
It sure would be nice if Russ would put up a schematic of the circuit he is using including the points at which he is making his measurements. Like you, I attempted to weed through the videos and postings but was unable to find a proper schematic. If there is one, perhaps someone could post it or a link here.
Without a proper schematic including the drive and measurement points, it is difficult to ascertain much from the measurements presented.
I also noted there seemed to be a lot of concern with regard to the coil's DC resistance not being lower than the capability of the driving amp (i.e., 4R). Unless they are operating all the way down to DC (which does not seem to be the case), they need only be concerned with the coil's impedance at the test frequency(s) being used.
PW
Hello together,
update Video from Russ and his work on the Rodin (007 Style) Coil. Duration 5h38min.
https://youtu.be/tl0qopTBQA0
I like Russ and his work.
For Information:
PDF File from the 007 OU? Experiment.
http://rwgresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rodin-007.pdf
Keywords: Voltage Step up, Phase shift, Gain, Reactive Power, measurement error?
Rodin Coil Labs Over Unity Energy Amplifier, 640P, May 28th 2016
https://youtu.be/ESjC5G_glx4
Keywords: Share all Information, Teaching, DC to DC Introducer
Videos from Global BEM 2016 -007 Live presentation- Playlist
007 starts with video 6 of 14.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLr6U3JfQRaDR5CKu5PfkRZ0v6amPoXjtI
Some more Information about ABHA / Rodin Coils and the eventually special Properties.
Solenoid Coil versus POE Vortex Coil => Wireless Potential ?
https://youtu.be/DaT_IpigOtY
Rodin Coil Inductance Vs. Standard Coil Inductance => Negative Inductance ?
https://youtu.be/OWa0tluDiqg
To be continued
Love and Peace
3K
PS:
Sry for my bad English,
try to become better
Well, unfortunately it seems "the industry" is still batting 1000 when it comes to obfuscation.
There is no schematic or test points shown in the PDF file from the 007 "OU" experiment.
In addition, when trying RodinCoilLabs.com you get this:
QuoteThe server at markorodinlabs.com is taking too long to respond.
So what, you have a document that is dated May 22, 2016 and less than a month later the URL associated with the presentation times out? Did Marko not renew or pay his bills "just in time?" Or are the PTB boys at the top of their game?
From the file:
Quote: "The Rodin Coil Over Unity Energy Amplifier boosts the voltage by twenty times, which is extremely large."
This is not confidence inspiring at all because you can dial up any voltage boost level you want with a coil. You can draw your own inferences about the tester.
It also says, "On the input side, a small 2168 frequency is multiplied up to 20 times."
Not really sure what that means.
They talk about putting the output through a FWBR and having a smoothing capacitor but then they show AC input and output voltage and current waveforms.
They use modern filament-style LED light bulbs as the load which still have some electronic guts to make them friendly for 50/60 Hz 120/240 VAC. That just needlessly complicates matters when you have your own custom voltage waveform driving the bulbs. They talk about a "tuning" frequency of 641 Hz for the mysterious "circuit."
When you look at the load waveforms, the voltage and current wavforms are nearly 90 degrees out of phase indicating a very low power factor and a reactive load. But if the load is LED filament light bulbs my instincts are telling me there is almost no chance that the electronic guts inside each light bulb are going to look like a reactive load.
I did not read every word of the report. But I saw enough to convince me that the report is next to useless. No schematic and no test points is the first downfall. Using LED filament lamps with electronic circuits inside them that are designed to convert mains power AC to DC and feeding them a non-standard voltage waveform is not the way to go. Just like you have a "BFG" in video gaming you need a "BDR," a big dumb resistor for making load measurements.
The report is a fail.
MileHigh
Not completely a "fail" but rather very telling. Yes, a fail to demonstrate OU, but clear evidence of something else.
Consider the images below. The phase shift between "load voltage" and "load current" is almost exactly 90 degrees.
Yet the calculation of "gain" that follows simply multiplies the RMS values from the scope and does not even consider this phase angle. This is the same kind of error that I have demonstrated with my MicroQEG, which these people would evidently also measure to be _massively_ OU by this technique!
Further along the statement is made that the scope cannot handle the voltages involved, which are then shown on a multimeter to be somewhat over 300 volts. So there are no "load" scopeshots shown for those later "experiments". More BS, indicating that the "experimenters" do not understand how to use their scope and probe setups.
Even further, they show a current loop reading of something over 1000 Amps... but fail to consider that the entire Rodin coil is looped through the current loop, hence multiplying the true sensed current by the _number of turns_ (11 or 12) of the coil that goes through the loop! It is very easy to get 90 Amps of reactive current circulating in a tank circuit coil --- again, just as I have demonstrated with the MicroQEG and my wireless power transfer systems. But to claim over a kiloAmp is simply ridiculous and once again shows that they don't know what they are doing -- or are deliberately presenting readings that they know are BS and making false conclusions from them.
TK:
I have a feeling that the report is "Marko Rodin endorsed" but don't expect me to find the smoking gun for that somewhere on Russ' forum or elsewhere. It just goes to show you. The phase shift business is yet another Spinal Tap moment in the "industry."
Russ mentioned OU.com so it safe to say that many Rodin coil enthusiasts from his forum are monitoring this thread.
The bottom line: Russ has to have a schematic, test points, and a test procedure. The exact electrical configuration of the Rodin coil itself must also be documented. He also needs to have a conventional coil to test as a control, something that both of us have mentioned.
Then he needs to run the tests and report his results. The other theories and speculations about the operation of the coil can come later.
MileHigh
Here is a little quiz for the Rodin coil enthusiasts on Russ' forum. It's a basic electronics question about coils:
You have an ideal voltage source and an ideal coil of 5 Henrys. At time t=0 seconds the coil connects to the ideal voltage source. For three seconds the voltage is 4 volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is zero volts. Then for the next two seconds the voltage is negative three volts, and then for the next six seconds the voltage is 0.5 volts. Then after that the voltage is zero volts.
Question: What happens starting from t=0 seconds when the ideal voltage is connected to the ideal coil?
If you can't answer that question then you need to educate yourselves about basic electronics including coils and capacitors. That is the "reality check" for you. Before you can start making all sorts of theories about coils you have to understand how they work first. Russ is going to be on vacation for a week so you have some time to think about the question and how to answer it.
Loner, don't beat yourself up or feel sorry, you've been pranked.
Quote from: 3Kelvin on June 15, 2016, 07:40:02 PM
Hello together,
update Video from Russ and his work on the Rodin (007 Style) Coil. Duration 5h38min.
https://youtu.be/tl0qopTBQA0 (https://youtu.be/tl0qopTBQA0)
YGTBKM. Who is actually going to watch a 5 hour 38 minute video? Where are the "highlights" that cut to the chase?
Quote
I like Russ and his work.
So do I. It's too bad that he doesn't really understand how to use his expensive test equipment properly. Maybe he'll learn from this experience. The Power Analysis software add-on for his scope, just by itself, costs more than I spend on food in six months. Some versions of the Power Analysis software bundle cost more than a good used car. There is a reason why this stuff is so expensive: When used properly, it gives reliable and correct results.
Quote
For Information:
PDF File from the 007 OU? Experiment.
http://rwgresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rodin-007.pdf (http://rwgresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rodin-007.pdf)
Keywords: Voltage Step up, Phase shift, Gain, Reactive Power, measurement error?
You got the keywords right, as I have indicated in posts above. There isn't much more to be said about this pdf document other than what I and others have said above. It deliberately compares a reactive power "load" measurement with a real power input measurement and claims an OU gain result. The first video in my MicroQEG playlist does the same thing, with much greater "OU gain" result.
Quote
Rodin Coil Labs Over Unity Energy Amplifier, 640P, May 28th 2016
https://youtu.be/ESjC5G_glx4 (https://youtu.be/ESjC5G_glx4)
Keywords: Share all Information, Teaching, DC to DC Introducer
That's an incredible video! A bunch of total gobbledegook from the narrator including a bunch of absurdly false claims, incredibly poor video quality _except_ for the silly animations, and a scopeshot that shows nearly 100 percent REACTIVE load power being measured. See the image below which I have captured from this video, showing the voltage and current measured as "output" and which is again used to bolster their claims of "overunity".
Not even _MY_ videos are that bad!
As long as people keep posting links to that kind of garbage claiming "share all information, teaching"... I'll keep posting links to my own MicroQEG videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdrAE_IZ74
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa-k7J7vO_I22fVc-h8wcdLf
Go ahead, refute me, while still supporting the Rodin Coil claims! You can't do it.
Quote
Videos from Global BEM 2016 -007 Live presentation- Playlist
007 starts with video 6 of 14.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLr6U3JfQRaDR5CKu5PfkRZ0v6amPoXjtI (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLr6U3JfQRaDR5CKu5PfkRZ0v6amPoXjtI)
More amazingly bad garbage videos that demonstrate nothing but more ignorance and (possible) wilful deception. Garbage in, garbage out, and all those presenters are still buying electricity from their local grids to run their homes and labs. Not a single spaceship powered by a Rodin coil anywhere!
Quote
Some more Information about ABHA / Rodin Coils and the eventually special Properties.
Solenoid Coil versus POE Vortex Coil => Wireless Potential ?
https://youtu.be/DaT_IpigOtY (https://youtu.be/DaT_IpigOtY)
Rodin Coil Inductance Vs. Standard Coil Inductance => Negative Inductance ?
https://youtu.be/OWa0tluDiqg (https://youtu.be/OWa0tluDiqg)
More in the YGTBKM department. Two great illustrations of garbage in, garbage out. These videos show how _not_ to make measurements of inductors. They are, in fact, utterly laughable demonstrations of incompetence and the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Quote
To be continued
Love and Peace
3K
PS:
Sry for my bad English,
try to become better
Your English is fine. Your critical thinking ability needs work, though.
Keep practising, and when you find a reasonably short video that shows, for example, a selfrunning or daisy-chained Rodin coil system powering a real load, someone making measurements with a broadband power analyzer or an expensive scope with a multi-thousand dollar power analysis addon package... be sure to let us know.
Screengrab from the Rodin video showing approx. 90-degree phase shift between voltage and current-- the only valid measurement from that video:
Quote from: Loner on June 17, 2016, 12:44:23 AM
MH, Isn't that pushing a little bit. I, personally, would call that almost a "Trick" question. I'll give my reasoning, and you let me know (or maybe let others let me know what I am missing...)
You made the simple statement "Ideal" for BOTH the voltage source and the Inductor. To me, and to all that I have worked with, that would indicate exact voltage with no current limit for the voltage source and NO resistance (R=0) for the inductor. Zero can be hard to work with, for me.
To actually use these values, wouldn't you need to drop back to basic calculus?
To get a simple idea, however, you can plug in .01 Ohm to the general equations and at the 3 second mark we are near 30A of "Real" current through a 5 Henry inductor. It looks nicer by making a little Excel spreadsheet and plotting the current vs time, but now I'm edging away from the question.
For actual values (Read exact theory proposed values.), I don't see a simple way to calc anything exactly. Am I missing something? Or am I taking this too literally?
No, it's not a trick question and it's not a prank. You could add a 0.01 ohm resistor in series with the ideal coil to model it as a real coil if you wanted to, but it just makes things more complicated. At the three second mark the current would not even be close to 30 amperes.
