I do not claim anything because it may be not right, this all is only a conjecture. Bifilar coils create charge, and there may be not much current, creating a charge itself has no Lenz effect back. What this additional charge supposed to do, is to make the back-emf wider. The actual moving of electrons during induction is caused by the electrons orbiting the nuclea of the atoms. These orbiting electrons are also the reason that makes magnetic field asymmetric, that is, it has two poles, and every asymmetric field can do work. These electrons don't fall to the nucleus when doing work, which may be a source of overunity.
I don't see any inaccuracies that can make the result principally different, but with things like that nothing is confirmed before someone replicates it, also there is nothing that can be proven without replication, replication is the only way to find out what really happened and what the results were. So please replicate this experiment.
In the calculations below, the positive part of the graph is considered to be the input, and the negative part when there was no power supplied from the outside, is considered to be the output. The power used by the coil at every moment of time is the voltage on it multiplied by the current through it. The output power is the power on the resistor in the LR circuit during the back-emf. Only the power of the coil was calculated, there certainly was no overunity in the whole circuit, the consumption of power of the circuit was hugely greater than the power output measured, and no excess energy was generated whatsoever.
I'm really sorry that on the figure 3 below there is Arduino, not the signal generator. The experiment below was done using the Ne555 generator, but later i tried to have shorter pulses, so i changed things and now i have no device left, all is disassembled, but except the 555 generator, the circuit on that figure is exactly how it was during the experiment.
I have a 6 meter audio cable, i used to think that it is a headphones cable, but i don't remember where i got it or what it is. It is like a headphones cable, it consists of two coaxial cables in parallel, but it is thicker than a normal headphones cable, and it is covered with rubber. The pancake coil on the figure 2 used in the experiment below, was made of that cable. Its diameter is 160 mm and it has 17 turns. A bifilar coil was made of both coaxial cables, so it is like two bifilar pancake coils one on another, and these two pancake coils are connected in series. The coil had no core.
The real resistances of the resistors were R2 983 ohms and R3 99.4 ohms. As you can see on the figure 1 below, a floating scope was used, i could do that because i measured that there was no connection between the power supply ground and the oscilloscope ground. Be very careful when using a floating scope, and if there is any possibility that the circuit ground may be connected to the oscilloscope, connect the oscilloscope in another way.
The oscilloscope time scale was 5 us. The figure 4 below is the original photo of the oscilloscope screen, and the figure 5 is that photo enhanced with gimp. Channel 2 is up and channel 1 is below, channel 2 is inverted. The scale of channel 1 was 50 mV and the scale of channel 2 was 500 mV. The figure 6 below is that screen drawn in gschem, the following is the content of the sch file.
Quote
v 20130925 2
L 60500 42400 60800 41900 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 60800 41900 61200 41700 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 61200 40500 61500 41000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 61500 41000 62000 41300 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 62000 41300 62400 41400 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 62400 41400 63800 41500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 60500 39900 61200 40000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 61200 40000 61200 39000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 60300 41500 64000 41500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 60300 39000 64000 39000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
The squares of the grid in gschem are 100 units wide and 100 units high. The 5 us time scale means that the time period of the unit is 10 ns. The scale of channel 1 was 50 mV, considering the 10x attenuation of the oscilloscope probes, the channel 2 unit was 1 mV. The channel 2 scale was 500 mV, thus the channel 2 unit was 10 mV. The frequency was 30.303 kHz. The following python script was used to calculate using the gschem file.
Quote
import sys
#Time for a gschem unit in ns
XU = 10.0
#Voltage for a gschem unit for ch 1 in mV
YU1 = 1.0
#Voltage for a gschem unit for ch 2 in mV
YU2 = 10.0
#Resistor 1 resistance in ohms
R1 = 983.0
#Resistor 2 resistance in ohms
R2 = 99.4
#Frequency in Hz
F = 30303.0
if (len(sys.argv) < 2):
print ("\nUsage: python pancake3.py sch_file\n")
sys.exit()
f = open(sys.argv[1], "r")
lines = []
for s in f:
l = []
i1 = -1
if (s[0] != "L"): continue
for j in range(0, 5):
if (i1 == len(s)): break
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = i0 + s[i0:].find(" ")
if (s[i0:].find(" ") == -1): i1 = len(s)
if (j and s[i0:i1].isdigit()): l.append(int(s[i0:i1]))
lines.append([l[0], l[1], l[2], l[3]])
f.close()
y0 = lines[len(lines) - 2][1]
x0 = lines[0][0]
i1 = i2 = 0
lines.pop();
lines.pop();
for i in range(0, len(lines)):
if (lines[1] <= y0):
i1 = i
break
for i in range(0, len(lines)):
if (lines- == x0):
i2 = i
ilist = lines[0 : i1]
olist = lines[i1 : i2]
ch2list = lines[i2 : ]
x0 = ilist[0][0]
for i in range(0, len(ilist)):
ilist- -= x0
ilist[2] -= x0
ilist[1] -= y0
ilist[3] -= y0
x0 = olist[0][0]
for i in range(0, len(olist)):
olist- -= x0
olist[2] -= x0
olist[1] = y0 - olist[1]
olist[3] = y0 - olist[3]
x0 = ch2list[0][0]
y0 = ch2list[len(ch2list) - 1][3]
for i in range(0, len(ch2list)):
ch2list- -= x0
ch2list[2] -= x0
ch2list[1] -= y0
ch2list[3] -= y0
ilast = ilist[len(ilist) - 1][2]
olast = olist[len(olist) - 1][2]
i1 = i2 = 0
e = 0.0
for t in range(0, ilast, 10):
if (t >= ilist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
if (t >= ch2list[i2][2]): i2 += 1;
lx1 = float(ilist[i1][2] - ilist[i1][0])
ly1 = float(ilist[i1][3] - ilist[i1][1])
dx1 = float(t - ilist[i1][0])
r1 = abs(dx1 / lx1)
dy1 = ly1 * r1
lx2 = float(ch2list[i2][2] - ch2list[i2][0])
ly2 = float(ch2list[i2][3] - ch2list[i2][1])
dx2 = float(t - ch2list[i2][0])
r2 = abs(dx2 / lx2)
dy2 = ly2 * r2
ilr = (ch2list[i2][1] + dy2) * YU2 / R1
vlr = (ilist[i1][1] + dy1) * YU1
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pr = vlr * vlr / R2 / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
#Energy in uJ
e *= XU / 10 / 1000000
print("Input power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
i1 = 0
e = 0.0
for t in range(0, olast, 10):
if (t >= olist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
lx1 = float(olist[i1][2] - olist[i1][0])
ly1 = float(olist[i1][3] - olist[i1][1])
dx1 = float(t - olist[i1][0])
r1 = abs(dx1 / lx1)
dy1 = ly1 * r1
vlr = (olist[i1][1] + dy1) * YU1
pr = vlr * vlr / R2 / 1000
e += pr
#Energy in uJ
e *= XU / 10 / 1000000
print("Output power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
The output of that python script using the gschem file above, was the following.
Quote
Input power was 3.888 uW
Output power was 7.896 uW
The text herein was also uploaded to
https://archive.org/details/bpcoe (https://archive.org/details/bpcoe)
Perhaps a somewhat clearer Python code below, also the resistor names are now right, gives the same result.
I also noticed that the index "square bracket, i, square bracket" gets deleted after a name of the list after posting the code, i fixed that by writing [ i ] instead, so the code below now works correctly, not sure about the code in the previous post.
Quote
import sys
#Time for gschem unit in ns
XU = 10.0
#Voltage for gschem unit for ch 1 in mV
YU1 = 1.0
#Voltage for gschem unit for ch 2 in mV
YU2 = 10.0
#Resistor 2 resistance in ohms
R2 = 983.0
#Resistor 3 resistance in ohms
R3 = 99.4
#Frequency in Hz
F = 30303.0
def getlist(list, x0, y0, invert):
for i in range(0, len(list)):
list[ i ][0] -= x0
list[ i ][2] -= x0
if (invert):
list[ i ][1] = y0 - list[ i ][1]
list[ i ][3] = y0 - list[ i ][3]
else:
list[ i ][1] -= y0
list[ i ][3] -= y0
return list
def gety(list, i, t):
lx = float(list[ i ][2] - list[ i ][0])
ly = float(list[ i ][3] - list[ i ][1])
dx = float(t - list[ i ][0])
dy = ly * abs(dx / lx)
return list[ i ][1] + dy
def output(str, e):
#Energy in uJ
e *= XU / 10 / 1000000
print("%s power was %.3f uW" % (str, F * e))
if (len(sys.argv) < 2):
print ("\nUsage: python pancake4.py sch_file\n")
sys.exit()
f = open(sys.argv[1], "r")
lines = []
for s in f:
l = []
i1 = -1
if (s[0] != "L"): continue
for j in range(0, 5):
if (i1 == len(s)): break
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = i0 + s[i0:].find(" ")
if (s[i0:].find(" ") == -1): i1 = len(s)
if (j and s[i0:i1].isdigit()): l.append(int(s[i0:i1]))
lines.append([l[0], l[1], l[2], l[3]])
f.close()
x0 = lines[0][0]
y0 = lines[-2][1]
lines.pop()
lines.pop()
i1 = map(lambda l: l[1] <= y0, lines).index(True)
i2 = map(lambda l: l[0] == x0, lines[1 : ]).index(True) + 1
ilist = getlist(lines[: i1], x0, y0, False)
olist = getlist(lines[i1 : i2], lines[i1][0], y0, True)
ch2list = getlist(lines[i2 : ], lines[i2][0], lines[-1][3], False)
e = 0.0
i1 = i2 = 0
for t in range(0, ilist[-1][2], 10):
if (t >= ilist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
if (t >= ch2list[i2][2]): i2 += 1;
ilr = gety(ch2list, i2, t) * YU2 / R2
vlr = gety(ilist, i1, t) * YU1
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
output("Input", e)
e = 0.0
i1 = 0
for t in range(0, olist[-1][2], 10):
if (t >= olist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
vlr = gety(olist, i1, t) * YU1
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
output("Output", e)
do you want to replicate following?
https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2150504444991169/?type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2150504444991169/?type=2&theater)
https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2170624892979124/?type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2170624892979124/?type=2&theater)
Hey Dani1
you're doing Good job :)
Quote from: dani1 on September 10, 2018, 07:07:41 AM
do you want to replicate following?
https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2150504444991169/?type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2150504444991169/?type=2&theater)
https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2170624892979124/?type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2170624892979124/?type=2&theater)
Quote from: dani1 on September 10, 2018, 07:07:41 AM
do you want to replicate following?
https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2150504444991169/?type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2150504444991169/?type=2&theater)
https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2170624892979124/?type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2170624892979124/?type=2&theater)
Tesla HAIRPIN circuit
Interesting Not Overunity
Quote from: dani1 on September 10, 2018, 07:07:41 AM
do you want to replicate following?
https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2150504444991169/?type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2150504444991169/?type=2&theater)
https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2170624892979124/?type=2&theater (https://www.facebook.com/ricard.montseny/videos/vb.100000949034144/2170624892979124/?type=2&theater)
No i cannot, i have no induction cooker. Also using light bulbs is an improper way to measure power, it is very difficult to measure their brightness, and in these videos they don't even try to do that. If you did use heating elements instead or such, you could at least measure their temperature, and from that you could calculate power, though whether they are in the air or in the water, what is the temperature of the air or water, whether the wind blows or water moves, all should then be measured and included in the calculation. No matter how convincing something may look, without a proper measurements the experiments are worthless for research. I mean what you do may be great, all i'm saying is that you lack the necessary rigor.
Well
there is a beautiful simple test procedure for this...light bulbs or whatever ??
no problem
was taught to us years back by a very Schmart man who could do almost everything
with absolutely nothing....
Fixed loss to ambient test protocol
I will look for the simple write up and post it here.
respectfully
Chet K
I now enhanced the oscilloscope screen image more with edge detect, on figure 1 below, and changed the gschem graph to more exactly correspond to the oscilloscope screen. The sch file is now the following.
Quote
v 20130925 2
L 60500 42500 60900 41900 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 60900 41900 61300 41700 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 61300 40500 61600 41000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 61600 41000 62000 41300 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 62000 41300 62400 41400 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 62400 41400 63800 41500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 60500 40000 61300 40100 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 61300 40100 61300 39000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 60300 41500 64000 41500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 60300 39000 64000 39000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
The power supply as measured with a multimeter, was 11.84 V.
The output of the Python script above with the sch file above is now the following.
Quote
Input power was 5.277 uW
Output power was 7.500 uW
But output is still greater than the input.
What is in this forum, all are gone from here? Only a few people i see, here used to be always many four years ago, when i last was here.
Also, consider that in my bifilar pancake coil coaxial cables were used, like these used in the headphones wire, instead of pairs of wires, coaxial cable provides much more capacitance between the windings than a pair of wires, and this what i think is the most essential for bifilar coil.
I don't know what is the cable that i used for my coil, i cannot find it anywhere. Maybe something like that below, headphone extension cable, where the two coaxial cables are side by side, not twisted, this also makes the cable flat, more like tape, and easy to make a pancake coil. But it was thicker, and 20 feet (6 m) long.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Quality-3-5mm-Extension-Headphone-Plug-Jack-Audio-Cable-Male-To-Female/262803920459?epid=2133356404&hash=item3d3055964b:g:iAkAAOSwYeRZ5cNo (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Quality-3-5mm-Extension-Headphone-Plug-Jack-Audio-Cable-Male-To-Female/262803920459?epid=2133356404&hash=item3d3055964b:g:iAkAAOSwYeRZ5cNo)
Sir
Here everybody keeps busy , its the thing to do ....[saving the planet requires diligence
we do have some friends who have done many experiments with Pancake coils and multi windings [BiFi etc]
I will ask a few to have a look here.
thanks for sharing your work....
respectfully...