The point of the question for the Rodin coil or regular coil enthusiasts on Russ' forum is to take stock. If they don't know how to answer this basic question, and perhaps they don't even know where to go to start answering this question, then that means they need to learn the basic nuts and bolts about coils. There are many people on the thread offering up all sorts of theories and are proposing test methods or discussing applications for a Rodin coil where I bet you they would not know how to tackle this very basic question.
Think about it: Russ is going to be applying a varying voltage to his Rodin coil and this question is about applying a varying voltage to a coil and chances are very few people on Russ' thread can answer the question. While Russ is on a much-deserved vacation, interested people could be embarking on a learning curve to understand coils so that they can indeed answer the question. That's the main point: To get people to realize that they can't answer it, and hopefully that will inspire some of them to embark on a journey to teach themselves and their peers.
MileHigh
Quote from: Loner on June 17, 2016, 12:44:23 AM
MH, Isn't that pushing a little bit. I, personally, would call that almost a "Trick" question. I'll give my reasoning, and you let me know (or maybe let others let me know what I am missing...)
You made the simple statement "Ideal" for BOTH the voltage source and the Inductor. To me, and to all that I have worked with, that would indicate exact voltage with no current limit for the voltage source and NO resistance (R=0) for the inductor. Zero can be hard to work with, for me.
To actually use these values, wouldn't you need to drop back to basic calculus?
To get a simple idea, however, you can plug in .01 Ohm to the general equations and at the 3 second mark we are near 30A of "Real" current through a 5 Henry inductor. It looks nicer by making a little Excel spreadsheet and plotting the current vs time, but now I'm edging away from the question.
For actual values (Read exact theory proposed values.), I don't see a simple way to calc anything exactly. Am I missing something? Or am I taking this too literally?
I find it hard to imagine anyone working with ANY coil would not have the basic understanding of exponential current rise... How could you even test without that?
Are not Q, bandwidth and parasitic values not common info available all over the net for anyone to look up?
OR, is this a raw demonstration of how naive I am when it comes to my expectations of basic knowledge?
OK, I'm starting to feel very stupid and foolish. I should delete this but others need to see how useless I have become in the real world of fake experimental results. Wow.....
I think I will hide for a while and try to recover my dignity. I see that I missed the whole point of the "Quiz". Sorry.
Loner
I would not bother with this question based around a voltage source that dose not exist.
MH is also not able to understand that an ideal voltage cannot be placed across a conductor that has 0 ohms of resistance,and current flowing against that that the ideal voltage wants to create.This is like placing an ideal voltage across an ideal capacitor.
At T=3 seconds--kaboom--bye bye equipment and components.
I wouldnt bother Russ and the crew over on Russ's forum with this rubbish question,it's a waste of time.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on June 17, 2016, 07:11:58 AM
Loner
I would not bother with this question based around a voltage source that dose not exist.
MH is also not able to understand that an ideal voltage cannot be placed across a conductor that has 0 ohms of resistance,and current flowing against that that the ideal voltage wants to create.This is like placing an ideal voltage across an ideal capacitor.
At T=3 seconds--kaboom--bye bye equipment and components.
I wouldnt bother Russ and the crew over on Russ's forum with this rubbish question,it's a waste of time.
Brad
Your comments are idiotic considering that you tried to answer this question yourself. Saying that an ideal voltage source does not exist is irrelevant and does not invalidate the question in any way. You are regressing and going back in time, and making irrelevant comments like "an ideal voltage cannot be placed across a conductor that has 0 ohms of resistance" which has nothing to do with the question at all and on top of that you are trying to pretend that I don't understand something.
The question is not rubbish and it is definitely not a waste of time. This is just sour grapes from you because you struggled and you were unable to answer the question yourself. Hopefully there are some curious people out there on Russ' forum that will undertake to inform themselves when they realize how relevant the question is as it directly relates to the testing that Russ is going to do. You are just trying to poison the well out of spite, shame on you.
MileHigh
Hello together,
Is that a OU device?, 6 Meters and a Scope?
https://youtu.be/KJyb9tnlcaw
Enjoy it, it seems to be real.
World is in Resonance.
From Australia to Tokio.
Love and Peace
3Kelvin
Quote from: 3Kelvin on June 17, 2016, 10:09:45 AM
Hello together,
Is that a OU device?, 6 Meters and a Scope?
https://youtu.be/KJyb9tnlcaw (https://youtu.be/KJyb9tnlcaw)
Enjoy it, it seems to be real.
World is in Resonance.
From Australia to Tokio.
Love and Peace
3Kelvin
Nunez again, and again with "comments disabled" -- one of the main signs that the video uploader is FOS, since he can't answer criticisms or explain why, if his thing is so "OU", it can't run itself.
Garbage in, reactive garbage out, yet again. To answer your question... No, it's not an OU device. It's a resonant tank circuit, with circulating reactive power, and cannot sustain a real output that is greater than the input. The same thing can be shown using ordinary coils.
author=MileHigh link=topic=16650.msg486471#msg486471 date=1466169602]
Quoteand making irrelevant comments like "an ideal voltage cannot be placed across a conductor that has 0 ohms of resistance" which has nothing to do with the question at all and on top of that you are trying to pretend that I don't understand something.
The mistake you keep making,is looking only at the inductor,and not the ideal voltage source.
The fact that current can continue to flow through the ideal voltage source,when the voltage across the ideal sources terminals is 0,means there is no impedance to that current flow,and there for no resistance through the current path of the ideal voltage source. Regardless as to how the inductor reacts to a voltage placed across it,in no way determines or changes the current path through the ideal voltage source--which remains as a non resistive current path--these are things you should know.
QuoteYour comments are idiotic considering that you tried to answer this question yourself.
I gave you the generic answer,and by your comment after that,it was clear that you were not expecting me to do that--but i did.
But i still say it is incorrect,and it is now your job to prove me wrong--which you cant,as you do not have an ideal voltage source(nor dose one exist)that describes the one used in the answer given to your question.
QuoteSaying that an ideal voltage source does not exist is irrelevant and does not invalidate the question in any way.
A clear indication you are on a fools quest with your question,claiming to be able to validate an answer based around a non existent circuit. This would be no different to me saying i can validate what the magnetic force is,without having to provide any type of proof.
QuoteThe question is not rubbish and it is definitely not a waste of time. This is just sour grapes from you because you struggled and you were unable to answer the question yourself.
Based on the fact that your question is based around non existent voltage sources,then you are unable to qualify your answer--this is fact.
QuoteHopefully there are some curious people out there on Russ' forum that will undertake to inform themselves when they realize how relevant the question is as it directly relates to the testing that Russ is going to do. You are just trying to poison the well out of spite, shame on you.
Absolute rubbish,as there experimenting has nothing what so ever to do with ideal voltage sources and ideal coils of that size.
I hope you do not contaminate Russ's forum ,like you have contaminated this one.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on June 17, 2016, 07:11:58 AM
At T=3 seconds--kaboom--bye bye equipment and components.
Perhaps this thought experiment will help...
An audio power amplifier is, within its drive capabilities, a very close approximation of an ideal voltage source. A professional PA amplifier capable of driving several hundred watts or more into a 4R load with a damping factor of 400 will have an output impedance around .01R and will have many amps of current source or sink capability. As would an ideal voltage source, the power amplifier will source or sink current even when its output is zero volts.
Connect an FG to such an amplifier's input and set the FG and amplifier so that the amplifier output is a 60VPP 1kHz sine wave. Now, connect a 5mH inductor with a .1R DC resistance directly across the amplifier's output.
As the sine wave on the amplifier output reverses from its +30 volt peak towards its -30 volt peak, do you expect to see a huge current spike commensurate with the amplifier's .01R output impedance and the inductor's .1R DC resistance or do you expect to see current flow more so in line with the 31.4R reactance of the 5mH inductor at 1kHz?
If the FG is switched to produce a 1kHz square wave of 60VPP at the amplifier's output, do you expect a huge current spike as the square waveform at the amplifier output rapidly transitions from +30 to -30, or again, do you expect to see current flow more so in line with the inductor's 31.4R impedance at the 1kHz fundamental (the impedance/reactance will be greater for the harmonics added to the sine wave to produce the square wave).
In both examples above, how will changing the DC resistance of the inductor affect the outcome? Will a 5mH inductor with a .01R or .001R DC resistance significantly affect the observed current flow?
What if the 5mH inductor had zero ohms of DC resistance? Would that have a significant effect on the amplifier's output current in the examples above?
How will lowering or raising the frequency of the applied waveform affect the results?
As stated, this is just a thought experiment, consider the questions rhetorical...
PW
(With regard to the above, please assume the amplifier to have zero volts of DC offset)
Brad:
That was a whack-job posting and I am going to respond.
QuoteThe mistake you keep making,is looking only at the inductor,and not the ideal voltage source.
The fact that current can continue to flow through the ideal voltage source,when the voltage across the ideal sources terminals is 0,means there is no impedance to that current flow,and there for no resistance through the current path of the ideal voltage source. Regardless as to how the inductor reacts to a voltage placed across it,in no way determines or changes the current path through the ideal voltage source--which remains as a non resistive current path--these are things you should know.
I am not making any mistake, nor am I ignorant about what you are talking about. You are just propagandizing and talking nonsense out of pure mean spiritedness. You are making a whack-job straw man argument and trying to put words into my mouth. It's like you are off your rocker.
QuoteBut i still say it is incorrect,and it is now your job to prove me wrong--which you cant,as you do not have an ideal voltage source(nor dose one exist)that describes the one used in the answer given to your question.
After all this time you are still playing the "problem student" that has difficulty in understanding things. I do not literally have to have an ideal voltage source, you are talking like a child that still believes in the Tooth Fairy. You are just going to have to cope with the concept of an ideal voltage source which is a universal concept, tough luck for you. I told you repeatedly that a power audio amplifier could give you what is tantamount to an ideal voltage source within certain limits, and lo and behold now Picowatt is telling you exactly the same thing. I have no idea what I am supposed to "prove wrong."
QuoteA clear indication you are on a fools quest with your question,claiming to be able to validate an answer based around a non existent circuit.
And there is no such thing as Santa Claus but he still exists.
QuoteBased on the fact that your question is based around non existent voltage sources,then you are unable to qualify your answer--this is fact.
Who got you that shiny new set of spark plugs and the four liters of oil last Christmas, the Great Pumpkin?
QuoteAbsolute rubbish,as there experimenting has nothing what so ever to do with ideal voltage sources and ideal coils of that size.
It has everything to do with Russ' testing of a Rodin coil, you have been hanging around with the Garbage Pail Kids too much and eating too many Queasy Bake cookies and you are on a bad trip.
QuoteI hope you do not contaminate Russ's forum ,like you have contaminated this one.
You know what they said at Woodstock, "Watch out for the brown acid in the Queasy Bake cookies."
MileHigh
Loner:
Yes, 2.39 amps at three seconds sounds much better.
QuoteNow, HOW would you do the above WITHOUT resistance?
How would you calc the time constant?
I would REALLY appreciate an answer, if there is one that can be shown using math....
That is indeed the big question. You note that all that you are doing to arrive at 2.39 amps is punching some numbers into a formula. The challenge is to make the leap from just punching numbers into a formula to understanding how the inductor actually works.
Here is a hint: If the time constant is 500 seconds, and you calculated the current value at three seconds, perhaps you might suspect that the difference between the coil with zero resistance and the coil with 0.01 ohms resistance would be very small at three seconds? In other words, you might suspect that the current would be quite similar.
Just think about how a coil really works. And no, there is no sim program that I was using.
QuoteJust an equation. Without a source resistance or Inductive resistance or at least a wire resistance I can't see it without DEEP math.
Do you know what an integral is? That's another hint. You could even solve it using a derivative. That's another hint.
Please think about it and do some surfing. If you are stumped in a few days I will gladly answer.
MileHigh
Loner, you was faster.
I agree, the key to the MH Question is the Tau.
Tau = L/R => 5 Tau is something like 99,5% Current of steady State DC.
If R going to 0, then Tau will go(ing) to infinity.
If Tau is infinity so no current will move to the coil.
Back EMF
VL(t)= -L di/dt
My Problem is, the infinitive sharp Edge from the input Signal.
From 0 to 4 Volt in 0 Time. For that assumption we will also get infinity.
So the Back EMF will be also infinity.
Tau seems to be the best approach for the problem.
So far my assumptions in a set of boundaries.
Bo be continued
Please fell free to correct my if i wrong with the set of assumptions and boundaries.
My motivation is to learn, not to fight with people.
Love and Peace
3K
PS. TK, i like your YT Channel and i understand the meaning of "Texas has Resonance"
Quote from: 3Kelvin on June 17, 2016, 03:11:54 PM
If R going to 0, then Tau will go(ing) to infinity.
If Tau is infinity so no current will move to the coil.
Yes, I have heard that many times before.
But now think about this:
If I have a coil with a low resistance and I put voltage across the coil then current flows through it.
So why should current stop flowing through the coil if the resistance changes from a low resistance to a zero resistance?
We all know that if you reduce the resistance in a circuit, it lets the current flow more easily.
Quote from: 3Kelvin on June 17, 2016, 03:11:54 PM
Back EMF
VL(t)= -L di/dt
My Problem is, the infinitive sharp Edge from the input Signal.
From 0 to 4 Volt in 0 Time. For that assumption we will also get infinity.
So the Back EMF will be also infinity.
Are you sure about that?
Back-EMF is a term we use to represent the output voltage from a coil.
In my question, who is in control of the voltage across the coil? Is it the ideal voltage source, or is it the coil?
Quote from: 3Kelvin on June 17, 2016, 03:11:54 PM
Back EMF
VL(t)= -L di/dt
My Problem is, the infinitive sharp Edge from the input Signal.
From 0 to 4 Volt in 0 Time. For that assumption we will also get infinity.
So the Back EMF will be also infinity.
Is this related to di/dt or dv/dt?
On my timezone it is late now.
My wife hates me for the mess with papers in the office.
She ask me:
Hey 3K, did you carry the garbage from the kitchen to the container into the back yard?
No, ma'am i do some math to eliminate infinity.
I try to understand the beauty of Physics.
Whaaat? I think you need a shrink at 0 time,
says my wife. :o
So far, see and read at next sunrise. ;)
Peace and Love
3K
Quote from: picowatt on June 17, 2016, 01:24:40 PM
Perhaps this thought experiment will help...
An audio power amplifier is, within its drive capabilities, a very close approximation of an ideal voltage source. A professional PA amplifier capable of driving several hundred watts or more into a 4R load with a damping factor of 400 will have an output impedance around .01R and will have many amps of current source or sink capability. As would an ideal voltage source, the power amplifier will source or sink current even when its output is zero volts.
Connect an FG to such an amplifier's input and set the FG and amplifier so that the amplifier output is a 60VPP 1kHz sine wave. Now, connect a 5mH inductor with a .1R DC resistance directly across the amplifier's output.
As the sine wave on the amplifier output reverses from its +30 volt peak towards its -30 volt peak, do you expect to see a huge current spike commensurate with the amplifier's .01R output impedance and the inductor's .1R DC resistance or do you expect to see current flow more so in line with the 31.4R reactance of the 5mH inductor at 1kHz?
If the FG is switched to produce a 1kHz square wave of 60VPP at the amplifier's output, do you expect a huge current spike as the square waveform at the amplifier output rapidly transitions from +30 to -30, or again, do you expect to see current flow more so in line with the inductor's 31.4R impedance at the 1kHz fundamental (the impedance/reactance will be greater for the harmonics added to the sine wave to produce the square wave).
In both examples above, how will changing the DC resistance of the inductor affect the outcome? Will a 5mH inductor with a .01R or .001R DC resistance significantly affect the observed current flow?
What if the 5mH inductor had zero ohms of DC resistance? Would that have a significant effect on the amplifier's output current in the examples above?
How will lowering or raising the frequency of the applied waveform affect the results?
As stated, this is just a thought experiment, consider the questions rhetorical...
PW
(With regard to the above, please assume the amplifier to have zero volts of DC offset)
But that is nothing like the test conditions stated in MH question.
There is no sine wave,as the voltages applied to the circuit(being the coil and ideal voltage source)are of a square wave pattern.The transition is not starting from a low point and ramping up to a high point,the transition is instant,and there is no resistance to sink the existing current flowing through the circuit.
Here is what you have explained.
We have a small ideal 12 v DC PM motor with a flywheel on it(ideal meaning it has no resistance in the windings). We apply a rising voltage that starts at 0 volts,and reaches a peak value of say 6 volts over 6 seconds,and then decrease that voltage back down to 0 volts over the next 6 seconds--so as the voltage wave form is a sine over 12 seconds. The motor/flywheel combo will ramp up for the first 6 seconds,and then ramp down over the last 6 seconds. During the last 6 seconds,the flywheel will return-or sink its stored energy back into the voltage supply(we are assuming the motor/flywheel combo is near frictionless).
But now we change the voltage wave form to a square wave-as in MH question.
We also have an ideal voltage source which has no internal resistance.
We apply an instant 6 volts across the motor,and the motor ramps up to a set RPM. We now reduce that voltage to a value of 0,and the current will continue to flow through the motor and ideal source due to the stored energy in the flywheel,and no resistive losses.
We then apply an instant voltage of 6 volt to the motor that is opposite in polarity to the previous 6 volts that has caused the rotational direction of the motor--what happens to the current value at the terminals when this negative 6 volts is applied instantly,when there is no place to sink the existing current already flowing through the system?.
The inductor is just like the motor/flywheel combo,in that both are energy storage devices,and in both cases,the applied negative voltage is in opposition to that stored energy,and in both cases,the circuit has no current sink for this stored energy to be dissipated into-as all are ideal.
As you stated in your example,the amplifier can be a current sink or source,as it has resistance,and that being the reason it gets hot. In MHs example,all is ideal,and has no resistance,and there for cannot sink or dissipate energy. The stored energy in the inductor is not just !gone! as MH put it,when the voltage polarity is reversed across the circuit-that still has stored energy from the previous applied voltage.That stored energy has to be dissipated,but there is no where for this stored energy to be dissipated,as there is no resistance in the circuit.
Brad
Tinman,
In my thought experiment I also discussed using a square wave. Do you believe the amplifier will have a problem driving the 1kHz square wave across the 5mH inductor as discussed? Do you believe the squarewave's transition from +30 volts to -30 volts will create a large current spike somehow related to the amplifier's output impedance and the inductor's DC resistance?
Or, do you believe the amount of current that flows will be more so determined by the frequency content of that edge transition and the reactance/impedance of the 5mH inductor at those frequencies?
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2016, 02:09:06 AM
PW
QuoteIn my thought experiment I also discussed using a square wave.
Quote:
QuoteAs the sine wave on the amplifier output reverses from its +30 volt peak towards its -30 volt peak, do you expect to see a huge current spike commensurate with the amplifier's .01R output impedance and the inductor's
???
QuoteDo you believe the amplifier will have a problem driving the 1kHz square wave across the 5mH inductor as discussed? Do you believe the squarewave's transition from +30 volts to -30 volts will create a large current spike somehow related to the amplifier's output impedance and the inductor's DC resistance?
No and N0,as both are not ideal.
Having resistance enables power to be dissipated as heat,and having no resistance(ideal),means that power cannot be dissipated.
Here is what you are not looking at,and i have stated this a number of times now--but it keeps getting over looked--the current that is flowing through the ideal voltage source.
Switch things around,and think about this. We have an ideal voltage source(lets say an ideal cap)that has 6 volts across it. We now place an ideal current source across that ideal capacitor,but so as the current is opposite that which will flow from the cap when a load is place across it-->what happens?.
Brad
The voltage in the capacitor starts to increase.
Quote from: tinman on June 18, 2016, 05:17:39 AM
No and N0,as both are not ideal.
Having resistance enables power to be dissipated as heat,and having no resistance(ideal),means that power cannot be dissipated.
Are you saying that in the examples I have given it is the amplifier's output impedance of .01R and/or the inductor's .1R DC resistance that is somehow determining or limiting the current flow when the square wave driving the inductor transitions between +30 and -30 volts (as opposed to the frequency content and inductance)?
Assuming no DC offset in the amplifier, would using an amplifier with a 10X lower output impedance or a 5mH inductor with a 10X lower DC resistance, or a combination of both, substantially increase the observed current flow during the +30 to -30 volt transition?
The audio power amplifier, within its performance capabilities, is a fair approximation of an ideal voltage source (particularly if we assume zero volts of DC offset). Similar to an ideal voltage source, the amplifier will source or sink whatever current is required to force the output to be at the selected voltage. Unlike the ideal voltage source, the audio power amplifier can only sink or source an amount of current that is within its design limits whereas an ideal voltage source can sink or source an infinite amount of current if necessary.
PW
While this discussion is very interesting, isn't anyone concerned that the available materials (pdf, documents and videos) from the Rodin coil proponents all seem to indicate that the claims of "overunity" are based on measurements or calculations of reactive or apparent power output compared to real power input?
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 18, 2016, 09:13:16 AM
While this discussion is very interesting, isn't anyone concerned that the available materials (pdf, documents and videos) from the Rodin coil proponents all seem to indicate that the claims of "overunity" are based on measurements or calculations of reactive or apparent power output compared to real power input?
TK,
As you already pointed out, we've seen the Irms X Vrms thing and disregard for phase shift/PF before.
Did you look at page 10 of the PDF I posted regarding current probe Russ is using? The phase shift of the current probe is pretty severe at some of the fundamentals and harmonics he is using.
With regard to the page of data you posted showing a scope capture and power "calculations", where was that info taken from? Was there a schematic provided for the test/measurement setup?
Where are these "materials" located?
PW
Quote from: tinman on June 17, 2016, 11:47:35 PM
As you stated in your example,the amplifier can be a current sink or source,as it has resistance,and that being the reason it gets hot. In MHs example,all is ideal,and has no resistance,and there for cannot sink or dissipate energy. The stored energy in the inductor is not just !gone! as MH put it,when the voltage polarity is reversed across the circuit-that still has stored energy from the previous applied voltage.That stored energy has to be dissipated,but there is no where for this stored energy to be dissipated,as there is no resistance in the circuit.
Brad
Why do you assume that the energy has to be dissipated?
Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2016, 09:27:25 AM
TK,
As you already pointed out, we've seen the Irms X Vrms thing and disregard for phase shift/PF before.