Chet K...
Ps
also
there are some builders who frequent here who are working on some Pancake coil ideas shared by Nelson Rocha over at a moderated bench at Russ's forum
here http://open-source-energy.org/?PHPSESSID=m1nc8rakikrllvkcj64b82pfv4;topic=3300.msg50663#new (http://open-source-energy.org/?PHPSESSID=m1nc8rakikrllvkcj64b82pfv4;topic=3300.msg50663#new)
Quote from: ramset on September 12, 2018, 02:00:31 PM
we do have some friends who have done many experiments with Pancake coils and multi windings [BiFi etc]
I will ask a few to have a look here.
thanks for sharing your work....
Thanks.
You can also run the python script above in ideone or in some other online compiler, just paste the content of the sch file as stdin. The following is that script in ideone, it runs and outputs the results.
https://ideone.com/pPOOjF (https://ideone.com/pPOOjF)
To get gschem one should install geda. There is also geda for windows, but also other electronics circuit simulators based on spice should include a similar vector graphics editor.
The pancake coil he shows has about 20 winds, if that helps any
Quote from: AlienGrey on September 13, 2018, 02:52:47 PM
The pancake coil he shows has about 20 winds, if that helps any
Yes, but the one on your picture was made of a speaker wire likely. Mine, maybe an equivalent would be if one would make it out of a coaxial cable, especially from one with a small diameter. Coaxial cable has much more capacitance than a speaker wire, and this is because the outer conductor there is all around the inner conductor, which means that there is much larger area between the two conductors, than in a pair of wires. Capacitance is also greater when the conductors are closer to each other, like in the headphones cable that i used. Otherwise i don't know by now, maybe a guitar cable or microphone cable, one can get them very long.
At that i don't exclude that it may work with the coil on your picture, i don't exclude that it may work with any bifilar coil. One thing though, don't use any core, i tried core, and it made it more like an ordinary coil, with the back-emf much narrower, and seemingly much less difference between the input and output energy.
I used gschem as a vector graphics editor because it is a very simple editor that has a very simple output format. There are also online vector graphics editors like method draw below, that can be used for the same purpose, But it has an svg output format, that is some kind of xml, and it's somewhat more difficult to pick the coordinates of the lines from there with python script, though it's possible.
https://editor.method.ac (https://editor.method.ac)
Radiant energy experiment with 3 bifilar coils:
Why is the disruptive discharge, BEFORE the pulse turns on?
https://youtu.be/lByUMEg0OHs (https://youtu.be/lByUMEg0OHs)
https://youtu.be/lByUMEg0OHs
I don't know, a bug in the Rigol's software maybe, he should try again with an analog scope.
How to get waveform data out of Rigol, it's a series of bytes for every channel, each byte is a sample, right? This Python script can be easily modified to calculate from that data, instead of vector graphics, in fact it's even simpler to do. But, a bless or curse, but i don't have Rigol.
It's no bug in the Rigol.
Put the circuit into LTSpice and run the simulation, paying attention to the startup transients. There is no need for fancy bifilar coils to see this behaviour.
Bifilar coils have capacity. These waveforms are all hairy because bifilar coils self-oscillate on their resonant frequency.
Quote from: ayeaye on September 14, 2018, 03:54:07 PM
Bifilar coils have capacity. These waveforms are all hairy because bifilar coils self-oscillate on their resonant frequency.
All coils have capacity. All coils can self-oscillate on their resonant frequency. I don't see "all hairy" waveforms above; they look quite regular and repetitive to me.
Tesla Bifilar coils wound according to patent # 512,340 have _more_ capacity than single wound solenoidal or pancake coils of the same geometry. Nowadays with the availability of cheap high voltage capacitors in virtually any capacitance, it is easy to increase the "self capacity" of any coil by adding a series or parallel capacitor.
Quoting from the Tesla patent:
QuoteI have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that frequency. It is well-known that the higher the frequency or potential difference of the current the smaller the capacity required to counteract the self-induction; hence, in any coil, however small the capacity, it may be sufficient for the purpose stated if the proper conditions in other respects be secured. In the ordinary coils the difference of potential between adjacent turns or spires is very small, so that while they are in a sense condensers, they possess but very small capacity and the relations between the two quantities, self-induction and capacity, are not such as under any ordinary conditions satisfy the requirements herein contemplated, because the capacity relatively to the self-induction is very small.
(emphasis mine)
If someone wants to claim that there is something special about using a bifilar coil, as opposed to an ordinary single-wound coil of the same dimensions with appropriate added capacitance, in some particular application ... they should do comparison tests to demonstrate the difference.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 14, 2018, 06:45:27 PM
Nowadays with the availability of cheap high voltage capacitors in virtually any capacitance, it is easy to increase the "self capacity" of any coil by adding a series or parallel capacitor.
So you assume that these two are the same thing, i don't make such assumptions.
(Rationale -- why are my oscilloscope traces not well aligned to the grid lines. It is because i have an old oscilloscope where the phosphor is worn out in some places on the screen. So i cannot always perfectly align them to the grid lines, but perhaps i lost hope and didn't try. I calibrated the scope thoroughly though, and it is otherwise a good an precise instrument.)
Quote from: ayeaye on September 14, 2018, 07:11:15 PM
So you assume that these two are the same thing, i don't make such assumptions.
Actually what I "assume" is that people who make claims should be able to prove them, or at least test them in a reasonable manner and report success or failure with real repeatable data.
If you think the two are different, or you wish to find out whether they are or not... please feel free to post your demonstrations for discussion.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 14, 2018, 09:33:22 PM
If you think the two are different, or you wish to find out whether they are or not... please feel free to post your demonstrations for discussion.
I did an experiment, which weirdly this time you are not willing to replicate. Experiments are done to find out how nature works. If we make assumptions, we omit doing experiments, because we pretend that we already know, and then may well be that there are things in nature that we will never find out. Such assumptions are just another example of omissive logic which may lead to conclusions opposite to the truth or not seeing some things that are real.
The previous time i did an experiment, i didn't consider mosfet leaking. But i went further to find out how it leaks and the way to calculate how much it leaks, so that this can be added to the calculations. I think my work has been useful for many who face a similar problem.
There is this story that the spanish who came to america told. They came to shore with small boats, the indians asked, how could you go over the sea with such small boats. The spanish said, they didn't, they came with that big boat that is on the sea over there. But the indians were not able to see the boat.
The egg of Columbus
This is my most careful copying of the oscilloscope traces (see the figures below), i cannot do it better. The precision is now twice greater than before, twice the squares of the oscilloscope grid, it seems that single precision is not enough. The content of the sch file is now the following.
Quote
v 20130925 2
L 48000 49000 48300 48500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 48300 48500 48700 47900 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 48700 47900 49100 47500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 49100 47500 49400 47300 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 49400 47300 50000 47000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 50000 44200 50500 45000 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 50500 45000 50900 45500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 50900 45500 51500 45900 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 51500 45900 52400 46200 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 52400 46200 53200 46300 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 53200 46300 54400 46400 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 54400 46400 55800 46500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 55800 46500 56500 46500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 48000 42900 49000 43100 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 49000 43100 50000 43200 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 50000 43200 50000 40500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 47800 46500 56700 46500 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
L 47800 40500 56700 40600 3 0 0 0 -1 -1
With this
Quote
#Time for gschem unit in ns
XU = 5.0
#Voltage for unit for ch 1 and 2 in mV
YU1 = 0.5
YU2 = 5.0
the output of the Python script is now this
Quote
Input power was 9.952 uW
Output power was 12.026 uW
The output is still greater than the input.
Circuit board with Ne555 timer (figure below).
What is the sch file mentioned above? it is a netlist, created by gschem and used by the spice circuit simulator geda. Almost all the spice circuit simulators have such netlist and some vector graphics editor, with which such line graphs can also be drawn. Like LTspice has asc files which are very similar to sch files, you may try to draw such graphs with LTspice and maybe the asc file it saves to can be used with the Python script above right away. I cannot try this as i use linux and there is no LTspice for linux, so i have to use other spice circuit simulators.
Another way is to use some vector graphics editor, there are simpler ones, but one can even use inkscape. What it produces is an svg file, there the coordinates of the lines can be clearly found, but they should be either be extracted from there manually, converted somehow, or then change the Python script so that it can read them. Yet another way may be to use some simple bitmap graphics editor, and change the Python script so that it can read bitmap data. When using a digital oscilloscope, the Python script should be changed so that it can read the waveform data taken from the oscilloscope, which is easy to do, there just have to be 3 lists and the gety() should then simply return y.
The lines have to be drawn in the right order for the Python script to work. Both graphs have to start from the same x coordinate, the one for R3 has to be above and the one for R2 below. Both x axis have to be drawn last after drawing both graphs. The graph for R2 has to end with y on the x axis. See how the Python script works or change it when you want it to work differently, it is very simple.
QuoteI cannot try this as i use linux and there is no LTspice for linux, so i have to use other spice circuit simulators.
LTSpice will run fine using WINE on linux. Also most distros will have a version of QUCS spice in the repositories, which also works well.
I use geda, it's the original spice and it is very good, if one doesn't mind the command line interface. Wine, i don't much like to use it, i see it rather as a joke, an implementation of another operating system where only a few things run.
I said the netlist files of geda and LTspice should not be very different, they should also be a kind of standard i think.
OK, whatever, just trying to help.
:o
What is that?
Ok, i tried LTspice, but its asc file has a different format than the gschem (geda) sch file. I wrote the following Python script to convert LTspice asc file to gschem sch file the way that the Python script above and the one in ideone can read it. It converts asc file in the standard input to sch file in the standard output. Redirect files to get one file from the other.
Quote
import sys
for s in sys.stdin:
l = []
i1 = -1
if (s[0] != "L"): continue
for j in range(6):
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = i0 + s[i0:].find(" ")
if (s[i0:i1].isdigit()): l.append(int(int(s[i0:i1]) * 6.25))
print("L %d %d %d %d 0" % (l[2], 50000 - l[3], l[0], 50000 - l[1]))
So it's possible to draw the graphs above with LTspice. I noticed though that the grid pattern in LTspice is not as good as in gschem, it lacks the big squares, so it's not convenient to use it for drawing graphs. I don't know though, maybe there is a way to change the grid style somehow.
I now used Inkscape to draw oscilloscope screen images. I found that Inkscape is the best for the purpose, as accuracy is the most important with things like that. The graphs drawn with Inkscape are on the figure 2 below.
To draw using that method, create a new Inkscape drawing, remove the page border, create grid with 10 pixels each square and 10 squares a big square, this will correspond to one oscilloscope scale. Select snap always. It doesn't matter where you draw, because zooming to the drawing will always zoom in all your drawing. Zoom so that the small squares inside the big squares will become visible, but not more,
Import the oscilloscope screen picture. This screen picture has to have all the grid squares equal and grid lines completely horizontal and vertical, if necessary, prepare it before with gimp or such. Make the picture 50% transparent and move and zoom it so that the oscilloscope grid lines match exactly the Inkscape grid lines. Then on the picture draw the traces with path tool, with straight line segments. Draw the R3 traces first and the R2 (channel 2) traces after that below them, both have to start from the same x. Then draw the x axis for both traces. When the traces are drawn, delete the screen picture. Save it as an ordinary svg file. The following is the svg file that i created.
https://justpaste.it/568vy (https://justpaste.it/568vy)
The Python script above that has been mentioned here, is the following, so that it would be clear.
PS I found a new trouble, when copying code from here, start copying from the first letter of the code. Otherwise there would be spaces before each statement, and indentation matters a lot for Python, make sure that there are no additional spaces before each statement.
Quote
import sys
#Time for gschem unit in ns
XU = 5.0
#Voltage for unit for ch 1 and 2 in mV
YU1 = 0.5
YU2 = 5.0
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 983.0
R3 = 99.4
#Frequency in Hz
F = 30303.0
def getlist(list, x0, y0, invert):
for i in range(len(list)):
list[ i ][0] -= x0
list[ i ][2] -= x0
if (invert):
list[ i ][1] = y0 - list[ i ][1]
list[ i ][3] = y0 - list[ i ][3]
else:
list[ i ][1] -= y0
list[ i ][3] -= y0
return list
def gety(list, i, t):
lx = float(list[ i ][2] - list[ i ][0])
ly = float(list[ i ][3] - list[ i ][1])
dx = float(t - list[ i ][0])
dy = ly * abs(dx / lx)
return list[ i ][1] + dy
def output(s, e):
#Energy in uJ
e *= XU / 10 / 1000000
print("%s power was %.3f uW" % (s, F * e))
lines = []
for s in sys.stdin:
l = []
i1 = 1
if (s[0] != "L"): continue
for j in range(4):
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = s.find(" ", i0)
l.append(int(s[i0:i1]))
lines.append(l)
x0 = lines[0][0]
y0 = lines[-2][1]
y1 = lines[-1][1]
lines.pop()
lines.pop()
i1 = map(lambda l: l[1] <= y0, lines).index(True)
i2 = map(lambda l: l[0] == x0, lines[1 : ]).index(True) + 1
ilist = getlist(lines[: i1], x0, y0, False)
olist = getlist(lines[i1 : i2], lines[i1][0], y0, True)
r2list = getlist(lines[i2 : ], lines[i2][0], y1, False)
e = 0.0
i1 = i2 = 0
for t in range(0, ilist[-1][2], 10):
if (t >= ilist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
if (t >= r2list[i2][2]): i2 += 1;
ilr = gety(r2list, i2, t) * YU2 / R2
vlr = gety(ilist, i1, t) * YU1
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
output("Input", e)
e = 0.0
i1 = 0
for t in range(0, olist[-1][2], 10):
if (t >= olist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
vlr = gety(olist, i1, t) * YU1
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
output("Output", e)
I wrote the following Python script to get the traces data from the Inkscape svg file, which is in the form that it can be used as input for the Python script above. Outputting that data enables to check whether the data was extracted correctly. Whether it always works, i cannot know, it is Inkscape and i cannot know what it always does.