Did you look at page 10 of the PDF I posted regarding current probe Russ is using? The phase shift of the current probe is pretty severe at some of the fundamentals and harmonics he is using.
With regard to the page of data you posted showing a scope capture and power "calculations", where was that info taken from? Was there a schematic provided for the test/measurement setup?
Where are these "materials" located?
PW
The scopeshot and power calculation images I posted are in the "007" pdf here:
http://rwgresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rodin-007.pdf
No, there is no complete, or even partial, schematic shown in that document.
I don't see what they are using for a current probe in that report. They are, however, using a TPP0500B passive 500MHz voltage probe (about 600 dollars new) to measure their 641 Hz and 1574 Hz approximately sinusoidal oscillations.
(None of the scopeshots shown in the paper show the "2168 Hz" frequency claimed in the first page of the report.)
The LED loadbank is said to be "close to full illumination" but of course there is no actual measurement of light output. Anyone who has actually done instrumental measurements of light from LEDs or incandescent bulbs can testify to the fact that the naked eye is relatively insensitive to even large changes in actual light output as measured by a lux or lumens meter. So the subjective "close to full illumination" claim can be disregarded as nothing more than an unreliable anecdotal statement. In fact if the naked eye judges them to be not fully lit, then they are probably running at _much_ less than full power.
Surely a lab that would use a 600 dollar 500 MHz probe to scope a 1574 Hz sinusoid on a 350 MHz scope could arrange to do some proper luminance measurements. Don't you think so?
Quote from: tinman on June 17, 2016, 11:47:35 PM
But that is nothing like the test conditions stated in MH question.
There is no sine wave,as the voltages applied to the circuit(being the coil and ideal voltage source)are of a square wave pattern.The transition is not starting from a low point and ramping up to a high point,the transition is instant,and there is no resistance to sink the existing current flowing through the circuit.
Try to visualize this in the frequency domain.
The only difference between the 1kHz sine wave and the 1kHz square wave is that we are adding additional, higher frequency sine waves (harmonics) to the fundamental sine wave of 1kHz to create the square wave. The number of harmonics added depends on how square, or fast, we desire the rising/falling edges to be.
An infinitely fast transition (instantaneous transition) requires an infinite number of harmonics (infinitely high frequency content). In the real world, a decent square wave can be realized with 5 harmonics. However, fast transitions with very fast (straight) rise and fall transitions and nice looking sharp corners requires considerable bandwidth (additional harmonics).
Each of those added harmonics are just additional sine waves with progressively higher frequencies. Because the reactance of the inductor increases with frequency, current flow will decrease with respect to each harmonic added to the fundamental sine wave.
A faster transition contains higher harmonics (frequencies) which means less current flow through the inductor for those higher frequencies due to the increased reactance of the inductor at those frequencies.
As I have suggested many times, consider looking at various FG waveforms using your scope's FFT function to visualize the frequency content of those waveforms as you change their parameters.
Alternately, without a DSO to produce FFT's, passing a 2kHz square wave through an audio graphic (or parametric) equalizer while watching the output with a scope as the equalizer's controls are adjusted can be informative.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 18, 2016, 11:12:09 AM
Surely a lab that would use a 600 dollar 500 MHz probe to scope a 1574 Hz sinusoid on a 350 MHz scope could arrange to do some proper luminance measurements. Don't you think so?
One would think...
Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2016, 11:52:30 AM
Try to visualize this in the frequency domain.
Very few people on the forums understand the concept that a signal in the time domain can be expressed in the frequency domain. Likewise very few understand that you can transpose a signal back and forth between the time domain and the frequency domain using Fourier transforms and inverse Fourier transforms.
This is more abstract a concept than an ideal voltage source or an ideal current source. Let's hope for the best.
I am attaching a graphic for a square wave in the frequency domain. Of course this only shows the positive frequencies. There is no point in discussing the negative frequencies that make up a square wave because that would be a mind-bender that would generate 200+ postings of abject refusal with a slim possibility of surrender.
Animation of adding sine waves (harmonics) to make a square wave:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave#/media/File:Fourier_series_for_square_wave.gif
Taken from the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave
PW
Thank god for the web. The attached squiggly lines are the final result of the "proof" but actually explaining how you get there step by step is possible if you really want to do that too. I have to assume that there are some serious classroom lectures on YouTube for those so inclined. It seems that the Indian universities put a lot of this stuff out there and perhaps professor Walter Lewin did also.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 18, 2016, 12:38:43 PM
Thank god for the web. The attached squiggly lines are the final result of the "proof" but actually explaining how you get there step by step is possible if you really want to do that too. I have to assume that there are some serious classroom lectures on YouTube for those so inclined. It seems that the Indian universities put a lot of this stuff out there and perhaps professor Walter Lewin did also.
Perhaps it would be best to just firmly plant the visualization for now...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2016, 12:35:15 PM
Animation of adding sine waves (harmonics) to make a square wave:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave#/media/File:Fourier_series_for_square_wave.gif (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave#/media/File:Fourier_series_for_square_wave.gif)
Taken from the Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave)
PW
And much to the chagrin of many those little initial overshoot spikes never go away! I seem to recall a teacher saying that a mathematician proved that the final overshoot height of the spikes settles down to a certain finite value as omega goes to infinity. You end up with infinitely narrow overshoot spikes of a finite height!
The wonders of mathematics!
Don't leave your ideal current source "open circuit".
What might happen?
John.
Quote from: minnie on June 18, 2016, 06:22:32 PM
Don't leave your ideal current source "open circuit".
What might happen?
John.
You get the prize for the best question in eons.
Imagine your ideal current source is 5 amperes. Say the two terminals of the ideal current source are one meter apart. There is a nice aluminum bus bar that shorts the two terminals together. As long as the bus bar is in place all is well. You can sense the forbidden fruit already.
Now, if someone were to remove that bus bar or if it were to suddenly disappear, then you would not want to be in the same room. There would be a highly unpredictable raging snarling unstoppable plasma arc between the two terminals that would be extremely nasty.
If the same thing happened in space where there was no possible conductive medium for the current then we would go back to the good old Universe imploding and the end of all existence as we know it.
Quote from: picowatt on June 18, 2016, 12:44:01 PM
Perhaps it would be best to just firmly plant the visualization for now...
PW
One would think that an !ideal! voltage source would have no harmonics,but only an ideal voltage.
One would also think that these harmonics are a result of the inductance of the test equipment"s leads and components,and not the voltage it self.
As for Russ,and what he is doing--i do recall him asking any EE guys out there that were watching his first video,to point out any mistakes he was making in his measurements.
I see a lot of guys here presenting all sorts of reasons there could be mistakes with his measurements so far,and this is ok to do of course. But is there any one here that is also actually testing the same device?. If there was one of the higher end EE guys here testing the device,then they could actually say where Russ is making his mistakes. But as it stands at the moment,we have only those !guessing! at what or where the mistakes are being made.
The other thing i have found over the years,is that as long as the measurements made come in at underunity,then no one questions the measurements taken. But when overunity measurements are presented,the eagle eyes are wide open,and watching without a blink.
Is there anyone here well versed in EE that is going to replicate and test?.
Brad
Quote from: MileHigh on June 18, 2016, 06:53:09 PM
You get the prize for the best question in eons.
Imagine your ideal current source is 5 amperes. Say the two terminals of the ideal current source are one meter apart. There is a nice aluminum bus bar that shorts the two terminals together. As long as the bus bar is in place all is well. You can sense the forbidden fruit already.
Now, if someone were to remove that bus bar or if it were to suddenly disappear, then you would not want to be in the same room. There would be a highly unpredictable raging snarling unstoppable plasma arc between the two terminals that would be extremely nasty.
QuoteIf the same thing happened in space where there was no possible conductive medium for the current then we would go back to the good old Universe imploding and the end of all existence as we know it.
Well that is incorrect.
The correct answer would be--nothing happens at all.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on June 18, 2016, 07:45:25 PM
One would think that an !ideal! voltage source would have no harmonics,but only an ideal voltage.
One would also think that these harmonics are a result of the inductance of the test equipment"s leads and components,and not the voltage it self.
It seems you're missing the point being made here.
If the voltage source is ideal and there are no distortion mechanisms present anywhere (
always assumed in these discussions unless noted otherwise) then the harmonic content is determined by the wave shape.
Yes, if a pure sine wave is selected, then there are no harmonics. If a pure square wave is selected, then there is the fundamental frequency, plus all the odd ordered harmonics. Harmonic content is a function of the wave form.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 18, 2016, 08:23:42 PM
It seems you're missing the point being made here.
If the voltage source is ideal and there are no distortion mechanisms present anywhere (always assumed in these discussions unless noted otherwise) then the harmonic content is determined by the wave shape.
Yes, if a pure sine wave is selected, then there are no harmonics.
QuoteIf a pure square wave is selected, then there is the fundamental frequency, plus all the odd ordered harmonics. Harmonic content is a function of the wave form.
That makes no sense to me.
If the wave form is pure,how can it have harmonic content?.
If there is any ripple !such as shown in PWs animation! in the wave form,then how is it a pure wave form?.
To me,a pure square wave form would have no harmonic ripple as shown in PWs animation. For example,a pure square wave would be like placing a scope across a 12 volt battery for 1 second,and then disconnect it for one second--and repeat process. This to me would show a pure 12 volt square wave with a 50% duty cycle. This harmonic ripple in a square wave can only come from the equipment ,and not the source.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on June 18, 2016, 07:45:25 PM
One would think that an !ideal! voltage source would have no harmonics,but only an ideal voltage.
I had hoped that if you considered this exercise in the frequency domain it may make more sense to you.
EVERY waveform that you can imagine can be disassembled into the group of sine waves of various amplitudes that can be summed together to produce those waveforms. This is the basis of Fourier analysis.
Fortunately, we need only push a few buttons on a DSO or digital data acquisition system to produce the Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT's) that in years past required laborious math. When you use the FFT display on your scope, it displays the frequency of the sine waves (and their amplitudes) contained in the waveform being analyzed. I am not sure what your scope is capable of, but even a basic FFT function should prove interesting to you.
This is a hugely important concept as very often a complex waveform or simple square wave contains many more frequencies, typically higher frequencies, than the trigger repetition rate displayed on your scope would have you believe. A decent looking 1kHz square wave will contain harmonics out to 10-20kHz. If it has very fast rise and fall times, those frequencies can extend into the 10's or 100's of MHz. All the time the trigger on the scope will just say it is a 1kHz square wave.
Take the time to read thru all my recent posts again, hopefully they will all make a bit more sense to you.
Consider digging thru your scope's manual and play around with your FFT display. Feed your FG to both scope channels and watch the waveform in time domain (normally) on one channel while watching an FFT (frequency domain) of that waveform on the other channel (assuming your scope can do that). Play around with various waveforms and duty cycles. If you take the time to do this, in time you will be able to look at a waveform displayed on a scope and make a pretty good guesstimate of its actual frequency content.
PW
Quote from: tinman on June 18, 2016, 08:40:17 PM
That makes no sense to me.
If the wave form is pure,how can it have harmonic content?.
If there is any ripple !such as shown in PWs animation! in the wave form,then how is it a pure wave form?.
The animation started out as a pure waveform, that is, a single sine wave. As additional harmonics were added to that pure sine, it was no longer a "pure waveform" but instead morphed into a square wave as harmonics were added. Note that the repetition rate remained at the same frequency as the original sine wave, but as it became a square wave, its frequency content increased as harmonics (additional sine waves) were added to the original, single frequency, pure sine wave.
Quote
To me,a pure square wave form would have no harmonic ripple as shown in PWs animation. For example,a pure square wave would be like placing a scope across a 12 volt battery for 1 second,and then disconnect it for one second--and repeat process. This to me would show a pure 12 volt square wave with a 50% duty cycle. This harmonic ripple in a square wave can only come from the equipment ,and not the source.
The square wave you are creating has a frequency of .5Hz. That would be the fundamental, the first sine wave necessary to make that waveshape. Your waveform has very fast edges, so you know it can't be just a pure .5Hz sine wave. So, we start adding harmonics to the .5Hz sine wave until we arrive at the square wave you created. Conversely, we can look at your square wave and mathematically analyze it, that is, disassemble it, to determine what frequencies are contained in that waveshape.
The ideal voltage source in MH's question is producing a long period rectangular waveshape that does not have a 50% duty cycle and has very fast (assumed to be instantaneous) transitions. The fundamental will have a very low (sub 1Hz) frequency but in order to make the waveform rectangular, and with very fast transitions, many harmonics must be added to the fundamental to create that waveshape.
Only a pure (non-distorted) sine wave contains just one particular frequency. As soon as that sine wave deviates in the slightest from being a pure sine wave (starts to look "ugly") it contains additional frequencies (harmonics). This is what is meant by harmonic distortion in an amplifier. A pure sine wave goes in, but that sine wave, if distorted in the least, will contain additional harmonics on the amplifier output. if driven to the point of clipping, the output begins to resemble a square wave and contains a lot of harmonic content.
That GIF animation from the Wiki link shows how sine waves are added together to make a square wave.
Again, EVERY waveshape imaginable can be disassembled into a group of various sine waves at various amplitudes that make up that waveshape.
If you have an audio graphic equalizer, try feeding a 1 or 2 kHz square wave into it while excercising the controls and watching the output on a scope. Then feed in a 1 or 2kHz sine wave and repeat your observations. This will readily demonstrate that the square wave does indeed contain additional frequencies.
PW
And the truth is that over the past five years this extremely important subject matter about understanding the concepts relating to the frequency content in signals has probably been covered between a dozen and two dozen times, sometimes in depth. Some people obviously were not listening and the revolving door of knowledge keeps on turning.
Rolling on the river...
Quote from: tinman on June 18, 2016, 08:40:17 PM
That makes no sense to me.
If the wave form is pure,how can it have harmonic content?.
Perhaps the term "pure" is confusing to some, although the techies all know what we mean. Pure, as in exact, precise. When I refer to a "pure" square wave, that means perfectly flat tops and bottoms, and infinitely-fast transitions. And as such, this wave form is going to contain a hell of a lot of frequency harmonics (odd only) going to infinity (although the amplitude of each successive odd harmonic decreases).
Quote
If there is any ripple !such as shown in PWs animation! in the wave form,then how is it a pure wave form?.
It isn't. The purpose of the demo was to show you that the square wave is made up of many frequency components, and that the more harmonics you add, the more perfectly "square" it becomes. Who referred to PW's animation as demonstrating a pure square wave?
Quote
To me,a pure square wave form would have no harmonic ripple as shown in PWs animation. For example,a pure square wave would be like placing a scope across a 12 volt battery for 1 second,and then disconnect it for one second--and repeat process. This to me would show a pure 12 volt square wave with a 50% duty cycle.
Yes, but do you understand that any "pure" (perfect) square wave contains many odd-ordered frequency components called harmonics?
Quote from: tinman on June 18, 2016, 07:51:03 PM
Well that is incorrect.
The correct answer would be--nothing happens at all.
Brad
No my answer was not a correct answer, it was just a joke.
The correct and serious answer would be as follows:
There is no point in even considering what would happen if you had an ideal current source connected to an open circuit with no means of conduction between the two terminals. It is what is essentially an invalid thought experiment, just like saying connecting an ideal voltage source to a short circuit is an invalid thought experiment.
The real takeaway is as follows:
For an ideal voltage source, as the load resistance tends towards zero, the current tends towards infinity and the power output tends towards infinity.
For an ideal current source, as the load resistance tends towards infinity, the voltage tends towards infinity and the power output tends towards infinity.
Zero output power for a voltage source is an open circuit for the load.
Zero output power for a current source is a short circuit for the load.
A capacitor acts like a temporary ideal voltage source.
An inductor acts like a temporary ideal current source.
These concepts should become like a second nature for an electronics hobbyist.
MileHigh
Quote from: webby1 on June 19, 2016, 11:41:02 AM
,, so then you are stating that a square wave can be described by an appropriate number of rectangles??
No, we are saying that a square wave can be described by an appropriate number of sine waves (a fundamental frequency and odd harmonics) that when summed together results in a square wave.
PW
Webby,
I found Wiki was helpful with regards to square wave.
John.
The answer to your question is because it's often much easier to determine how a circuit that consists of capacitors, inductors, and resistors will respond to a sine wave compared to a square wave. So instead of dealing with a difficult problem based on a square wave, you break it down into several easy to answer problems based on a series of sine waves. Then when you start to think like this, you are always thinking about the frequency content in a given waveform.
The circle is a form of perfection, it is a pure form. A sine wave is just one component of a circle. If a circle is two-dimensional, then a sine wave is like a one-dimensional version of a circle. A sine wave is a perfect form, a pure single tone. A pure sine wave has a width of zero in the frequency spectrum.
Put a sine wave and a cosine wave together at a right angle and you get a perfect circle. You can analyze just about anything by looking at how it responds to perfect sine waves.
Webby,
I just don't think you're getting it.
An "ideal" square wave isn't achievable in practice.
John.
Webby,
I give up!!!
John.
Quote from: webby1 on June 19, 2016, 04:28:55 PM
John,,
I play in the mechanical world and a constant force on and off is a square wave,, perfect and simple and true.
Besides John,, there are no such things as "ideal",, I thought you understood that.
No, using the same set of criteria, there is no such thing as a perfect square wave in the mechanical world either.
How about this?
A book, "The New Physics" authors T.Webby & B.Tinman.
John.
Quote from: webby1 on June 19, 2016, 04:28:55 PM
John,,
I play in the mechanical world and a constant force on and off is a square wave,, perfect and simple and true.
Besides John,, there are no such things as "ideal",, I thought you understood that.
Even in the mechanical world, the concept of the frequency content of a waveform versus its repetition rate is important.
If you were going to make a 1Hz mechanical square wave with a 50% duty cycle and a rise and fall time of .01 seconds, using a solenoid, you would need the solenoid's actuator to travel in or out in just .01 seconds. That is much faster than the .5 seconds on and .5 seconds off of the 1Hz square wave being produced. A sine wave that rises to its peak in .01 seconds would have a frequency of 25hz (.01 seconds to its positive peak, .01 seconds back to zero, .01 seconds to its negative peak, and .01 seconds back to zero which is .04 seconds total, or 25 Hz). Simply stated, the 1Hz square wave created by the solenoid moving in and out as described would need to have a harmonic content that extended to at least the 25Hz necessary to produce the .01 second rise and fall time.
The squareness of the "edge", that is, the rise and fall portion of the square wave, requires a much faster rate (frequency) than the 1Hz square wave being produced. To say that the square wave is 1Hz only implies that one full on/off cycle happens once every second but its frequency content is much higher. If the square wave were just a pure sine wave, the frequency content would also be 1Hz. But the 1Hz square wave contains much faster moving components (the rising and falling edges) that are created using rates (frequencies) much faster than the .5 seconds of on and off time.
If you stood next to a very loud machine that was generating a square/rectangular wave, you would probably want to use hearing protection. While wearing the hearing protection, you would still hear the machine, but it would sound muffled. Instead of "bang, bang, bang", you hear "thump, thump, thump". The hearing protection is attenuating the high frequencies (harmonics) contained in the square/rectangular wave generated by the machine.
A carpenter using a hammer hitting a nail every 2 seconds is generating a .5 Hz waveform but the sound of the impact of the hammer against the nail is a sharp "bang" sound containing many high frequencies. Although the carpenter is creating a .5Hz waveform (the rate he is hammering) the frequencies contained in that waveform are much higher. Again, hearing protection can attenuate the higher frequencies and reduce the loud bang sound to a duller thud.
A car's muffler is another example. Instead of the loud "bang" sound produced by an engine without a muffler, the muffler attenuates the high frequency content reducing the the exhaust sound to a rumble. That rumble is the fundamental and lower frequency content of the engine's exhaust sound with the higher frequencies attenuated by the muffler. The repetition rate, that is, the frequency at which the engine fires, remains the same, but the muffler attenuates the higher frequencies contained in the waveform produced as the exhaust valves open.
The point is that even though a waveform may repeat at a given rate (have a certain repetition "frequency"), the frequency content of that waveform can be vastly different. A square wave, for example, contains a fundamental frequency (sine wave) equal to its repetition rate and a bunch of higher frequency odd harmonics (more sine waves) necessary to produce the faster square edges.
All waveshapes, regardless of their complexity, can be disassembled into the individual frequencies (sine waves) contained in and necessary to make that waveshape.
PW
Quote from: minnie on June 19, 2016, 04:56:44 PM
How about this?
A book, "The New Physics" authors T.Webby & B.Tinman.
John.
Or overunity farm animals-by minnie.
Brad
Quote from: MileHigh on June 19, 2016, 04:49:27 PM
No, using the same set of criteria, there is no such thing as a perfect square wave in the mechanical world either.
MH the mechanic is at it again.
Are you sure minneme isnt your son?.
Brad
Quote from: minnie on June 19, 2016, 04:19:16 PM
Webby,
I just don't think you're getting it.
An "ideal" square wave isn't achievable in practice.
John.
As long as there are no vibrations,an ideal square wave is achievable.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on June 20, 2016, 12:30:30 AM
As long as there are no vibrations,an ideal square wave is achievable.
Brad
"Ideal" of course meaning a square wave with infinitely fast rise and fall times (instantaneous) perfectly damped (no under/over shoot or ringing) containing an infinite number of odd harmonics...
PW
Quote from: webby1 on June 20, 2016, 12:51:17 AM
Yes there is,, you are smart enough MH,, you might be able to figure it out,, it did take me a while to figure it out,, but I am not the sharpest tool in the shed ;)
Just give me an example of what you believe is a perfect square wave in the mechanical world and I will then see if I can argue it out.
Quote from: MileHigh on June 20, 2016, 01:05:48 AM
Just give me an example of what you believe is a perfect square wave in the mechanical world and I will then see if I can argue it out.
Yep--always after one.
Brad
Quote from: Loner on June 20, 2016, 04:01:15 AM
This is an "argument" that I would be interested in seeing....
I have a very old problem with the "Wonderful" concept of "adding" together sinewaves to create the square wave. (Well, merge, not Add.) Simply put, it is really a math "Cheat".
Before ANYONE bothers to try to change my mind, realize that I had this very argument with very smart people decades ago, and my opinion will not change.