Quote
import sys
def next(s, str, list):
global i1
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = s.find(str, i0)
if (i1 == -1): i1 = len(s)
list.append(int(float(s[i0:i1])))
return i1 == len(s)
i1 = 0
lines = []
for s in sys.stdin:
l = []
i1 = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (i1 == -1): continue
i1 = s.find(" ", i1)
ends = s.find("\"", i1)
s = s[i1 : ends]
i1 = 0
next(s, ",", l)
next(s, " ", l)
l[0] = 5000 + l[0]
l[1] = 5000 - l[1]
lines.append([l[0], l[1], 0, 0])
while (True):
l = []
next(s, ",", l)
done = next(s, " ", l)
l[0] = lines[-1][0] + l[0]
l[1] = lines[-1][1] - l[1]
lines[-1][2] = l[0]
lines[-1][3] = l[1]
if (done): break
lines.append([l[0], l[1], 0, 0])
x0 = lines[-1][0]
y0 = lines[-1][1]
for i in range(len(lines)):
lines[ i ][0] -= x0
lines[ i ][2] -= x0
lines[ i ][1] -= y0
lines[ i ][3] -= y0
for j in range(4): lines[ i ][ j ] *= 10
for l in lines:
print("L %d %d %d %d *" % (l[0], l[1], l[2], l[3]))
The output of that Python script having the svg file above as the input, was the following.
Quote
L 400 6700 1200 5800 *
L 1200 5800 2000 5300 *
L 2000 3300 2700 4200 *
L 2700 4200 3300 4600 *
L 3300 4600 4100 4800 *
L 4100 4800 5300 4900 *
L 5300 4900 7400 5000 *
L 400 1900 1400 2100 *
L 1400 2100 2000 2100 *
L 0 5000 7900 5000 *
L 0 0 7900 0 *
The output of the Python script written first in this post, was the following.
Quote
Input power was 5.183 uW
Output power was 5.675 uW
The accuracy of the results can be calculated, by drawing the oscilloscope screen so that it will produce the worst possible result that may still correspond to the oscilloscope screen, and see whether the output is still greater than the input. I estimated that the resistor R2 may be 100 ohms instead of 1k, this will enable even more precise measurements.
Well. You've gone through extraordinary lengths to demonstrate that your oscilloscope traces are slightly biased. You have approximately half a microwatt excess in an approximately 5 microwatt power range. So we are talking about a ten percent discrepancy, roughly. Right?
But you are ultimately basing your measurements on the analog oscilloscope screen. I've done similar things myself, having been in this business for a while now. There are many pitfalls that can happen well before the stage of digitizing the screen traces by whatever method. For example... the kind of difference you are seeing in your analog scope traces can be caused by a simple out-of-calibration DC bias problem, something so subtle that an entire factory calibration of the scope may even miss it. The scope is +not+ a precision voltmeter and this is true even for DSOs. Scopes are far more accurate in the time domain than they are in the voltage domain. You might want to look up your scope's original factory specifications as to accuracy in the voltage domain at various frequencies.
Furthermore, obtaining accurate current measurements in a pulsed circuit, by whatever means but especially using a scope, has its own can of worms, a big one.
When I first saw your most recent post I almost responded.... "It's too bad you can't run a light bulb on an oscilloscope trace..." but I decided to give you a more comprehensive criticism since you obviously are approaching this with some effort of your own. I can't fault your programming, that's not my field, but I can tell you that there is a whole lot of work to be done _before_ the programming can yield valid results. GIGO applies here... perfectly processed garbage is still garbage, even if it smells sweeter.
There is more but this is sufficient for now. Carry on and good luck.
I thought you are all about accuracy, but accuracy can be estimated. I conclude that this is a precise enough method, when done carefully enough. I don't exclude that my results are caused by inaccuracy, this is the first time i did it and didn't know it well yet. I said it needs replication before anything can be concluded. Mostly though i provided a method to measure overunity in various coils for these who have analog oscilloscopes or other oscilloscopes that have no digital output. And for these with digital oscilloscopes as well, as with a slight modification this Python script can be used to calculate from the waveform data downloaded from a digital oscilloscope. I couldn't write a script especially for that purpose, as there are many digital oscilloscopes and their waveform data is in different forms, even when generally similar. And to show that, i needed an exact example which my experiment is.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 18, 2018, 03:51:28 PM
I can't fault your programming, that's not my field
So then how can you decide?
Can you read this
Quote
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
and this
Quote
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
does it say something to you?
Yes, it says that you have totally missed the points of my post.
Suppose you needed to know how wide a board is needed for a repair on your house, so you send your brother to measure the gap.
And he comes back and says it's three rubber band lengths wide. And he even shows you the rubber band.
Do you start sawing?
Please state the make and model of the analog oscilloscope you used to generate your _raw data_. Please provide the accuracy tolerance specifications of the scope from its user or service manual. Please provide some evidence that the scope is actually in calibration and that its readings can be trusted. Please demonstrate that your camera setup didn't introduce any artifacts due to parallax or insensitivity to dim peaks. Please demonstrate that your probing technique itself didn't introduce artifacts in your measurements.
I could go on like this for a while yet, just as you go on and on about your programming. But what's the point? If you want to see some high COP measurements from a bifilar coil setup, look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c
If you want to know, my oscilloscope is Hitachi Denshi V-222, it has been calibrated by all requirements of the manual and has the precision that corresponds to all requirements. Like the calibration requires that the trace is within +/- 0.05 division. By these measurements the precision is most likely not worse than +/- 0.5%. What concerns the official precision, it's +/- 3% for both the time and y by the specification. What concerns that though, one should know that the official precision of all the common measuring instruments is all very low, the manufacturers don't want to have responsibility for wrong measurements, so they write the official precision low to protect themselves against all the occasions. And also in order to sell more expensive equipment, who would buy an expensive instrument when a cheaper one does the job. Like i think most who did some work know that one can practically consider the readings of a digital multimeter correct, but their official precision is so low that by that they cannot be used for measurements at all. Precision can be measured, that written by the manufacturer is not yet everything.
The precision written by the manufacturer, what is that? It is when you do the measurements in the desert in a hot sun and you drive there on a bumpy road, and it still has to have that precision.
I think at least for the way i did the measurements and calculations, provided that the scope is calibrated properly, all that one should consider is the precision of taking and processing the measurements, the actual imprecision of the oscilloscope is minor compared to that, and can be not considered.
What concerns the precision, there are also two kind of precisions. One is absolute precision, that is how it measures the exact value of voltage, etc. The other is linear precision, that is how well are the measurements in proportion with the actual values. Linear precision is always much higher than the absolute precision, and what is relevant for overunity is linear precision. Like what i learned in the university was Automatic Control, and i remember some worked on the project of a regulator for an integrated circuits diffusion furnace. The requirement was that the requlator had to keep the temperature of the furnace within 1 degree celsius (kelvin). This was impossible, practically impossible, theoretically impossible. Provided that it had to keep absolute temperature. But it appeared that the range of temperatures was actually much wider, it just had to keep that temperature within 1 degree and it didn't so much matter what temperature it was, and this made it possible.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 19, 2018, 04:39:07 AM
I could go on like this for a while yet, just as you go on and on about your programming. But what's the point? If you want to see some high COP measurements from a bifilar coil setup, look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c
I think when there is overunity in the coil, then my method will show that.
A wonderful video by you BTW. But the thing i cannot quite figure there, you have one end of the input coil not connected as i understand. Now you have no closed circuit with wires through the output coil of the input transformer, that is, there is nowhere to really measure the current going through it, and thus the input power. The open connection can be connected through the air anywhere, and the current going through it in that way, cannot really be measured. I don't understand why yet another method that doesn't really measure overunity, while the method that i proposed does it more simply, straight-forwardly, and in principle correctly.
Quote from: ayeaye on September 19, 2018, 07:44:30 AM
[snip
A wonderful video by you BTW. But the thing i cannot quite figure there, you have one end of the input coil not connected as i understand. Now you have no closed circuit with wires through the output coil of the input transformer, that is, there is nowhere to really measure the current going through it, and thus the input power. The open connection can be connected through the air anywhere, and the current going through it in that way, cannot really be measured. I don't understand why yet another method that doesn't really measure overunity, while the method that i proposed does it more simply, straight-forwardly, and in principle correctly.
I think an explanation is in order regarding tightly coupled but isolated windings or coils. There is a conducting path for the primary current (although it may not be obvious) and that is the distributed capacitance between the windings. The pancake coils that TK demonstrated are physically wound and placed in proximity to one another such that the capacitance between the windings is probably in the area of several hundred picofarad. This is considerable at his operating frequency of 1.4MHz and basically forms a series resonance circuit with the coil's inductance.
Therefore, due to KCL, the current entering the circuit at the primary input with the open end is conducting thru the distributed capacitance to the secondary and can be measured accurately at the output thru the current sensing resistor.
As a side note, this type of circuit is a reactive power to real power converter and they are highly subject to potential measurement errors which is another subject altogether.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on September 19, 2018, 10:47:30 AM
Therefore, due to KCL, the current entering the circuit at the primary input with the open end is conducting thru the distributed capacitance to the secondary and can be measured accurately at the output thru the current sensing resistor.
Yes yes, and the output is measured accurately on the resistor. But this doesn't address the question how can the input current be measured, that is all input current that goes through the output coil of the input power transformer.
Quote from: ayeaye on September 19, 2018, 11:06:24 AM
Yes yes, and the output is measured accurately on the resistor. But this doesn't address the question how can the input current be measured, that is all input current that goes through the output coil of the input power transformer.
There are only two paths the input current can follow in this circuit. One is from the secondary of the input transformer and the wiring to all other surrounding grounded objects through the air and two, through the distributed capacitance of the coupled pancake coils. The distributed capacitance will be much greater than the parasitic capacitance to ground in most cases so one can be reasonably assured that the output current accurately represents the input current. This can be demonstrated by comparing a calibrated current probe measurement of the input current to the current measured across the current sense resistor. Any error is small and is not the major problem with these types of circuits. The major measurement error comes from the fact that the reactive power level can be magnitudes greater than the measured input power which places a real burden on the accuracy of the phase between input voltage and current which then greatly affects the power input measurements. This is so critical that you are now in the area of comparing probe de-skews, channel and probe offsets, probe capacitance and accuracy, and this would apply for analog or digital.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on September 19, 2018, 11:38:50 AM
There are only two paths the input current can follow in this circuit.
Yes whatever, but he measured only one path.
I don't know, i proposed something simple, simple circuit, moderate frequencies. But they say forget it and take this instead, megahertz frequency, everything flowing through the air, difficult to catch a thing. This may be a wonderful circuit and everything, all in its own way, though i don't know what really use it for. I don't say it's not a wonderful circuit and it may be all interesting, i just say that i don't think it's a good substitute, and i don't think that it's good for measuring overunity.
Do they think that my simple Python scripts are so overwhelmingly complicated, and it is much simpler when getting the waveform data directly from the oscilloscope. Learn some Python, very good to know for electronics too.
How to write graphs back to Inkscape, the svg file can be simple. The following is the svg file above written in a simple format. Such svg file can be easily written by Python, even a sample data can be written like a number of small rectangles. I didn't read any svg documentation, i did it only by experimenting.
Quote
<svg version="1.1"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<path d="m -150,-537.63782 7,10 10,7"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:0.1"/>
<path d="m -133,-498.63782 4,-8 4,-4 5,-3 5,-2 7,-1 28,-1"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:0.1"/>
<path d="m -150,-487.63782 4,-1 8,-1 5,0"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:0.1"/>
<path d="m -133,-489.63782 0,22"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:0.1"/>
<path d="m -154,-517.63782 78,0"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:0.1"/>
<path d="m -154,-467.63782 78,0"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:0.1"/>
<rect width="1" height="1" x="-154" y="-545"/>
<rect width="1" height="1" x="-154" y="-460"/>
</svg>
I hope that i provided all you may need, feel free to ask if you have questions.
Quote from: ayeaye on September 10, 2018, 12:30:57 PM
No i cannot, i have no induction cooker. Also using light bulbs is an improper way to measure power, it is very difficult to measure their brightness, and in these videos they don't even try to do that. If you did use heating elements instead or such, you could at least measure their temperature, and from that you could calculate power, though whether they are in the air or in the water, what is the temperature of the air or water, whether the wind blows or water moves, all should then be measured and included in the calculation. No matter how convincing something may look, without a proper measurements the experiments are worthless for research. I mean what you do may be great, all i'm saying is that you lack the necessary rigor.
Could you please explain how the measurements you took on your circuit represent "input power" and "output power" ? Your oscilloscope measures voltages. How do you get from voltages to power values?
(I know how this is done, normally; I am asking you to explain precisely how you have done it in this case with this circuit as you showed, in plain English not multiple lines of code. As someone who obviously has some programming experience surely you know that one of the worst tasks a programmer can be faced with is debugging _someone else's_ uncommented code.)
This is the circuit you are using, right? Just for review purposes, what's the frequency and duty cycle of the 555 pulse train? Do you think a different signal generator would work the same here? And are you specifying the 2sc945 transistor as necessary or can other NPNs be used? I have a handful of 945s on hand but it's always nice to test alternatives. I'm also concerned about your "bifilar" coil of coaxial headphone cable. It's not really equivalent to the bifilar winding of Tesla's patent. If I were to construct and examine this circuit, I would have to construct a coil like yours, as all of my bifilar coils are true Tesla bifilars (a rarity). Fortunately I have some RG174/U laying around. Do you think that would make a suitable coil for this setup? Or would the true TBF be better? Regardless, if the claim is that there is something special about the particular coil that allows the measurements to result in OU... then other coil types should be compared to see if that is in fact the case.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 20, 2018, 02:23:20 PM
Could you please explain how the measurements you took on your circuit represent "input power" and "output power" ? Your oscilloscope measures voltages. How do you get from voltages to power values?
In a pulsed circuit, each cycle has two parts, when the pulse is on and when the pulse is off. The coil and the resistor R3 there form an LR circuit. When the pulse is on, the transistor is open, and the current from the power source goes through that circuit. This is the input part, because the current from the outside power source goes through the coil and is consumed by the coil. When the pulse is off, the transistor is closed, and almost no current goes through R2.
(A very small current that goes through there (during the pulse off) goes to the opposite direction to the current through R3, that decreases it, so not considering that decreases the calculated power in R3, thus it can be disregarded and considered that no current goes through R2 during that part.)
Thus all the current that goes through the R3 in that part (pulse off) is the back-emf generated by the coil, that comes from no outside source. This is the output part. The power during the first part is the power used by the coil, and the power during the second part is the power generated by the coil, this is how the input and output powers are calculated.
Calculating the power used by the coil during the first part (the input power), is done by calculating the power used during the first part in the LR circuit, that is the current going through the R2, multiplied by the voltage on the LR circuit (on the R3), that is Ir2 * Vlr (Ir2 is Vr2 / R2). And then subtracting from that the power used during that part by R3, which is Vlr * Vlr / R3. Thus, all the equation is Vlr * Vr2 / R2 - Vlr * Vlr / R3. This was calculated by the Python script. I don't see how that calculation can be made without a Python or other code, but i don't know all the software that there may be for such calculations.
Calculating the power used by R3 during the second part (the output power) is easy. It's Vlr * Vlr / R3.
The circuit is that yes. Later (after the experiment) i thought that the circuit on the figure below would be better, which is the same with the R2 resistance reduced to 100 ohms. I estimated that a larger resistor there is not necessary, no damage will be caused to the transistor with R2 100 ohms. Having that resistor smaller enables more precise measurements, as the only thing that changes more in its voltage, is the upper part of the trace.
The frequency was 30.303 kHz. The 555 timer doesn't show the duty cycle, so it can only be seen from the oscilloscope traces and the graphs. As it's seen, the duty cycle was close to 22%. I found Arduino to be better, and i think that any signal generator would do, but i used 555 because it's cheap and more people can use it. I chose the c945 transistor because it's fast, but i think that any fast small NPN transistor would do.
I used coaxial cable in the coil, because i think that the coaxial cable has more capacitance than a pair of wires, as the other conductor is all around the first, and thus the area between the conductors is greater. So if there is no headphones cable (which i found that they in some places sell under the name "audio cable"), then it may be made of a coaxial cable. At that, my cable had a pair of coaxial cables, so i made of these the equivalent of two bifilar pancake coils, one on another, that i connected in series. The coil had 17 turns, two in series had the equivalent of 34 turns.
I think that all that matters is that it's a bifilar coil, with as great as possible capacitance, because i guess that it's this capacitance that may cause overunity. Thus it can be other coils, like bifilar pancake coils, the ones with more turns and more capacitance would be better i think, all i had was this headphones cable and i couldn't make a bigger coil. Also it can be other bifilar coil, such as a Rodin interference coil, that have considerable capacitance between the two bifilar windings. Maybe even a Bedini SG bifilar coil, but without the core, as i noticed that the coil having any core makes the back-emf narrower and seems to decrease the effect.
I think also that the possible overunity effect is greater when the frequency is closer to the resonant frequency. Because when the effect is caused by capacitance, then it depends on the self-oscillation ringing, which is relatively greater, the closer its frequency is to the duty cycle. I may be wrong in that, it's just what i thought. With my 555 timer i couldn't go over 30 kHz with the 20% duty cycle. What concerns the duty cycle, i think that it should be great enough for all duration of the back-emf, as cutting the back-emf i think is not good.
As i have only a small coil, i noticed that its self-oscillation frequency was somewhere near 1MHz, which is very high, i think a bigger coil with a lower self-oscillation frequency may be better.
I've redrawn the circuit to aid in laying it out. Please check my redraw and let me know if I've made any errors.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 20, 2018, 09:39:51 PM
I've redrawn the circuit to aid in laying it out. Please check my redraw and let me know if I've made any errors.
Yes that's correct.
I made R2 1k because i was afraid of possible high peaks from the coil, but there appeared to be none, so it can be made smaller.
The pinout of the c945 that i have was not as written on the datasheet, i found that out by testing. There apparently are these with two different pinouts. I don't know what is yours, mine was as on the figure below, that is, emitter is where the blue jumper wire goes, collector is where the brown wire goes, and base is in the middle.
EBC is more usual for the TO-92 package, that is true. I haven't tested my handful yet. I think I have some from 2 different manufacturers.
I was going by this datasheet:
Here are a few others. I haven't yet found a datasheet with a different pinout than ECB.
http://www.unisonic.com.tw/datasheet/2SC945.pdf
http://cdn2.boxtec.ch/pub/diverse/C945.pdf
http://www.elenota.pl/datasheet-pdf/163457/N_A/BC945?sid=a7267847d499df42fd11eee01ca6b6a7 (searched as BC945)
http://www.ges.cz/sheets/2/2sc945.pdf
Sorry, something was wrong with the svg file in the simple format, it should be the following.
Quote
<svg version="1.1"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
<path d="m 100,682.36218 80,90 80,50"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:1"/>
<path d="m 260,1022.3622 70,-90.00002 60,-40 80,-20 120,-10 210,-10"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:1"/>
<path d="m 100,1162.3622 100,-20 60,0"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:1"/>
<path d="m 60,852.36218 790,0"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:1"/>
<path d="m 60,1352.3622 790,0"
style="fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:1"/>
<rect width="10" height="10" x="60" y="600"/>
<rect width="10" height="10" x="60" y="1400"/>
</svg>
So how to do it, use the Python scripts that i posted last in this thread. The content of the svg file in the simple format above, is for testing purposes only. In the real life, draw your traces with Inkscape, save the drawing in the normal svg format, somewhere where you can find it in the file manager. Then open that file with wordpad, and copy all the text from there, instead of copying it from here.
IMPORTANT When copying code from here, hold down the mouse button and slide the mouse down. But after going over the last line, don't go outside the quote box, before pressing ctrl-c. Then there will be no additional spaces before each line.
Open ideone at the following link.
https://ideone.com (https://ideone.com)
Select Python, always before pasting, delete the first line in the source code box, what it has there, "# your code goes here", delete it.
Copy and paste the Python script that extracts data from Inkscape, to the source code box, and the content of the svg file here above, to the stdin box. Click on Run, what you should see is the following.
https://ideone.com/dhjcFA (https://ideone.com/dhjcFA)
Open the wordpad with no text in it, copy and paste the content of stdout from there, into wordpad.
Go back to the ideone main page (go back one page in the browser) and paste the Python script that does the power calculation, to the source code box. Change the values of the units in the code to the ones that you had, these should be the oscilloscope scales divided by 1000, in ns and mV, if they were any different. Change the resistor values there to the real ones that you had, in ohms. Change the frequency there to the real frequency used, in Hz.
Copy and paste the text that you copied into wordpad, to the stdin box. Click on Run and what you should see is the following, with the power in and power out values in stdout.
https://ideone.com/1tPuBc (https://ideone.com/1tPuBc)
I'm sorry for writing it so long, but this is important. I did everything above myself to check it, and it worked for me. Please say when something would not go as it should.
Ahh, install Inkscape, from the following link, for your os, what it is, windows, mac or linux.
https://inkscape.org/en/release/0.92.3 (https://inkscape.org/en/release/0.92.3)
I posted here an online vector editor too, if you don't want to install anything in your computer. It has svg format, so should work the same. But Inkscape is much better for the purpose. You might like it, as it is also very good for any technical drawing.
Seems like a lot of trouble. In the old days we would simply trace the traces onto tracing paper, then cut them out with scissors and weigh the paper pieces on an analytical balance.
Something that is not going as it should is the transistor pinout.
Do you have a fake transistor? Or a bad transistor? Or something strange about the connection? Or do the datasheets apply to the wrong transistor? I know in JTs one can often get NPN transistors to work "backwards" that is with C and E reversed. But here we are dealing with B being on the right (as all the data sheets I've found say it is) or in the middle as with your transistor (apparently).
Can you post a legible photo of the transistor you are using?
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 21, 2018, 09:33:53 AM
Seems like a lot of trouble. In the old days we would simply trace the traces onto tracing paper, then cut them out with scissors and weigh the paper pieces on an analytical balance.
Something that is not going as it should is the transistor pinout.
Do you have a fake transistor? Or a bad transistor? Or something strange about the connection? Or do the datasheets apply to the wrong transistor? I know in JTs one can often get NPN transistors to work "backwards" that is with C and E reversed. But here we are dealing with B being on the right (as all the data sheets I've found say it is) or in the middle as with your transistor (apparently).
Can you post a legible photo of the transistor you are using?
Interesting when I was a school kid I first used a china graph pen cell from the art shop then a deacon dado pen came out and then some bright spark invented transfers
but since the mid 80s it's been computers and paper tasers or special ink.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 21, 2018, 09:33:53 AM
Seems like a lot of trouble. In the old days we would simply trace the traces onto tracing paper, then cut them out with scissors and weigh the paper pieces on an analytical balance.
In these days they could do that, today they use computer. This is a very imprecise method as well, as the weight of the paper is never exactly even, very difficult to precisely weigh it as well.
Then you likely had to make the oscilloscope to show the multiplication of two traces, then find the area to calculate power. In this case this is more complicated, the oscilloscope has to show two multiplications of two voltage values, and then they have to be divided by different resistor values, one has to be subtracted from the other, and only in the first (positive) part of the cycle. I don't know whether any oscilloscope can do that. If it cannot and it is a digital oscilloscope, waveforms data has to be downloaded from it, and still some code is necessary to calculate from this waveform data.
Maybe by using two analog multipliers, then the oscilloscope will show the output of both, and calculate the area of them both separately during the positive part. If the oscilloscope can calculate the areas of two traces. Maybe it can be done, though i wouldn't say it's simple. And today they rather make the electronics simpler by using software than doing the opposite.
But if you can figure out some simpler method that people with digital oscilloscopes can use, that would be great of course. I think you now know what should be done. Me with my analog oscilloscope have no really better way.
Ok, calculate the area of Vr2 * Vr3 during the first part in one measurement, then calculate the area of Vr3 * Vr3 during the first part in the second (separate) measurement, can it be done, like with Rigol? I don't exactly know what the digital oscilloscopes can do, as i don't have one.
Quote
Do you have a fake transistor? Or a bad transistor? Or something strange about the connection? Or do the datasheets apply to the wrong transistor? I know in JTs one can often get NPN transistors to work "backwards" that is with C and E reversed. But here we are dealing with B being on the right (as all the data sheets I've found say it is) or in the middle as with your transistor (apparently).
I have a c945 transistor and the pinout appeared to be as i did show, and indeed i couldn't find any datasheet that did show c945 with that pinout, all were with the pinout that you referred to. I found the pinout by testing the transistor with a multimeter, and no, i didn't put C and E backwards, because the voltage drop on the emitter is greater than the voltage drop on collector. The transistor worked well too, as much as i saw.
Quote
Can you post a legible photo of the transistor you are using?
Yes i can, the photo is on the figure below. This was rather difficult thing to do though, i almost had to hold the flashlight between my teeth.
Ok, the figure below shows what powers there are in the LR circuit during the input part of the cycle, and what is the relation between these powers. This drawing was made with Inkscape :)
Now it seems as though you are playing around with what is defined as "input" and "output".
What is the power supply in your circuit? It is the battery. Therefore the input power is the battery voltage times the current flowing into or out of the battery, corrected for the duty cycle. This can be measured with a current-viewing resistor in the negative supply line to the circuit.
It is also the case that the FG will be supplying some power to the circuit. It is for this reason that I prefer to work with circuits that are entirely self-contained, with any powered oscillator actually on-board and part of the circuit. After all, if a subsystem is necessary for a device to work, the power to that subsystem surely must be included in the input power to the total system.
What is the load in your circuit? Is it the power being dissipated in the two resistors? This is also straightforward to measure, by several methods. Chet (ramset) mentioned fixed-loss-to-ambient, but in this case the absolute power levels and the difference between in and out are so small that FLTA isn't going to be easy to do. But one may also simply look at the voltage drop across the load and the waveform and a little math and one may derive the power dissipation of the load.
I'm not sure that your method is properly measuring input and output power in this circuit.
In any case, should one need to operate mathematically on the data from a DSO, most of them can dump waveform data in CSV format that can be read and operated upon by just about any spreadsheet.
And the cut-and-weigh-it paper methodology worked well for many years before the advent of DSOs. Paper is a lot more uniform than you imagine, I think, and I could dust off the Mettler up there to prove it, but I won't. I imagine that some of the calculations that eventually got Apollo astronauts to the moon were done that way. In fact I actually have one of the oscilloscopes that they did it with. (A Tektronix RM503 from the Blade Dynamics Laboratory at NASA Ames.)
Since your transistor doesn't conform to the data sheet pinout, this is a problem. It could be a fake transistor, it could be mislabeled, it could be damaged in some strange way, or something else. Where did your transistor come from? Is it possible to get more from that source that have the same pinout as yours?
I have a sneaking feeling that the transistor is critical here. Or have you tried other transistor types and attained similar results? It would be nice to resolve this question.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 21, 2018, 03:53:23 PM
Now it seems as though you are playing around with what is defined as "input" and "output".