Both sides are CORRECT and there is NOTHING that will change that. For a simple reality check, think of basic digital computers and digital logic that can create analog waveforms. Are you doing this by adding together squares to construct these outputs? (If so, apply for the Nobel...) Any digital computer cares not for the harmonics as they don't exist in software, except in our thought when programming. The processor knows not.
By the same token, there is NO denying that FFT works, and is very accurate. For me it is still a math cheat, as math has many severe limitations. This is not to say that "Looking" at the FFT method and realizing that such is possible isn't a fantastic analysis method. There are always two ways of "Seeing" something.
For example, the simplest math problem. Take 1 and divide by three. Write down that value. (How ever you want as long as it's NOT as an equation, but a number.) Multiply this number by three. I hope this begins to explain what the REAL problem is. There are many "Cheats" in math to get around this problem but the end result of the basic test is math doesn't always work in the way that one thinks. It is ONLY our looking at it with intelligence that shows these problems. Dealing with computers all the time slaps me in the face this way too often for me to ever accept (easily...) what is "proven" by math. I will always need to see the actual physical device in operation to believe it. (Accurate testing with proven equipment and ALL specs "might" be an exception...)
As you can imagine, I lost a LOT of respect for fellow engineers during those olden days while having to plow through calculus for multiple years. Just because I fully understood it and always got an "A" doesn't mean I ever willingly used it nor ever hope to. The mind can do more than the math for the basic understanding. Then again, once into the "details" and testing of specific things, the math is a necessary evil, but I doubt Ottoman did major flow calculations before trying the 1st design of the 4 stroke engine, etc.
Of course, without FFT, and all the advanced signal processing that it has already provided, we wouldn't have half of the great things we have. Cell phones haven't had analog transmitters or receivers in quite a while. That is just ONE example out of thousands. (CD's, DVD's, the list is too long....) Just because something is a "Cheat" does NOT mean it doesn't work...
All I want to really say is: A square wave is just that, if looking at it digitally. For a SINGLE rise, as was initially mentioned, the harmonic content has no bearing or application. Same with a single pulse, as the same concept applies. Make it at all repetitive and that all changes depending on what you are doing with it. If said square wave is being amplified and sent out as a signal with a purely digital reception, then who cares. Send that same signal down a transmission line to get there and, NOW, you have a different situation and such things become important. Feed ANY square wave into, say an audio amp, and you are really into the analog realm and such analysis becomes the MOST important. Am I making sense to anyone? Are we there yet?
So, in the SIMPLEST form, an Ideal voltage source, short wire to Relay coil, the relay turning on will not be concerned with the harmonic content of the rise of the wave, if it really exists...
Also, in the simplest form, same source, long twisted pair wire to transformer primary with secondary to audio amp... You need a lot of math to really figure the responses accurately... Here is where I have trouble, I would prefer to measure it at that point instead of calculate it. There are many times things you didn't think of that the math will not expose. Testing will. FFT analysis will not mention that the cover happened to have a metal clip that altered the transmitters function, nor that the cover being loose will cause the "unknown" fix to be intermittent. Math IS NOT physical.
(Even IBM designers, back in the day, were creating twisted pairs with a drill and actually testing response of different turns per inch instead of calculating what the best would be as the math just wasn't good enough at that time. Effects of tightness of the twists was not fully known. Yes, I was there and saw it for myself. Now, twisted pair ethernet is common. But, they also made the "?" circuit that took a basic crystal at 12.0000 Mhz accuracy and digitally made it 12.0000000000 Mhz accuracy. I still believe that put the digital TTL logic into the analog realm, done digitally. I was not privy to details but I do know that some heavy math was used, in a digital circuit? At the time, this was all cutting edge stuff. Talking late 70's.)
So, Please, Argue away as a lot has been changed over the years and I enjoy learning new things but both sides must eventually accept that math requires cheats and there is a reason that electronics (as well as physical devices) are called digital and analog. The hard part is accepting that Digital electronics can used used in an analog manner and that vice versa also applies. The application determines what you are dealing with and no one method covers ALL applications. (To qualify that, you could use a slew of FFT to process a single rise time to a large inductor from the voltage, but why would anyone ever bother to make something so simple be such a pain in the butt? To someone stuck in the math zone or putting on airs, OK, but to a real bench worker, you must be kidding. Lets get into the real world for a bit.)
Be happy no one mentions quantum theory as the debate gets even worse. (I didn't write that, someone else did...)
It is good to have some one like your self here on this forum Loner ;)
There are many cases where this harmonic sine business is stretched beyond any practical purpose.
There are also cases where it simply dose not exist,and in some mechanical cases as well.
The binary code it self has no sine harmonic--it is either a 0 or 1--nothing in-between.
A simple drawing of a square wave on a piece of paper has no sine harmonic.
In the mechanical world,a dog clutch would resemble a square wave actuator--it is either in ore out of gear. Any vibrational harmonics that come after the engagement have nothing to do with the engagement of that dog clutch it self-->even the teeth of the clutch resemble a square wave with no sine harmonics. Now a cone or plate clutch could be seen to resemble a sine wave,where full engagement can build over time,but as i said,a dog clutch is either in or out. Most of the outboard motors used dog clutches,unless you opted for something like the johnson/evinrude selectromatic's,or the inboard velvet drives. Other than that,it is either in or out--no in-between.
Brad
Quote from: webby1 on June 20, 2016, 08:03:41 AM
Ideal world???
Torque,,
Real world,,
Pulsed Constant torque.
There is nothing to debate really,, for a given constant torque being applied it is either on or off.
Levers on the other hand do not work in a linear fashion and so have a rate of change of force,, something that must accelerate or decelerate.
The simplest of simple,,,, a string wrapped around a pulley,, pull on the string but do not let the pulley turn.
Are,but the string will oscillate up and down when pulled tight. This will cause an oscillation in the torque value--although very small,it is still there.
Brad
Quote from: webby1 on June 20, 2016, 08:03:41 AM
There is nothing to debate really,, for a given constant torque being applied it is either on or off.
The simplest of simple,,,, a string wrapped around a pulley,, pull on the string but do not let the pulley turn.
There is lots to debate if you can see. It is literally impossible to go from a state of zero torque and then instantaneously switch to a state of say one newton-meter of torque. There will always be a finite rise time and the torque vs. time graph will show a rounded edge to your hypothetical step function that transitions from zero torque to one newton-meter of torque. The rounded edge is telling you that there are missing high-frequency harmonics in the torque signal.
Are you going to acknowledge/reply Brad, or am I on ignore?
http://overunity.com/16650/marko-rodin-coil-007-device/msg486600/#msg486600 (http://overunity.com/16650/marko-rodin-coil-007-device/msg486600/#msg486600)
Quote from: tinman on June 20, 2016, 05:42:55 AM
A simple drawing of a square wave on a piece of paper has no sine harmonic.
I am perplexed that you believe that, in light of the plethora of information available on this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave)
From the above, you are able to see how and why a square wave is composed of many higher harmonics when you start with the sine wave fundamental of the frequency.
If you had 100 sine wave generators at your disposal, and had them set at the following frequencies;
1kHz, 3kHz, 5kHz, 7kHz, 9kHz, 11kHz, 13kHz, 15kHz, ad infinitum... with each successive harmonic at the correct lower amplitude, you would end up with a pretty "square" 1kHz square wave, although it may not be perfect. The idea is that it clearly demonstrates that any wave form that is non-sinusoidal is composed of more frequencies than what you would measure as it's fundamental (your scope for eg. measures the fundamental when you have frequency up). Triangle, saw-tooth, rectangular (pulse), etc. are other examples of wave shapes that are composed of many frequency components. It is the specific harmonic frequencies and their relative amplitudes to the fundamental and each other which determines the wave shape.
So, if you took these 100 sine wave generators and fed them in to a 100 input summing amplifier, and turned the generators on one at a time as you went up the frequencies, on the output you would observe something very similar to the attached animated gif. (also on the web page above).
Quote from: tinman on June 20, 2016, 05:42:55 AM
There are many cases where this harmonic sine business is stretched beyond any practical purpose.
There are also cases where it simply dose not exist,and in some mechanical cases as well.
Every time you use a square wave in a circuit that you are experimenting with and see peaking, ringing, slope, etc, you are seeing this concept in action. You are seeing the effect your circuit has at the various frequencies (harmonics) contained in your square wave. Knowing what a square wave morphs into when you boost or cut various harmonics allows you to better understand what the scope's display is telling you.
http://www.kennethkuhn.com/students/ee351/text/square_wave_testing.pdf
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/squarewave.htm
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 20, 2016, 10:39:44 AM
Are you going to acknowledge/reply Brad, or am I on ignore?
http://overunity.com/16650/marko-rodin-coil-007-device/msg486600/#msg486600 (http://overunity.com/16650/marko-rodin-coil-007-device/msg486600/#msg486600)
No-you are never on ignore Poynt.
To me,a pure square wave would mean just that-pure,and that would mean that the wave shape is pure--free from harmonic ripple.
No one said that the animation PW supplied was a pure square wave,in fact,the opposite is true,where to me,that animation dose not show a pure square wave.
So,it is safe to say that we cannot have a pure square wave form,as everything has an elasticity value,and the harmonics are due to elastic vibration--in electrical terms,we could see that as being !inductive reactance!?.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on June 20, 2016, 07:49:03 PM
To me,a pure square wave would mean just that-pure,and that would mean that the wave shape is pure--free from harmonic ripple.
Brad
Actually Brad, a pure square wave would mean.... That the wave shape is pure - including all of the harmonic ripple. It must include all of the harmonic ripple to be a pure square wave.
So the team has probably tried around five times but unfortunately you got it backwards. :(
I suppose the experts can try one more time to see if it will sink in.
Quote from: tinman on June 20, 2016, 07:49:03 PM
To me,a pure square wave would mean just that-pure,and that would mean that the wave shape is pure--free from harmonic ripple.
Brad,
A perfectly flat and square square-wave contains an infinite order of odd harmonic frequencies.
A perfectly flat, but not-so-square square-wave (where the edges have a finite rise time) will contain a limited order of odd harmonic frequencies.
Quote from: tinman on June 20, 2016, 07:49:03 PM
To me,a pure square wave would mean just that-pure,and that would mean that the wave shape is pure--free from harmonic ripple.
These are not just abstract mathematical concepts that don't exist in the real world...
Imagine you have a tunable bandpass filter with a narrow bandwidth in the passband. You connect your function generator output to the filter's input and monitor the filter output on a scope.
With the FG set to output a 1kHz sine wave you tune the filter to 1kHz and you see a 1kHz sine wave on your scope. As you increase the filter's frequency, the signal disappears from the scope and you see only noise. If your sine wave was "perfect", you would not see any more signals at the filter output as you continue to tune upward.
But your sine wave is not perfect, so at 2kHz you see a very low amplitude signal and have to crank up the scope, but you do see that there is a low amplitude 2kHz sine wave being displayed. That is the first of the sine wave's even order harmonic distortion (the 2nd harmonic). As you continue to tune higher with the filter, you again see nothing but noise until you reach 3kHz, where once again you see a very small amplitude 3kHz sine wave which is the first of the sine wave's odd order harmonic distortion (the 3rd harmonic). Which harmonics you see, and their amplitudes, is dependent on the design and specifications of your FG (how far the generated sine wave deviates from perfect). Analog FG's typically had "not so great" THD values of around 1% to .5% (Total Harmonic Distortion being the sum of the harmonic amplitudes expressed as a percentage of the fundamental's amplitude). Digital function generators (like yours) are likely better than this, perhaps less than .1%. Some digital sine wave generation techniques can effectively remove all the lower order harmonics. Signal generators purpose built for generating only low distortion sine waves can have very low THD. For example, I have analog sine wave generators capable of around .00015% THD (out to the fifth harmonic).