I think we should first agree what are we talking about. As when we are talking about different things and even mix them together, then nothing will sure ever be clear. So when i below say that you are wrong, this doesn't mean that you are wrong about everything, this is just what i talked about and what my experiment was about.
One may talk about overunity in various systems, whole circuit, parts of the circuit, single components. And all these overunities are not one and the same at all, one is not the other.
My experiment was about overunity in the coil, and about overunity in the coil only. And this is the only thing that i have been talking in this thread all the time. This is the most important to understand, but you go like i were talking about water on mars or whatever.
Regarding measuring overunity in the coil, the input is the power consumed by the coil, which is at every moment of time the current going through the coil, multiplied by the voltage on the coil, when the power is supplied to the coil from the external power source. By all the Ohm's law. The output power of the coil is the power of the back-emf generated by the coil when no external power is supplied to the coil. Again at every moment of time it is the voltage on the coil multiplied by the current generated by the coil. Again by the Ohm's law.
Is that made clear?
Quote
What is the power supply in your circuit? It is the battery.
Right. Or it mat be a power adapter, anything that supplies power to the circuit.
Quote
Therefore the input power is the battery voltage times the current flowing into or out of the battery, corrected for the duty cycle. This can be measured with a current-viewing resistor in the negative supply line to the circuit.
Wrong, wrong conclusion, doesn't follow. The input power in our case is the power consumed by the coil. Now you may say how is that, batteries supply power and this is well known. Yes, but it is like one saying that it isn't raining, and the other saying that it is wrong, it is raining now in Alaska. In the other words, you put it like it were always right, every time in all contexts, no it isn't, this is a logical fallacy.
Quote
It is also the case that the FG will be supplying some power to the circuit. It is for this reason that I prefer to work with circuits that are entirely self-contained, with any powered oscillator actually on-board and part of the circuit. After all, if a subsystem is necessary for a device to work, the power to that subsystem surely must be included in the input power to the total system.
If you always want to measure overunity and power only in the entire circuit, then yes. But my experiment was not about that. And for the research purposes this is not proper at all, we are interested in a particular natural phenomenon, not how to make it to power a car, this is engineering and these are different things, my experiment was about research. It's like they do experiments in the particle accelerator and they should think how to make a power station that uses the quantum physics effects that they found. No they don't do that, they do the research, and if this were what they had to do then they couldn't do research.
Quote
What is the load in your circuit? Is it the power being dissipated in the two resistors?
No. It is the power generated by the coil when there is no outside power supplied to the coil, as i said.
Quote
I'm not sure that your method is properly measuring input and output power in this circuit.
Yes you are not sure that it is proper because it is not proper in your mind. Because you want to do something else.
Quote
In any case, should one need to operate mathematically on the data from a DSO, most of them can dump waveform data in CSV format that can be read and operated upon by just about any spreadsheet.
Yes, one can use spreadsheets too. Spreadsheets are not so good for extracting data though.
Anyway, if we don't agree to talk about the same thing, then all that we do here makes no sense. If one keeps talking about the fence and other about the gate of the fence, then inevitably this is an exercise of vanity.
Look, you can poke around inside of just about any circuit and find two measurements that aren't the same. And if you call the smaller one "input" and the larger one "output"... well then, COP overunity!
We are concerned with output power that exceeds _normal_ sources of input. We are providing the circuit with battery power. If it's extracting energy from the eleventh dimension by the bifilar coil, that's fine, that will show up in the _output_ measurement by making it exceed the _battery_ supplied input power.
QuoteI'm really sorry that on the figure 3 below there is Arduino, not the signal generator. The experiment below was done using the Ne555 generator, but later i tried to have shorter pulses, so i changed things and now i have no device left, all is disassembled, but except the 555 generator, the circuit on that figure is exactly how it was during the experiment.
RULE NUMBER ONE of overunity research: If you have a device that produces OU, real or only measurements, DO NOT EVER TAKE IT APART. If you must take something apart, build another one and take _that_ one apart.
Now... the bad news is that I am unable to reproduce your scope traces. In fact the circuit behaves just as a conventional circuit analysis would predict: as an inverting amplifier, taking the 5 volt input pulses from the FG (in my case) and amplifying them to the 12 volt level of the supply. There is very little effect from connecting or disconnecting the coaxial bifilar coil. I even tried my own much higher inductance and capacitance true Tesla Bifilar Pancake coil. What you were looking at with your scope set to very high sensitivity I can't imagine.
I have also tried connecting the transistor "incorrectly" using different pinouts. No luck.
So we have to go way back to basics before we start talking about any of that other stuff. Like I said in the beginning, perfectly processed garbage is still garbage. I'm afraid that I have to have confidence in my setup and results -- which are basically, I am using the schematic you approved, the input parameters you've specified, and a coaxial coil. The only difference is that my coil is made from a different kind of wire than yours and is probably a bit shorter overall. Unfortunately.... YOU TOOK YOUR CIRCUIT APART, so we can't do some simple comparisons and scoposcopy to see where the problem lies. Perhaps you are simply operating with some kind of damaged transistor or something.
But thanks for a relatively entertaining afternoon, anyway.
ETA: Note that CH1 is AC coupled in the scopeshot below. This is because there is a large DC offset in the signal, as you can predict from looking at the schematic.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 21, 2018, 06:22:18 PM
Look, you can poke around inside of just about any circuit and find two measurements that aren't the same. And if you call the smaller one "input" and the larger one "output"... well then, COP overunity!
No, again, oh no, i were not talking about whatever two measurements but measuring very well defined things, the coil's input and output power. And my experiment was only about measuring the overunity of the coil, or whether there is any. If you want to measure something else, this may be interesting for you, but not relevant at all, at least not for my research.
Make sure to measure the resistance between the oscilloscope ground and the circuit ground. I used a floating scope as i measured that there was no connection, but if there is, it can first show very weird things, but second it can damage your equipment. I think you know that, but that's a reminder like the map reader reminds things to the driver, one may always forget things.
Quote
There is very little effect from connecting or disconnecting the coaxial bifilar coil
This is very very weird, my oscilloscope traces showed clearly a typical voltage traces for a coil in channel 1. Your coil may have less inductance than mine, as i said mine was in effect two bifilar pancake coils in series, which together was 34 turns, but that it didn't show any exponential coil traces, that's very weird. Your channel 1 is zero, for whatever reason, there is nothing at all to see on your oscilloscope screen.
Quote
I have also tried connecting the transistor "incorrectly"
My transistor was connected correctly.
So far no useful results from you for any purpose, thank you for your effort though.
I also read the Rigol manual. It can multiply two channels yes. Then one can take manual measurements, which can then be written like to a spreadsheet and then do calculations, but this is rather a nuisance to do. More it cannot do, as it cannot do any analyze of the math trace, for that one has to select one of the real channels. I don't know what software comes with Rigol, but by what people tell, it seems that they can only save data from the serial interface. And no, this is not in the csv format, this is a series of bytes, each byte is for one sample, without a Python script i don't know how they can be read. I don't know though, there may be software that can convert it, but these people didn't know any, and one cannot search all life, something that is so easy to do with Python.
Depending on what Rigol you have, some can save csv data to usb stick yes.
Tinsel, Ok, do it then, import the samples from the oscilloscope to a spreadsheet if you so prefer and do calculations in the spreadsheet. It is not so easy to work with 600 numbers for both channels on a spreadsheet, but do it if you so prefer. Or make the oscilloscope to show the multiplication of two channels, cut it out of paper and weight the paper if you so like, however you prefer to do it, but do it.
Tinsel, please understand what is the coil's input power and the coil's output power. These both have to do with the voltage on the coil and the current going through the coil. The coil's input power is positive, it consumes power from an external source, coil's output power is negative, it generates power that doesn't come from any external source.
You can simulate the coil's input and output power in a circuit simulator. And it certainly will show unity, not an arbitrary values as you say. Because induction is a very symmetric process, and by its official equations it always has unity, circuit simulator never shows overunity. And induction is a very symmetric process indeed, the only matter is whether there is some other process also, like creating charge locally, that doesn't have a Lenz effect back, that may make it asymmetric.
Voltage on the coil multiplied by current going through the coil, this is the coil's power at any moment of time. The power is positive when the coil consumes power, and negative when the coil generates power (back-emf). Is it so difficult to understand that one is never able to understand it?
The voltage on the coil Vl, and the current through the coil. Il, at any moment of time the power in the coil
Pl = Vl * Il
It completely freaks me out that so simple thing is not understood.
Quote from: ayeaye on September 22, 2018, 08:32:26 AM
Voltage on the coil multiplied by current going through the coil, this is the coil's power at any moment of time. The power is positive when the coil consumes power, and negative when the coil generates power (back-emf). Is it so difficult to understand that one is never able to understand it?
The voltage on the coil Vl, and the current through the coil. Il, at any moment of time the power in the coil
Pl = Vl * Il
It completely freaks me out that so simple thing is not understood.
Hi ayeaye. Just dropped by this thread to see what was being discussed.
What you are saying above does not make sense. Except for the resistive losses in the wire
in a coil, coils do not consume power. You do not calculate power for coils like you are
suggesting here. In AC circuits, you would calculate the power being consumed by some real *load*
in the circuit (could be resistive losses in any components in the circuit or an actual external load),
and you must always take power factor into account when calculating or measuring power in AC circuits.
If you looking for over unity, you are concerned with input power versus output power across a load that is
consuming real power. 'Reactive power' has no bearing at all when trying to measure or calculate for over unity.
Quote from: Void on September 22, 2018, 10:40:44 AM
in a coil, coils do not consume power. You do not calculate power for coils like you are
suggesting here.
Oh yes they do. And at any moment of time the power is always calcuated in the same way, with everything. It doesn't matter where the power goes, to the losses in the coil's wire, or stored in the coil in some other way, this is how power is calculated. At any moment of time, and this is what matters, as i calculate energy for every small amount of time, and then add them up. Calculating power for some waveforms is different from that, as it doesn't calculate power at every moment of time, but for the whole waveform.
Unless you want me to learn wrongly from you, which i don't.
FWIW, here is an energy test of a bifilar coil in a similar arrangement to yours but idealized for digital scope measurements and the schematic is attached below for probe orientation. The Math(red) channel is used to integrate the instantaneous measurements with the result displayed in mean or average.
The first scope pix shows the input power to the entire circuit and is seen to be 2.15 watts. Since we will be comparing differing time intervals, we need to convert this to energy which will be 2.15*4.36e-6 = 9.374uJ. In this same pix we can also calculate the energy dissipated in R1 from the average current shown in CH4 which will be UR1 = (109.1e-3)^2*100*4.36e-6 = 5.118uJ.
The next pix shows the dissipation in R2 which is seen to be 750.8mw. This is calculated by using the square of the instantaneous differential between the supply voltage and the voltage across R2 and dividing by 100. Therefore the energy dissipated in R2 = 750.8e-3*4.36e-6 = 3.273uJ.
The last pix shows the power dissipation in R2 from the discharge of energy stored in L1/L2 and is seen to be 24.54mw. Therefore, the energy is UR4 = 24.54e-3*31.56e-6 = .774uJ.
So, the total energy consumed by the entire circuit is 9.374uJ and the total energy produced or dissipated by the circuit is 5.118uJ + 3.273uJ + .774uJ = 9.165uJ for a COP = 9.165/9.374 = .978 neglecting resistive losses in L1/L2 and the mosfet.
This does not mean that bifilar windings can't produce excess energy, it just means this particular example does not appear to.
Regards,
Pm
Many thanks Partzman, i will analyze your results. Of course you didn't do the right thing, and your results are worthless. No conclusions about overunity or no overunity can be made either. I said that my experiment was about overunity in the coil, you again measured overunity in the circuit, where of course there is none. No need to test whether it's raining when one can see that it's raining. Your traces are also small and not detail enough, very difficult to measure them, not to talk accurately, so i don't know whether i can get anything useful at all from your results, but i may try.
The other thing, mosfet, it's a horrible thing and leaks as hell through its capacitances. This experiment requires that the circuit is open when the pulse is off, and no current goes through. Transistor does that almost completely, mosfet leaks as hell. The green there i think is the current, yes? It goes a lot back and forth when the pulse is off, so even when one measures any overunity there, the result is likely false, because the power came from mosfet leaking.
So far none anyhow useful results from any replications, not for and not against overunity.
I consider that there are no replications so far.
QuoteI consider that there are no replications so far.
Yep--- especially not from YOU. You took it apart !
Let's see you put your circuit together again, and reproduce those scopetraces you showed in the early posts, and let's have a dialog where we examine some scope settings and probe points and component variations.
You are also wrong about your interpretation of my scope traces: As I noted, the CH1 trace has a large DC offset as anyone looking at the schematic can predict, so I displayed it AC-coupled to remove the DC offset. There is also a _lot_ of ringing which can't be resolved at the timebase setting you specified. This ringing largely is due to circuit parasitic inductances, not the coax bifilar coil.
You are also wrong about the Rigol's math capabilities. All measurements, horizontal and vertical, that the scope has available can be performed on the Math trace. The scope can do integration and differentiation of channel data, display that as a trace and then do all measurements on that math trace. It can also display a reasonable FFT, but without all the bells and whistles of a spectrum analyzer of course. The scope can export trace data in several formats via USB stick, and it can communicate over LAN or via USB with third party programs that can control the scope, display the screen and download and record and analyze data.
You are wrong about spreadsheet data analysis. A six thousand datapoint spreadsheet with multiple graphs and lots of math analysis including integration is child's play for anyone with a little experience with statistics.
And I don't know what kind of transistor you have and _neither do you_, because every datasheet we can find for C945 under several aliases (plain C945, just 945, 2sc945 and even BC945) all give the same ECB pinout -- but yours doesn't -- assuming you have actually connected it properly.
And furthermore, if you did have an actual working NPN transistor in there connected as your circuit shows, driven with a 5v pulse train to its base .... what would anyone expect to see on the CH2 (collector) signal?
Now, just what is a replication, according to you? I used the components you specified, connected according to a schematic you posted and then verified my redraw. No, I did not use a breadboard and a bunch of stray wiring, I soldered the circuit together in my usual style. I used the voltages and duty cycle you specified. I probed the points in an isolated manner as you specified. I used a genuine C945 transistor, verified working, connected according to its data sheet pinout. The only obvious difference is the wire I used for the coax bifilar coil. And of course I used a function generator to provide the base drive, but you said that would be OK, I thought. So how is what I did not a replication? Is it not a replication because I didn't get the scope traces that you got?
Maybe the problem is the bifilar coax coil. Can you describe it in detail? How did you make the series connection between one file and the other (between inner conductor and outer braid)? What is its DC resistance? What is its total inductance?
ETA: I am doing further tests using a different probing technique. Maybe I did it wrong the first time, let's see what I get now.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 22, 2018, 05:31:44 PM
Let's see you put your circuit together again, and reproduce those scopetraces you showed in the early posts, and let's have a dialog where we examine some scope settings and probe points and component variations.
Well what sense does it make. They cannot even understand that P = V * I . Everywhere is only waste of lies, all you get when you try to do something important. I have seen enough that already, i don't want more, i better be friend with the drunks on the street, i don't need to put up a lot of effort to be treated the same as they do. Or are you supermen, above all other people you know, doesn't matter.
Quote
You are also wrong about the Rigol's math capabilities.
I only read the manual of some simple Rigol, was it 1024, i cannot remember all these numbers, sure more expensive ones do more.
I try another thing, i saved oscilloscope screen image as c source code with gimp. This is string, modify a bit and Python eats it, i already tried. Then leave only pixels in the right color range, that is traces, then save as an xpm file that whatever graphics editor can then open.
Well, I think you would agree that numbers are important --- whether you remember them, or got them from the correct manual or datasheet or not.
Also, it does you no good to insult and stomp your feet when someone is trying to work with you and to understand what's going on in your circuit.
No they don't even try to understand that P = V * I .
OK, so here are a couple more scopeshots. I made sure I was isolated and only the scope probe references are connected to the "ground" point on the circuit. Can't show the raw FG signal now but that's not a problem. That got rid of the DC offset on CH1 that I was seeing (a simple error of reference on my part, sorry). And of course now connecting/disconnecting the coil makes more of a difference. But I still see the amplified and inverted signal on CH2 that is very different from yours.
Quote from: ayeaye on September 22, 2018, 06:35:47 PM
No they don't even try to understand that P = V * I .
"They" understand that for an equation to yield valid results, the values that populate the variables must also be valid.
If you pull your V and I values out of your ... er.... random circuit somewhere, different branches.... well we've seen that kind of thing before and it didn't work then either.
At least I am willing and able to reexamine my results and correct them if necessary. Are you?
They don't understand that the relations between values must be right and they must have right meanings.
P = V * I
That is weirdo, this doesn't look like coil at all, ch1 should go up when the pulse starts with coil. I don't understand what it is at all, a coil with only back-emf, that would be an absolute overunity hehe.
OK, finally I am able to get something like the scope traces you showed. By inverting CH2 at the scope and by ditching the coax coil and substituting one of my own true Tesla Bifilar coils which has 685 microHenry of inductance, I get these traces.
Now.... I definitely am driving the transistor with a 20 percent high duty cycle. Are you quite sure your setup does 20 percent high and not 80 percent high? Or perhaps you've inverted your CH2 on your scope?
Yes i had 22% duty cycle. Yes i inverted ch2 because having the scope ground at the bottom of the LR circuit it was backwards, this made it the right direction. In fact i used ch2 for R2 just because on my scope only ch2 can be inverted. The lower trace on the screen should normally be ch1, but i couldn't do that as only ch2 could be inverted.
Now that looks like coil :)
OK, good. Now can you run your software analysis on that scopeshot? It should be a lot easier than using the photo of your analog screen.
Yes i will. When i look at it, i can say though that there is no overunity. As the area of the back-emf relative to the area of the forfward-emf is much smaller compared to mine.
Looks like your power supply sagged a little bit (10 vs 12.5) and your duty cycle is a little bit more than mine (22 vs 20 percent). Will that affect the OU calculation?
Quote from: ayeaye on September 22, 2018, 07:33:54 PM
Yes i will. When i look at it, i can say though that there is no overunity. As the area of the back-emf relative to the area of the forfward-emf is much smaller compared to mine.
Oh? It's not that obvious to me. Please color in the areas you are talking about.
Unfortunately I am now up against a Rigol bug. One of the scope's built-in measurements is the "period area". If I select this measurement for CH1, say, it is supposed to give the area above+below the zero line. If the number is positive there is more area above the line than below, for a single cycle of the waveform. Negative means more area below than above. But the bug is that when I turn on another channel the value for the first channel area changes radically, even changes sign. So the numbers reported by the automatic measurement are untrustworthy in this case.
I will be contacting the usual bug reporting places about this. It's a pretty severe bug.
There is more than one way to skin a cat though.
Here I've told the scope to integrate voltage wrt time across one full waveform. The fact that the integral does not "quite" return to zero indicates, I think, that there is slightly less area in the negative part of the waveform below baseline than there is in the positive part above the baseline.
Can this measurement be trusted? I really don't know. I've gotten to where I don't trust any measurement from a single source until I can validate it some other way.
From your previous screen image (the one before the last one), figure below.
Quote
L 400 7200 1300 6200 *
L 1300 6200 2200 5600 *
L 2200 3300 3000 4100 *
L 3000 4100 3600 4500 *
L 3600 4500 4300 4700 *
L 4300 4700 5100 4800 *
L 5100 4800 5900 4900 *
L 5900 4900 7100 5000 *
L 400 2300 1200 2500 *
L 1200 2500 2200 2500 *
L 0 5000 7500 5000 *
L 0 0 7500 0 *
I didn't know the real values of your resistors, so i used 100 and 1k.
Quote
#Time for gschem unit in ns
XU = 5.0
#Voltage for unit for ch 1 and 2 in mV
YU1 = 0.5
YU2 = 5.0
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 1000.0
R3 = 100.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 30317.2
The output was the following.
Quote
Input power was 8.569 uW
Output power was 7.196 uW
As you see, no overunity, as i also said. Yet, input is not much greater than the output.
I would say that the method works quite well now and the result is likely close to real.
The resistor values I measured with the Fluke 87-III DMM in high resolution mode:
R1 = 987.4 ohmsR2 = 987.2 ohmsR3 = 99.91 ohms
meter leads shorted together = 0.74 ohm
(Now that is screwed up. I entered each R value on a separate line, but the "new forum" software did that to it.)
R1 = 987.4 ohms
R2 = 987.2 ohms
R3 = 99.91 ohms
meter leads shorted together = 0.74 ohm
(Now I entered two or three CR/LFs between the values. But the forum software didn't put them all in. )
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 22, 2018, 10:26:08 PM
R2 = 987.2 ohms
R3 = 99.91 ohms
With these the result was the following.
Quote
Input power was 8.838 uW
Output power was 7.202 uW
Now these input and output powers, are the input and output powers of the coil. The input power of the coil is the power dissipated in the resistance of the coil as heat, and the power stored in the coil. The output power is also less by the power dissipated in the resistance of the coil.
These are the real powers consumed by the coil and generated by the coil, they have a real physical meaning, these are not arbitrary or fictional values.
Can you measure the static resistance of your coil, so i can calculate the powers actually stored and generated by the induction in the coil?
OK, so the previous results were using my TBF coil. Here's one using the coax bifi. It has a lot less inductance so I went up in frequency to 110 kHz for this test. Note that the integral across two cycles is _decreasing_ overall, which means the scope sees the negative portion of the trace as being greater in area than the positive portion of the trace.
Does this now mean OU?
Quote from: ayeaye on September 22, 2018, 10:36:53 PM
With these the result was the following.
Now these input and output powers, are the input and output powers of the coil. The input power of the coil is the power dissipated in the resistance of the coil as heat, and the power stored in the coil. The output power is also less by the power dissipated in the resistance of the coil.
These are the real powers consumed by the coil and generated by the coil, they have a real physical meaning, these are not arbitrary or fictional values.
The jury is still out on that one. I'm not convinced that these measurements actually equate to actual input and output power of the total circuit, which is what actually matters.
Quote
Can you measure the static resistance of your coil, so i can calculate the powers actually stored and generated by the induction in the coil?
The DC resistance of the TBF coil used is 3.90 ohms.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 22, 2018, 11:35:50 PM
The jury is still out on that one. I'm not convinced that these measurements actually equate to actual input and output power of the total circuit, which is what actually matters.
No, these measurements don't equate to the actual input and output power of the total circuit. These are the input and output powers of the coil. Because what interests what concerns the research, is the induction in the coil, not the whole circuit.
Quote
The DC resistance of the TBF coil used is 3.90 ohms.
The dissipation in the resistance of the coil is relatively small, the results were the following.
Quote
Input power was 8.838 uW
Input induction power was 8.837 uW
Output power was 7.202 uW
Output induction power was 7.203 uW
Now you are facing the issue of false precision. Your results cannot be more precise than the _least_ precise number that goes into the calculations.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 23, 2018, 12:06:48 AM
Now you are facing the issue of false precision. Your results cannot be more precise than the _least_ precise number that goes into the calculations.
Yes, and i made the area of the ch2 input part slightly larger, this is the least precise, and this also changes the final result the most. Yet, if it were the actual size, the input power were slightly lower, but there still were no overunity.
Tinsel, i don't know whether the cable that i used in my coil was the following, but it looks similar. A shielded speaker cable, this is a pair of coaxial cables, two coaxial cables in parallel.
https://www.konigelectronic.com/audio-video/cables-connectors/speaker-cable-reel-2x-014-mm2-100-m-black-55938694 (https://www.konigelectronic.com/audio-video/cables-connectors/speaker-cable-reel-2x-014-mm2-100-m-black-55938694)
I made a pancake coil out of it, with 17 turns. Then connected one of this pair of cables as a bifilar pancake coil, and then the other too. Then connected these two coils in series, which is like two pancake coils one on the other, connected in series.
The coil made of coaxial cable that you used, looks like very small. The equivalent to the one i used may be two bifilar pancake coils made of coaxial cable, one on the other, then it will be much bigger.
I will now do calculations for your test with the coaxial cable coil, from your oscilloscope screen image above. For that i will increase precision of the method 10 times. You don't have the trace for ch2 provided, so i make calculations assuming that your power supply was 12V, the voltage on the collector of your transistor was 0.3 V when the pulse was on (taken from the datasheet of c945), and that both of these remained the same during the first part of the cycle.
What was the real voltage of your power supply, what was the voltage on the collector of your transistor measured from the circuit ground during your test with the coaxial cable coil, and were these stable, or changed during the pulse on?
You have also a weird thing in your trace with the coaxial cable coil, like Evostars in this thread also pointed out, the oscillations start to increase before the pulse starts, like it did anticipate that the pulse is coming. Evostars also had a large spike before the pulse starting. I cannot explain this. I mean, it is not necessarily future changing past or anything because these cycles are repeating, rather then some pattern settling in that fits the conditions during the whole cycle the best. But again i cannot explain this.
What concerns the drawing, i increased the precision in Inkscape to 100 squares per oscilloscope scale. This precision is very high and completely sufficient for anything. The problem though, is that these are not samples on the screen, this is some kind of rendering, and the trace can be lighter and darker. So it is difficult to decide where to put this end of the next line, how dark should the trace be where it really stops, etc. This brings imprecision. I will continue doing the calculations though.
Tinsel, ok, i did the calculations of your test with the coaxial cable coil as i said. I don't know whether all was correct, but by the ones i did it's very far from overunity. With the power source 12V, but in fact if it were 11V, it were still very far from overunity. It was very imprecise too, because the x scale was very narrow and it did ring a lot.
One question, is your table or bench made of steel perhaps? This will act as a core. Your spikes look very narrow, these resemble more the ones when there is a core, this does it, and then it's more like an ordinary coil with very unlikely any overunity.