(The point of course being that if the 1kHz sine wave was a perfect sine wave, it would contain no harmonics at all. Only when the filter is tuned to 1kHz would you see any signal at the filter's output.)
OK, so now you repeat the above tests but switch your FG to produce a 1kHz square wave. As you tune the filter to 1kHz you see a large 1kHz sine wave displayed on the scope. This is the square wave's fundamental frequency of 1kHz. As you tune the filter frequency upward, the signal on the scope disappears into the noise floor. You pass 2kHz seeing nothing but noise until you reach 3kHz on the filter when suddenly a 3kHz sine wave appears on your scope. The amplitude of this 3rd harmonic is fairly large, being about 2/3 of the amplitude of the 1kHz fundamental. You continue tuning the filter frequency upward and again see nothing but noise until you reach 5kHz where again you see another sine wave appear on the scope. This 5kHz sine wave, the 5th harmonic, has an amplitude about half that of the observed 3kHz sine wave. As you continue to tune the filter upward, you note that you see a sine wave at every odd harmonic (3kHz, 5kHz, 7kHz, 9kHz, 11kHz, 13kHz, 15kHz, etc) with the amplitude decreasing with each higher harmonic.
In reality, if the duty cycle of the square wave is not perfectly 50%, you will see some low amplitude even order harmonics (2nd, 4th, etc) due to the square wave deviating from being "perfectly square" but the amplitude of these harmonics will be very low compared to the odd order harmonics (unless you adjust the duty cycle to be something other than 50%).
The FFT display on your scope can be used instead of a tunable filter. The FFT can mathematically analyze the digitized waveform and output a graphic display of the various frequencies, and their amplitudes, contained in the waveform.
In the days before digital, using a tunable analog filter to determine frequency/harmonic content was quite common. A tunable analog filter was the basis for most distortion and spectrum analyzers. Today, converting analog signals to digital and using Fourier analysis is becoming more common.
PW
If you have an audio graphic equalizer available, connect your FG output to the equalizer's input and monitor the equalizer's output with your scope. Feed a 1kHz sine wave into it and play around with the equalizer's boost/cut controls at the various frequency bands it covers (a rather boring exercise). Then switch the FG's output to a 1kHz square wave and again play around with the equalizer's boost/cut controls. What the equalizer does to the frequency content of the square wave, that is, the various shapes the square wave morphs into as you boost/cut various frequencies can be most informative (and a good way to test graphic equalizers...).
Quote from: webby1 on June 20, 2016, 08:39:51 PM
There is no "pure" anything,,
Pure, perfect,, ideal,,
No pure sine wave,, no pure square wave,, no perfect circles,, no perfect squares,, the Universe is not ideal, perfect or pure.
A pure anything would not have anything but what it is,, so to say anything other is nonsense,, the word pure takes care of anything else being present.
Ideals only work in an ideal experiment that is not carried out in the real world with real things.
I would have to agree Webby.
To be pure,is to have nothing but the stated.
As there is no such thing as pure in the real world,that can only mean we cannot have a pure wave form of any type-depending on how closely you want to look at that wave form.
But as you say,in an ideal world,such purity could exist,and as MHs question uses an ideal voltage source,you would think the step from one voltage value to another would be ideal,and result in a pure square wave shape without this harmonic ripple being present.
The real issue is-what difference dose it make in regards to the subject at hand ?
Brad
Brad,
I'm curious if you read this (http://overunity.com/16650/marko-rodin-coil-007-device/msg486703/#msg486703) and if you watched the animation?
Does it make sense?
If you try "Allaboutcircuits square wave" there's a lot there that seems to
agree with Poynt's point of view.
Just having a little break from wielding my 14lb. sledge hammer.
John.
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2016, 09:55:39 AM
Brad,
I'm curious if you read this (http://overunity.com/16650/marko-rodin-coil-007-device/msg486703/#msg486703) and if you watched the animation?
Does it make sense?
I tried to open the animation folder,but it says it is invalid or corrupt.
Quote: A square wave is a non-sinusoidal periodic waveform (which can be represented as an infinite summation of sinusoidal waves.
An infinite amount of sinusoidal waves would just be a solid block--a wave form that occupies all space. This is becoming more confusing--not easier.
Brad
Yeah, the zip didn't work for some reason.
Well, the animation is on the web page I linked to.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave)
QuoteAn infinite amount of sinusoidal waves would just be a solid block--a wave form that occupies all space. This is becoming more confusing--not easier.
You need to look at it a different way than you are.
I seems you are envisioning a whole mess of equal amplitude sine waves drawn on an x-y plot. That is a start but you need to take a couple of more steps to get there.
Draw a sine wave with amplitude 1V. Now on the same plot draw a sine wave triple the frequency and 1/3 the amplitude. Next, draw a sine wave of 5 times the frequency and 1/5 the amplitude. Break the x axis into say 100 points. At each x point you add the y values of the fundamental and the 3rd and 5th harmonics that you drew. The progression should look like the attached pics if you were to add the fundamental and 3rd together first, then the 5th . See how it is becoming square-ish?
As you keep adding more and more harmonics (7, 9, 11, etc), it becomes more square.
Quote from: tinman on June 21, 2016, 11:38:19 AM
I tried to open the animation folder,but it says it is invalid or corrupt.
Quote: A square wave is a non-sinusoidal periodic waveform (which can be represented as an infinite summation of sinusoidal waves.
An infinite amount of sinusoidal waves would just be a solid block--a wave form that occupies all space. This is becoming more confusing--not easier.
Brad
I have not looked at .99's zip file but if it says the above, just ignore that for now and go with the "contains an infinite number of odd harmonics" definition. This assumes, of course, that you are dealing with a perfect square wave as I previously discussed.
Just think of all the crazy 1kHz waveforms you can create using your FG by selecting sine, triangle, or square wave and messing about with the duty cycle and rise/fall times. All those different waveshapes and yet your scope and FG continue to just readout 1kHz. The difference between each waveshape is the additional, higher than the 1kHz fundamental, harmonics/frequencies contained in each waveform.
I believe your FG has two channel outputs. You could combine a 1kHz sine wave (fundamental) from one channel with a 3kHz sine wave (3rd harmonic) from the other channel and begin to see a square wave develop. If you could continue to add additional odd harmonics (or at least imagine doing so), each additional harmonic would fill in a bit more of the observed ripple. 5 harmonics makes a pretty good looking square wave, but as they say, the more the merrier...
I do not believe that as an experimenter, this concept is going to "click" with you until you see evidence of it for yourself. Consider performing the simple tests I have described using an audio graphic equalizer. I think it will help solidify the concept.
You should also become familiar with the FFT function on your scope. Feeding various waveforms from your FG into your scope's FFT function will reveal the additional frequency content of any particular waveshape.
It would be time well spent...
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on June 21, 2016, 12:39:29 PM
Yeah, the zip didn't work for some reason.
Well, the animation is on the web page I linked to.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave)You need to look at it a different way than you are.
I seems you are envisioning a whole mess of equal amplitude sine waves drawn on an x-y plot. That is a start but you need to take a couple of more steps to get there.
Draw a sine wave with amplitude 1V. Now on the same plot draw a sine wave triple the frequency and 1/3 the amplitude. Next, draw a sine wave of 5 times the frequency and 1/5 the amplitude. Break the x axis into say 100 points. At each x point you add the y values of the fundamental and the 3rd and 5th harmonics that you drew. The progression should look like the attached pics if you were to add the fundamental and 3rd together first, then the 5th . See how it is becoming square-ish?
As you keep adding more and more harmonics (7, 9, 11, etc), it becomes more square.
In my previous post #123 I stated that the 3rd harmonic was 2/3 the level of the fundamental.
Funny thing is I originally wrote 1/3. I was thinking in decibels and that the 3rd harmonic is down close to 10dB, which is roughly a factor of three, and had it right the first time. By the end of my long winded post I changed it to 2/3 for some unexplainable reason. Brain fade I guess.
.99 is of course correct, the level of the 3rd harmonic will be 1/3 the fundamental (close to 10dB down).
I am going to calmly write off the error to old age and the onset of dementia...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on June 21, 2016, 12:43:40 PM
I have not looked at .99's zip file but if it says the above, just ignore that for now and go with the "contains an infinite number of odd harmonics" definition. This assumes, of course, that you are dealing with a perfect square wave as I previously discussed.
Just think of all the crazy 1kHz waveforms you can create using your FG by selecting sine, triangle, or square wave and messing about with the duty cycle and rise/fall times. All those different waveshapes and yet your scope and FG continue to just readout 1kHz. The difference between each waveshape is the additional, higher than the 1kHz fundamental, harmonics/frequencies contained in each waveform.
I believe your FG has two channel outputs. You could combine a 1kHz sine wave (fundamental) from one channel with a 3kHz sine wave (3rd harmonic) from the other channel and begin to see a square wave develop. If you could continue to add additional odd harmonics (or at least imagine doing so), each additional harmonic would fill in a bit more of the observed ripple. 5 harmonics makes a pretty good looking square wave, but as they say, the more the merrier...
I do not believe that as an experimenter, this concept is going to "click" with you until you see evidence of it for yourself. Consider performing the simple tests I have described using an audio graphic equalizer. I think it will help solidify the concept.
You should also become familiar with the FFT function on your scope. Feeding various waveforms from your FG into your scope's FFT function will reveal the additional frequency content of any particular waveshape.
It would be time well spent...
PW
As i managed to screw up the current/voltage waveforms being ass about on the scope,i think i should first learn the basics of reading a scope in normal operation :D
I have had a quick look at the FFT function,and i can indeed display this at the same time,using the split screen display. I also see what you mean about the harmonics in a square wave generated by my FG.
But please remember,that this is not my forte,and it will take me some time to get my head around all this,and what it means to the outcome of power measurements-if anything at all?.
Brad
Russ is back and the project starts to move forward.
So Jbignes5 has given you guys on Russ' forum the whole spiel on plasma and the coil as he sees it. I think that it would be wise to split the thread into two threads, practical and theoretical side.
On the theoretical side, you have read what Jbignes5 has had to say. From earlier on, I stated that the Rodin coil is just an inefficient way of making an inductor with wire because of the excessive amount of magnetic field self-cancellation that is taking place. Beyond that, the Rodin coil is just like any other inductor, no more, no less.
On the practical side, Russ needs to make a reference control coil of approximately the same inductance as the Rodin coil. The pdf that I looked at had no schematic, no test procedure, and showed voltage and current "output" waveforms that were nearly 90 degrees out of phase indicating there was next to no real output power. Shockingly, the person that wrote that report was apparently unaware of this, so that means the person is not credible, and the report is not credible.
It looks like Russ and all of you guys need to develop a proper schematic and test procedure by yourselves, then test the Rodin coil and the control coil step by step and see what you get. Never keep your eye off the ball - electrical power out vs. electrical power in is what the whole thing is about.
On the practical side, you can expect that you will not see anything related to plasma at all, and Jbignes5 will have to explain that one. There is nothing special about plasma, anybody can look it up and read all about it.
MileHigh
hei-hallo All & Sundry!
Marko Rodin is a great guy and have shown us that your number matrix is a key to higher dimensionality, however, may i humbly tell you that i have worked out that it is not quite complete, and that all we need to add is ANOTHER SET OF 2 MORE ANGLES (making eight) so that it then becomes a truly 3-D representation of a key that can then lead us up/out into the 4-D and beyond!! - i do not say this lightly or flippantly, and can prove what i am claiming!
[/size][/size][/font][/color]
Another way of saying this is that your 6-angle matrix is suffering from 2-D-edness and as such can only try to give us HINTs as to what is beyond, and in actual Fact – what is AROUND THE CORNER(s) of this 2-D depiction! - (the Best illustration in the world for this step-up to the 3-D and beyond is the humble TENNIS BALL – Examine the continuous lining on the tennis ball and you will begin to see EXACTLY what i am getting at! - Look at it from all available angles (360) and you will soon realize that it presents a set of EIGHT x 90 degree angles rounded off to make it all look nice and smooth (which it is) but then mentally adapt all those 8 curves into sharper right-angles and BINGO – you will realise like an epithany that this common object truly represents something 'out of this world' and is really worth meditating on, or at least studying deeply! - This occured to me over 15 years ago, but i couldn't put it all together concisely until recently, bit now i can confidently say that this kind of 3-D model is far superior and as such can and will let us be lead into an understanding of the 4-D and beyond, and moreover, can then even let us get insights into the 4-D nature of the earth-globe itself !! !! .... ... .. . (yes, think 720)(if anyone doubts what i am claiming, just recall the Doubly-imbedded Tetrahedrons in the globe presented by many other researchers out there already!, and that's saying something, man!!) What this insight could do for advances in Mathematics as well as Physics et al, goes beyond our wildest dreams of imagination (exclaimation marks) of which the Rodin Coil is only the start.
Again, please accept my humblest contribution in shedding new light on this topic.
GMR :)
tienes razon, la bobina rodin es espectacular, mejor aun la bobina poe vortex de daniel nunez y mejor aun la bobina unificada, la rodin con la poe juntas, no se si nadie se da cuenta o no quieren dar cuenta por culpa de su ego, esas bobinas son la clave de la energia libre y de la sobre unidad, con esas bobinas pude hacer bolas de plasma saliendo de mi jardin, las que hacia nikola tesla en su laboratorio, esas bolas de plasma, para poder lograr eso, tiene que haber alta frecuencia, estas bobinas logran eso
Is anyone still on this?
Any conclusion?
The extra voltage is pure reactive. If a resistive load is connected at the output the extra voltage is gone.
In both cases he measures as the output current, the total tank circuit's current and not the current that flows through the load. In addition to that, the leds that he used are in series and their break down voltage is near to the peak value of the cap. So at least at the second case of loads (leds) the output power is far less than what is presented.
Hi jeg, if I continue with this, although many do not see how functional it is, the toroidal coil is great, you have to make some small adjustments, nothing more, but if it works, the field it generates is electric, and when I could get to the 5kv output was without a capacitor, there are some improvements that are very efficient and there is something about the kapanadze that will be very useful, maybe some of them already have that info, I'm making some new toroidal coils, it is the same design as the POE vortex coil, but the construction material changes radically and that produces many improvements
Quote from: carbon sugar on September 02, 2020, 08:59:35 AM
Hi jeg, if I continue with this, although many do not see how functional it is, the toroidal coil is great, you have to make some small adjustments, nothing more, but if it works, the field it generates is electric, and when I could get to the 5kv output was without a capacitor, there are some improvements that are very efficient and there is something about the kapanadze that will be very useful, maybe some of them already have that info, I'm making some new toroidal coils, it is the same design as the POE vortex coil, but the construction material changes radically and that produces many improvements
Hi Carbon
thanks for sharing.
I have built this coil, and indeed it amplifies voltage when load is not connected. Yes standing waves, yes reflections, yes voltage amplification, but NO it is not the rodin coil form which is responsible. I am quite certain that two transmission lines the one close to the other will produce the same amplification. My question is how to extract energy without diminishing the output voltage. One way is accumulation to a capacitor bank and firing at controllable time intervals. Any idea on this?
I have just built my first rodin coil.
(and no its not 'perfect')
Before connecting anything to power i wanted to take some baseline readings.
3.1 Ohms on both coils (although one is 1.5 inches longer being on top)
[if it matters: 12 points, 12 turns, 12ga wire]
The pair of open coils acts as a receiver of sorts, catching all noise in the area.
This can be scoped, amplified, filtered by chan. Etc
Radio can alter the instantaneous measured resistance of a single coil.
[this was mind boggling at first, but after replacing batteries, switching dmm's, refinishing the connection points, i realized the resistance WAS in fact changing over time.
But only when the coil was unshielded and in certain locations.
I shocked it with a 9v battery and there was a low power standing wave for some time
(both coils open)
Magnetic oscillations could be detected at a distance of 11 inches, diminishing over time.
My pre-examination research had uncovered reports that the power was sustainable.
My failures in this area could be from imperfections in my windings
Or
The fact that my secondary begins 180-degrees out of phase.
(This was my logical coin-toss based on the circuit and Marco's pictures)
or maybe it just oscillates and fades away once all the power is dissipated.
In theory, each coil has a similar capacity to its partner
So they could go back and forth.
My next tests will involve scoping the standing wave
Then possibly capacitors and a variable resistance/ inductance for tuning.
I think if we want to understand this science,
We need to translate it into our own science.
Start with a single 12-pointed winding
Measure the inductance
Add a single secondary winding
Repeat
Using Pythagorean-Fourier triangulation of the inductive curve:
Mathematically i find the same inductance as a normal 6-turn coil
And exactly 1/2 the reluctance.
Can anyone confirm?
Rodin-coil as a 'super antenna':
Not necessarily "flat" to You where you stand,
but there is a plane of communication around you,
upon which a maximum of signals from various directions reaches you.
And when the coil is 'flat' to this
You have 2 loops facing in every direction.
With 1 coil open, the other across a resistor,
you can pick up every signal
I'm sure you could crystal-radio that as a power source
But thats way too much work for nothing
However, as a receiver linked to an amplifier and filters
This probably blows your 1/4-wave tree out of the water
I use them for xmas decorations these days. :)
I didn't succeed.
This coil showed no difference from a conventional inductor.
No miracles.
Nothing to do with Rodin coil but i'm gonna report here a strange thing that happened
few hours ago. I got a 500W 12V/24V battery charger, it's quite bulky, transfomer type,
at 24V it outputs 30V pulsed DC full rectified sine, no caps. I keep it on the floor and next
to it is this chunk of cement brick. Today i turned it on and after maybe few seconds
the charger which is say about 18.5cm x 9cm x 18cm and weighs about 3kg i'd say,
rocked backward away from the brick, as if someone kicked it with a leg, almost tipped
over. No explanation whatsoever, some kind of gravitational effect.
It reminded me of this video showing coil repel a rock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muJqtz-ECfg
Rocks, cements, clays can all have ferrous content.
while not always 'magnetic' to say a permanent magnet,
electrical fields can cause magnetic induction, polarized opposite the field.
controlling this requires multiple fields overlaid
(electromagnetic levitation, the hitchinson effect, quantum 'traps', tokomok, etc)
—————————————————————————
Back to the rodin, studying the magnetic fields
[1:1 transformer configuration]
The magnetic field does indeed condense to a vortex in the center.
You can spin a ball in a cup
However it reaches out to a great distance at its' extremities. Possibly 100 larger than the coil.
weak at these distances as well.
but almost nonexistent at the induction points at the wire surface.
This means that induction is governed almost entirely in the electric vector.
[edit: i forgot to mention the reason i point this out^^^]
These devices should work better with very thin guage wire
My first one is inherently too thick of wire.
I'm going to step it down and run more tests.
I knew someone is gonna try to explain it in that way cause that is
the first thing i thought of, not ferrous content cause that would make
it attract not repel, but metal content which is indeed significant in rocks.
But this charger is standing next to the cement block all the time and this
happened only once. And metal content in it is orders of magnitude too low
for such great repulsion to happen.
As for Hutchison effect, that has to do with neutralization of herzian waves,
scalar interferometry etc. I might write 100 pages on this but no need.
The same can occur with multiple field interactions.
rather than tune sets of frequencies to match at nodes,
distinct field shapes are created by multiple coils
As for your random 'kick' or even the guy that used 2 bisecting fields to do it on demand:
If you think about the way a piece of iron magnetizes this is not your scenerio
What you have is bits of iron trapped in a crystaline structure (or ferrous crystaline structures of other elements), which induce an opposing field. Similar to diamagnetic response, however the opposite side will attract the original polarity. Its a full magnet just opposing. The effect is momentary, or the opposing magnetic moment is only oriented in opposition for a moment. Then it takes on an angle determined by the crystaline structure.
Its more akin to a 'reflection' of the emf.
The emf itself (in most cases) changes immediately destroying the reflections' coherency.
Sometimes you can find the types of rocks by dragging a magnet across them quickly
Some will follow the magnet
But a few will kick out in the other direction
(not a very repeatable test, has to be moving just right, do it once you may not be able to do it again with the same rock)
"The same can occur with multiple field interactions...."
That is what i meant by neutralization of herzian waves aka scalar interferometry,
aka phase conjugation.....effect ala Hutchison.
But here is only one charger with one transformer, no other fields or devices nearby.
So it's not necessary that there are multiple field, sure transformer has E and M field
but they are almost 90° outta phase since it was not loaded. Hutchison levitated a
500kg transformer 1inch..
Your suggestion that opposing field was induced momentarily in the iron in the
block somehow, supposedly by lenz, makes no sense. If it was due to lenz
it would happen every time.
It was a one-time very strange occurance, somehow different type of energy
got released, something more akin to gravity than magnetism, that is why i
noted charger is producing 30V pulsed DC, pulsed DC, altho usually at much
higher voltage and frequency is associated with radiant energy effects. And
it's not like it happened immediately i turned it on, like first backEMF reaction
but few seconds later as if it got charged up by gravitational potential and
then released it.
For those interested in Hutchison effect
Art Bell interview 2003. Here he recounts how he made the whole building disappear.
Here he reveal's the first setup from '79
3 tesla coils, 7.5khz, 14mhz, 5mhz
RF generator 455khz
VDG 500kv
weak static magnetic fields
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5qWnlqHt
TV interview circa 1990
https://youtu.be/9rd-iQhhr3o?t=569
Lead ball levitation best quality close up
https://youtu.be/pPYCKySAePQ?t=180
Great documentary from 2007., first part is about him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YjSx0cSuE
His channel, don't be quick to judge he is having fun with crossdressing lately,
it's how he vents
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuuj_IHbIyKF84aHdjMEx2w/videos
His wife's channel with many old videos of Hutchison effect
https://www.youtube.com/user/NancyLazaryan/videos
If this Hutchinson effect of yours were to transport my own body to Honduras... ::)
Without any borders and documents.
And flying cups are interesting, but not enough.