Quote
L 1000 70 1000 510 *
L 1000 510 1020 900 *
L 1020 900 1020 3500 *
L 1020 3500 1040 3300 *
L 1040 3300 1040 2690 *
L 1040 2690 1060 2530 *
L 1060 2530 1060 2180 *
L 1060 2180 1080 2340 *
L 1080 2340 1100 2500 *
L 1100 2500 1100 2650 *
L 1100 2650 1120 2510 *
L 1120 2510 1120 2090 *
L 1120 2090 1140 1930 *
L 1140 1930 1140 1660 *
L 1140 1660 1160 1460 *
L 1160 1460 1160 990 *
L 1160 990 1180 770 *
L 1180 770 1190 610 *
L 1190 610 1200 480 *
L 1200 480 1220 370 *
L 1220 370 1220 170 *
L 1220 170 1260 330 *
L 1260 330 1280 200 *
L 1280 200 1300 330 *
L 1300 330 1400 50 *
L 1400 50 1430 130 *
L 1430 130 1460 50 *
L 1460 50 1500 130 *
L 1500 130 1520 50 *
L 1520 50 1540 90 *
L 1540 90 1610 0 *
L 1610 0 1740 30 *
L 1740 30 1790 130 *
L 1790 130 1970 0 *
L 1970 0 2220 90 *
L 2220 90 2350 30 *
L 2350 30 2650 -10 *
L 2650 -10 2680 -70 *
L 2680 -70 2700 -150 *
L 2700 -150 2720 -270 *
L 2720 -270 2740 -470 *
L 2740 -470 2740 -710 *
L 2740 -710 2760 -1030 *
L 2760 -1030 2760 -2050 *
L 2760 -2050 2780 -2400 *
L 2780 -2400 2780 -2680 *
L 2780 -2680 2800 -2510 *
L 2800 -2510 2800 -2340 *
L 2800 -2340 2820 -2240 *
L 2820 -2240 2840 -2440 *
L 2840 -2440 2860 -2080 *
L 2860 -2080 2880 -1590 *
L 2880 -1590 2900 -1350 *
L 2900 -1350 2900 -1080 *
L 2900 -1080 2920 -870 *
L 2920 -870 2920 -640 *
L 2920 -640 2940 -510 *
L 2940 -510 2940 -440 *
L 2940 -440 2960 -300 *
L 2960 -300 2960 -210 *
L 2960 -210 2990 -170 *
L 2990 -170 3020 -130 *
L 3020 -130 3060 -170 *
L 3060 -170 3080 -70 *
L 3080 -70 3110 -30 *
L 3110 -30 3170 0 *
L 3170 0 3260 -30 *
L 3260 -30 3360 50 *
L 3360 50 3410 -30 *
L 3410 -30 3460 50 *
L 3460 50 3580 -30 *
L 3580 -30 3690 50 *
L 3690 50 3820 -10 *
L 3820 -10 4000 50 *
L 4000 50 4210 -30 *
L 4210 -30 4410 50 *
L 4410 50 4630 -30 *
L 4630 -30 4820 90 *
L 4820 90 5010 -70 *
L 5010 -70 5200 90 *
L 5200 90 5380 -70 *
L 5380 -70 5530 50 *
L 0 0 6000 0 *
The Python scripts below are only for the case when the ch2 trace is not provided, and they are for high precision, 100 squares for an oscilloscope scale in Inkscape, don't use them otherwise. One more condition is that during the input part it always has to be greater or equal to zero. I think it should be changed, and the parts distinguished like by a different letter before, then they should be just two different paths in Inkscape. And i didn't really test very thoroughly that these ones are correct, i tested thoroughly the previous ones.
Quote
import sys
def next(s, str, list):
global i1
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = s.find(str, i0)
if (i1 == -1): i1 = len(s)
list.append(int(float(s[i0:i1])))
return i1 == len(s)
i1 = 0
lines = []
for s in sys.stdin:
l = []
i1 = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (i1 == -1): continue
i1 = s.find(" ", i1)
ends = s.find("\"", i1)
s = s[i1 : ends]
i1 = 0
next(s, ",", l)
next(s, " ", l)
l[0] = 5000 + l[0]
l[1] = 5000 - l[1]
lines.append([l[0], l[1], 0, 0])
while (True):
l = []
next(s, ",", l)
done = next(s, " ", l)
l[0] = lines[-1][0] + l[0]
l[1] = lines[-1][1] - l[1]
lines[-1][2] = l[0]
lines[-1][3] = l[1]
if (done): break
lines.append([l[0], l[1], 0, 0])
x0 = lines[-1][0]
y0 = lines[-1][1]
for i in range(len(lines)):
lines[ i ][0] -= x0
lines[ i ][2] -= x0
lines[ i ][1] -= y0
lines[ i ][3] -= y0
for l in lines:
print("L %d %d %d %d *" % (l[0], l[1], l[2], l[3]))
Quote
import sys
#Oscilloscope scale is 100 squares, square is 10 units
#Time for unit in ns
XU = 2.0
#Voltage for unit for ch 1 in mV
YU1 = 0.225
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 987.2
R3 = 99.91
#Voltage of the power supply in mV
V = 12000.0
#Collector voltage in mV when pulse is on
VC = 300
#Frequency in Hz
F = 110001.0
def getlist(list, x0, y0, invert):
for i in range(len(list)):
list[ i ][0] -= x0
list[ i ][2] -= x0
if (invert):
list[ i ][1] = y0 - list[ i ][1]
list[ i ][3] = y0 - list[ i ][3]
else:
list[ i ][1] -= y0
list[ i ][3] -= y0
return list
def gety(list, i, t):
lx = float(list[ i ][2] - list[ i ][0])
ly = float(list[ i ][3] - list[ i ][1])
dx = float(t - list[ i ][0])
dy = ly * abs(dx / lx)
return list[ i ][1] + dy
def output(s, e):
#Energy in uJ
e *= XU / 10 / 1000000
print("%s power was %.3f uW" % (s, F * e))
lines = []
for s in sys.stdin:
l = []
i1 = 1
if (s[0] != "L"): continue
for j in range(4):
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = s.find(" ", i0)
l.append(int(s[i0:i1]))
lines.append(l)
x0 = lines[0][0]
y0 = lines[-1][1]
lines.pop()
i1 = map(lambda l: l[1] < y0, lines).index(True)
x1 = lines[i1][0]
ilist = getlist(lines[: i1], x0, y0, False)
olist = getlist(lines[i1 :], x1, y0, True)
e = 0.0
i1 = 0
for t in range(ilist[-1][2]):
while (t >= ilist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
vlr = gety(ilist, i1, t) * YU1
ilr = (V - VC - vlr) / R2
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
output("Input", e)
e = 0.0
i1 = 0
for t in range(olist[-1][2]):
while (t >= olist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
vlr = gety(olist, i1, t) * YU1
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
output("Output", e)
The output was the following.
Quote
Input power was 17.349 uW
Output power was 7.993 uW
Hmm... I wonder why the scope produced a decreasing integral then. You may be missing spikes, or the scope may be just giving me garbage, or both.
I don't have any wire equivalent to yours but I do have more of the same coax that I used and I'll try to extend my coil and make 2 layers like yours, if I am understanding your description. A diagram would be very helpful.
No, all my testing is done on a wooden table. I am well aware of the effect of a "core" of flat iron or ferrite on the pancake coils, although when the windings are using coaxial cable things might be different. In any case the coil I used simply doesn't have enough inductance. I tried a pure commercial inductor of 1.5 mH and it gives traces visually very similar to what I got with my own TBF coil, but not OU probably.
It would still be nice if you could reconstruct your circuit and your oscilloscope for some testing back and forth.
One thing I've noticed is that the transistor I'm using takes a while to turn off once the FG's pulse goes to zero. I am sure this affects interpretation of the data but I am not quite sure just how or if the effect is real. I am going to examine this further before I comment further, but you might look to see if the same thing is true for your transistor.
The svg file from these last coaxial cable coil calculations, was the following.
https://justpaste.it/4wikb (https://justpaste.it/4wikb)
By theory, the collector voltage should remain the same when the transistor is open (saturated). Assuming that the power supply voltage also remains the same, only the channel 1 should be measured. The following Python scripts were made to calculate in that way. They are all checked and worked correctly. The following assumes using these scripts.
In Inkscape, turn off the document border in document settings, select snap always, and create grid 10 pixels per square, with 100 squares one big square. This big square corresponds to one oscilloscope scale. Draw the input part as one path, output path as another path, and x axis as third path, always in that order, this is important. The following Python script extracts values from the svg file made in that way.
Quote
import sys
def next(s, str, list):
global i1
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = s.find(str, i0)
if (i1 == -1): i1 = len(s)
list.append(int(float(s[i0:i1])))
return i1 == len(s)
def getlist(list, l, s):
list.append([l[0], l[1], 0, 0])
while (True):
l = []
next(s, ",", l)
done = next(s, " ", l)
l[0] = list[-1][0] + l[0]
l[1] = list[-1][1] - l[1]
list[-1][2] = l[0]
list[-1][3] = l[1]
if (done): break
list.append([l[0], l[1], 0, 0])
def printlist(list, letter):
x0 = list[0][0]
for n in range(len(list)):
list[n][0] -= x0
list[n][2] -= x0
if (letter == "I"):
list[n][1] -= y0
list[n][3] -= y0
else:
list[n][1] = y0 - list[n][1]
list[n][3] = y0 - list[n][3]
print("%s %d %d %d %d" % (letter, list[n][0],
list[n][1], list[n][2], list[n][3]))
ilist = []
olist = []
i1 = path = 0
for s in sys.stdin:
l = []
i1 = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (i1 == -1): continue
path += 1
if (path > 3): break
i1 = s.find(" ", i1)
ends = s.find("\"", i1)
s = s[i1 : ends]
i1 = 0
next(s, ",", l)
next(s, " ", l)
l[0] = 5000 + l[0]
l[1] = 5000 - l[1]
if (path == 1): getlist(ilist, l, s)
if (path == 2): getlist(olist, l, s)
y0 = l[1]
printlist(ilist, "I")
printlist(olist, "O")
The following was the output of that script, with the svg file above.
Quote
I 0 70 0 510
I 0 510 20 900
I 20 900 20 3500
I 20 3500 40 3300
I 40 3300 40 2690
I 40 2690 60 2530
I 60 2530 60 2180
I 60 2180 80 2340
I 80 2340 100 2500
I 100 2500 100 2650
I 100 2650 120 2510
I 120 2510 120 2090
I 120 2090 140 1930
I 140 1930 140 1660
I 140 1660 160 1460
I 160 1460 160 990
I 160 990 180 770
I 180 770 190 610
I 190 610 200 480
I 200 480 220 370
I 220 370 220 170
I 220 170 260 330
I 260 330 280 200
I 280 200 300 330
I 300 330 400 50
I 400 50 430 130
I 430 130 460 50
I 460 50 500 130
I 500 130 520 50
I 520 50 540 90
I 540 90 610 0
I 610 0 740 30
I 740 30 790 130
I 790 130 970 0
I 970 0 1220 90
I 1220 90 1350 30
I 1350 30 1650 -10
O 0 10 30 70
O 30 70 50 150
O 50 150 70 270
O 70 270 90 470
O 90 470 90 710
O 90 710 110 1030
O 110 1030 110 2050
O 110 2050 130 2400
O 130 2400 130 2680
O 130 2680 150 2510
O 150 2510 150 2340
O 150 2340 170 2240
O 170 2240 190 2440
O 190 2440 210 2080
O 210 2080 230 1590
O 230 1590 250 1350
O 250 1350 250 1080
O 250 1080 270 870
O 270 870 270 640
O 270 640 290 510
O 290 510 290 440
O 290 440 310 300
O 310 300 310 210
O 310 210 340 170
O 340 170 370 130
O 370 130 410 170
O 410 170 430 70
O 430 70 460 30
O 460 30 520 0
O 520 0 610 30
O 610 30 710 -50
O 710 -50 760 30
O 760 30 810 -50
O 810 -50 930 30
O 930 30 1040 -50
O 1040 -50 1170 10
O 1170 10 1350 -50
O 1350 -50 1560 30
O 1560 30 1760 -50
O 1760 -50 1980 30
O 1980 30 2170 -90
O 2170 -90 2360 70
O 2360 70 2550 -90
O 2550 -90 2730 70
O 2730 70 2880 -50
There the lines starting with "I" are the lines of the input part, and the lines starting with "O" are the lines of the output part. For each line there are four numbers, that are x and y coordinate of the beginning of the line, and x and y coordinate of the end of the line. Both the input and output part start with the x coordinate 0, y coordinates are relative to the x axis, and the output part is inverted. The following Python script takes that list as an input, and writes the input and output power of the coil, as an output.
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.225
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 987.2
R3 = 99.91
#Voltage of the power supply in V
V = 12.0
#Collector voltage in V
VC = 0.3
#Frequency in kHz
F = 110.001
#Oscilloscope scale is 100 squares, square is 10 units
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
V *= 1000
VC *= 1000
F *= 1000
ilist = []
olist = []
e = 0.0
n = 0
def gety(list, n, t):
lx = float(list[n][2] - list[n][0])
ly = float(list[n][3] - list[n][1])
dx = float(t - list[n][0])
dy = ly * abs(dx / lx)
return (list[n][1] + dy) * YU
def output(s, e):
#Energy in uJ
e *= XU / 10 / 1000000
print("%s power was %.3f uW" % (s, F * e))
for s in sys.stdin:
l = []
i1 = 1
if (s[0] != "I" and s[0] != "O"): continue
for j in range(4):
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = s.find(" ", i0)
if (i1 == -1): i1 = len(s)
l.append(int(s[i0:i1]))
if (s[0] == "I"): ilist.append(l)
if (s[0] == "O"): olist.append(l)
for t in range(ilist[-1][2]):
while (t >= ilist[n][2]): n += 1;
vlr = gety(ilist, n, t)
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
ilr = (V - VC - vlr) / R2
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
output("Input", e)
n = 0
e = 0.0
for t in range(olist[-1][2]):
while (t >= olist[n][2]): n += 1;
vlr = gety(olist, n, t)
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
output("Output", e)
The output of that Python script with the svg file above, was the following. This was calculated assuming that the power supply voltage that TinselKoala used was 12V, that it was stable, and that the collector voltage when the transistor was open (conducting) was 0.3V, that was taken from the transistor c945 datasheet. And that it was also stable. He has not provided his real values for these yet, so these were the only ones that could been used.
Quote
Input power was 17.349 uW
Output power was 7.993 uW
Tinsel, the Python code, i don't know what is there to understand. Commenting it, i can comment it, but the code is self-commenting. And no this is not gigo, this is well written code, and you can try that it works.
What it is, mostly it's a classical parser. The first is what i would call a netlist converter. The graphs are in the form of paths in Inkscape. Path is, the coordinates of the first point, following by the series of pairs dx,dy of the differences of x and y from the previous point. Path is converted to netlist-like form, like in spice, a letter, and the coordinates of the beginning and end of the line. And they are normalized, the first x is 0, and y is relative to the x axis. Why is that, first that form enables to see better whether the extracted data corresponds to the drawn graph, but second it's easier to do calculations from a netlist-like data as well. Spice has wire diagrams and everything in that form, it's the easiest to work with.
The second script does the calclulations. And it in principle doesn't differ from doing calculations from sample data, just instead of sample data, it goes to the right line, and calculates the values there in the middle. Otherwise it like takes samples, after each small period of time, which is 1/1000 of the oscilloscope time scale. When the calculations were from samples, then it were for every sample. It's the easiest to do calculations in that way, the most straightforward, every going around makes it only more complicated, not simpler.
If you can get the samples of the waveform data from your oscilloscope, in any form, be it csv or any other, then you can send them to me, upload as file or when they can be written as text, write as text. I can then write a python script that does calculations from the data in any form. And i can do the calculations for you so that you don't have to, all you need is to get the data from your oscilloscope. Using spreadsheet, you know, real men don't use spreadsheets, real men use lists or maybe databases, but not spreadsheets. Spreadsheets are for wimps. But if you want to do it in spreadsheet, then i can do that as well. And in spreadsheet, you can do all the calculations that my python script does in every iteration, on ever spreadsheet row, then just add the energies of all trace, just as my python script really does.
When getting the data like in csv form, you would also need to visualize the data as a graph or such, to see where the parts really begin and end. I can do that with python, i can write it as an xpm image, but i can also use some graph libraries for python, these are easy to use, though not as minimalist to satisfy me. Spreadsheets can also draw graphs like from a data in a column, so you can use that. If the data is not in csv form, you can send it to me in a file, and i can convert it to csv or to whatever format.
I'm the most interested, can the calculations be done by only one trace, ch 1. It makes no sense to always measure two channels, when calculations can be done from one channel. The power supply voltage is always stable, at least when there is a good power source. Then the only thing left is the collector voltage, the voltage between the collector and the circuit ground. When the transistor is saturated, then this should always be the same. But is it always the same as on the datasheet, and is it always the same when the pulse is on and the transistor is conducting, and what its real value is, this should be measured.
I'm all for simplicity and minimalism, in everything, but then there is a question what the simplicity is.
Just for fun, on the figure 2 below is your oscilloscope screen, converted to 3 color xpm, i converted it with python code, after saving it as c source code image with gimp. I can do everything with it, make it to lines of single pixel, extract the values. But this makes no sense, because already the image converted to xpm is not exact, the original screen is rendered, with the shades of darkness, so it is a question what the right shade of darkness should be to be valid.
I had an error in all previous calculations, i don't know why did i divide by 10. The power calculated in the iteration is in mW, the time is in ns, so when multiplying that by time and dividing it by 1000000 (million) instead of billion, we get energy in uJ, and when multiplying that by frequency in Hz, we get power in uW. This is how it must be and this is how it now is. So all results were evidently 10 times less, but this didn't change the output/input power ratio. The Python calculation script with that error corrected, is now the following.
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.225
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 987.2
R3 = 99.91
#Voltage of the power supply in V
V = 12.0
#Collector voltage in V
VC = 0.3
#Frequency in kHz
F = 110.001
#Oscilloscope scale is 100 squares, square is 10 units
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
V *= 1000
VC *= 1000
F *= 1000
ilist = []
olist = []
e = 0.0
n = 0
def gety(list, n, t):
lx = float(list[n][2] - list[n][0])
ly = float(list[n][3] - list[n][1])
dx = float(t - list[n][0])
dy = ly * abs(dx / lx)
return (list[n][1] + dy) * YU
def output(s, e):
#Energy in uJ
e *= XU / 1000000
print("%s power was %.3f uW" % (s, F * e))
for s in sys.stdin:
l = []
i1 = 1
if (s[0] != "I" and s[0] != "O"): continue
for j in range(4):
i0 = i1 + 1
i1 = s.find(" ", i0)
if (i1 == -1): i1 = len(s)
l.append(int(s[i0:i1]))
if (s[0] == "I"): ilist.append(l)
if (s[0] == "O"): olist.append(l)
for t in range(ilist[-1][2]):
while (t >= ilist[n][2]): n += 1;
vlr = gety(ilist, n, t)
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
ilr = (V - VC - vlr) / R2
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
output("Input", e)
n = 0
e = 0.0
for t in range(olist[-1][2]):
while (t >= olist[n][2]): n += 1;
vlr = gety(olist, n, t)
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
output("Output", e)
The output of that script with the data from the previous coaxial coil test graph, was the following.
Quote
Input power was 173.492 uW
Output power was 79.925 uW
I also got the sample data of the same test directly from the oscilloscope screen image, as i described above. This sample data was the following.
https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/4nQzyT47W5 (https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/4nQzyT47W5)
The following is the Python script that calculates directly from sample data, this can also be used to calculate from the sample data taken from the oscilloscope, provided that the numbers precede by the letter I or O. In that sample data one oscilloscope scale was 50 (which was also 50 pixels on screen), the numbers are relative to the x axis, and the output part is inverted.
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.225
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 987.2
R3 = 99.91
#Voltage of the power supply in V
V = 12.0
#Collector voltage in V
VC = 0.3
#Frequency in kHz
F = 110.001
#The length of a scale is 50 pixels
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
V *= 1000
VC *= 1000
F *= 1000
XU *= 1000 / 50
YU *= 1000 / 50
ilist = []
olist = []
e = 0.0
for s in sys.stdin:
if (s[0] == "I"): ilist.append(int(s[2 : len(s)]))
if (s[0] == "O"): olist.append(int(s[2 : len(s)]))
for t in range(len(ilist)):
vlr = ilist[t] * YU
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
ilr = (V - VC - vlr) / R2
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Input power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
e = 0.0
for t in range(len(olist)):
vlr = olist[t] * YU
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Output power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
The output of that Python script with the sample data above, was the following.
Quote
Input power was 209.347 uW
Output power was 111.954 uW
As one can see, this differs a lot from the results above. This shows the great imprecision of the method of extracting values directly from the oscilloscope's screen image.
If this Python script was still too complicated, split it into two as the following, calculating the input and output parts separately. Then you don't need letters before the numbers, just a list of the input part, and the list of the output part. List like this:
7
8
4
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.225
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 987.2
R3 = 99.91
#Voltage of the power supply in V
V = 12.0
#Collector voltage in V
VC = 0.3
#Frequency in kHz
F = 110.001
#The length of a scale is 50 pixels
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
V *= 1000
VC *= 1000
F *= 1000
XU *= 1000 / 50
YU *= 1000 / 50
ilist = []
e = 0.0
for s in sys.stdin: ilist.append(int(s))
for t in range(len(ilist)):
vlr = ilist[t] * YU
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
ilr = (V - VC - vlr) / R2
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Input power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.225
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 987.2
R3 = 99.91
#Voltage of the power supply in V
V = 12.0
#Collector voltage in V
VC = 0.3
#Frequency in kHz
F = 110.001
#The length of a scale is 50 pixels
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
V *= 1000
VC *= 1000
F *= 1000
XU *= 1000 / 50
YU *= 1000 / 50
olist = []
e = 0.0
for s in sys.stdin: olist.append(int(s))
for t in range(len(olist)):
vlr = olist[t] * YU
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Output power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
Also if you have no other graphing tools, then with the following you can plot a graph from a list, a point graph or bar graph. Just paste the list to the column A there, and select A as the Y source. Then you can separate the input and output parts.
https://plot.ly/create/#/ (https://plot.ly/create/#/)
QuoteThis shows the great imprecision of the method of extracting values directly from the oscilloscope's screen image.
And transferring an oscilloscope's screen image to a graphing program and then extracting values from that isn't going to improve the precision, either. And as you've found... some bugs don't show up until we've already proclaimed our programs to be without error. How can you be absolutely sure there aren't other bugs or errors?
My next step, in progress, is to make a coaxial bifilar coil more similar to yours. Your next step, if you will allow me to suggest it, is for you to rebuild your circuit and reproduce your scopetraces and re-analyze the new traces. Then we can start looking at common sources of error in analog scoposcopy, like hidden DC bias errors or improperly locating the zero baseline of a trace.
As long as I can't produce OU measurements on my digital scope because maybe my coils aren't good enough, and as long as you can't reanalyze your own coil using a well-constructed circuit and a DSO... I don't know how else to proceed.
Can this be self looped and drive a joule thief to indicate it's running?
Quote from: FixedSys on September 26, 2018, 07:35:15 AM
Can this be self looped and drive a joule thief to indicate it's running?
This experiment is only for measuring whether there is overunity in the coil. When there is enough overunity in the coil, then a self looped device likely can be made, but this is not the purpose of this experiment. On the other hand, the effort of making a self looped device is likely worthless when the coil has no overunity.
More generally, this experiment shows the energy efficiency of the coil, it shows overunity when the coil has overunity, or the measure of unity when it doesn't have overunity. Even with no overunity, this experiment may be important for making circuits where coils are used, as it may be important to know their energy efficiency. It also enables to research how different types of coils behave.
When one has a coil, especially when one wants to use it for an overunity device, then likely this experiment should be done first with that coil, to see the energy efficiency of the coil. No matter what one will use that coil for, even when using it in the devices like Bedini motor.
This experiment is for measuring the energy efficiency of all types of coils, including various pancake coils, Rodin coils, starship coils, Abha coils, unification coils, other bifilar coils, any of the large variety of coils there are. Pancake coil was the first i used it for, and i like pancake coils, i also like pancakes, so i like to call the experiment pancake.
This experiment does not include measuring other forms of energy that coils may produce, like static electricity that certain pancake coils may create. Or this can be added to this experiment to measure the whole energy efficiency of the coil.
I will also provide the lists of the input and output parts from the above, like for test calculations. The samples are for each horizontal pixel, they are number of pixels and relative to the x axis, the output part is inverted. Oscilloscope scale on Rigol is 50 pixels. The input list was the following.
https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/Gvj9K4Mf6x (https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/Gvj9K4Mf6x)
And the output list was the following.
https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/zJpNxZG5QQ (https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/zJpNxZG5QQ)
For Python use online compiler, if Python is not installed, select Python there. For spreadsheet use LibreOffice Calc, i hope, at least not Excel ;) When copying code or other data from this forum, select the text, but don't move the mouse pointer out of the quote box, copy when the pointer is in the box, otherwise it will add spaces before each line, that will give error.
https://www.ideone.com (https://www.ideone.com)
Hi everybody
The current experimentations here and there with bifilar coils made me want to try it too (thanks guys). If anomalous results are observed, which remains to be confirmed, then we may have a theory behind it with nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena. The NMR/ESR is the guiding idea that gets me started in experimentation, that's why I plan to change from conventional wire coils to flat copper tape coils. In spite it will not be an exact duplication of ayeaye's experiment, I would like to inform you that I started today. I failed to do a correct winding, the copper tape is very thin and easily damaged. I just ordered some of these tapes again, like these:
https://www.amazon.com/Double-Sided-Conductive-Shielding-Soldering-Electrical/dp/B074QN1YNH/ref=sr_1_25
These tapes should provide a higher capacity between turns. Although they are very thin, the effective conduction depth due to the skin effect is only 65µm at 1 MHz and 20 µm at 10MHz so we will not lose much of the effective resistance at RF frequencies.
I think another interest is the much better regularity of the electric field between the two tapes because of a constant spacing between conductors unlike wires of round cross-section.
The thinness of the tapes is also an advantage if nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena are involved, as there will be less dispersion of the magnetic field in the conductor bulk.
I hope for my first results next week (positive or negative!).
Ok, i now did the calculation of the input and output parts with an online spreadsheet too, and the results were almost the same, see below. The input spreadsheet is the following.
https://lite.framacalc.org/hRrVK9eHf3 (https://lite.framacalc.org/hRrVK9eHf3)
And the output spreadsheet is the following.
https://lite.framacalc.org/kb0Fxd8dCi (https://lite.framacalc.org/kb0Fxd8dCi)
Start a new spreadsheet on the following, click on "Create a calc".
https://accueil.framacalc.org/en (https://accueil.framacalc.org/en)
In a spreadsheet, all is much less clear and less organized. One should use B, C instead of the names of the variables. One cannot use constants or common variables, or these will again be something like F16, which only makes it more confusing. So i used the values of the constants.
I can shortly explain how to use it, if that may be any problem. Click on the first shell, then paste the list there, it pastes to the whole column. Click on the cell, write formula, use like B1, C1, etc. Then under the format above, there is copy, copy it. Then select the column by clicking to its header. Then under the sort above there is paste, paste it, it pastes it to all column, and changes the numbers of the row after B1, C1, etc, accordingly. I think this is all there is to know.
If you prefer spreadsheet, then use it, but i don't know why it's better.
There was a small difference between the Python results and the spreadsheet result of the output power, in the Python results it was 111.954, and in the spreadsheet result it was 111.908, and i cannot explain this. Nothing is wrong with the spreadsheet, i did the same calculation in LibreOffice Calc, and the result was exactly the same. The Python float numbers are double (64 bit) with 16 significant digits, so maybe it's about less precision in spreadsheets.
I forgot that this Python int() gives an error when the string is empty, that is with the list with only one number in a line, it will give error if one writes an empty line after the last line. So these Python scripts should be the following. Too many things to remember.
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.225
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 987.2
R3 = 99.91
#Voltage of the power supply in V
V = 12.0
#Collector voltage in V
VC = 0.3
#Frequency in kHz
F = 110.001
#The length of a scale is 50 pixels
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
V *= 1000
VC *= 1000
F *= 1000
XU *= 1000 / 50
YU *= 1000 / 50
ilist = []
e = 0.0
for s in sys.stdin:
if (s.strip() != ""): ilist.append(int(s))
for t in range(len(ilist)):
vlr = ilist[t] * YU
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
ilr = (V - VC - vlr) / R2
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Input power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.225
#Resistor 3 resistance in ohms
R3 = 99.91
#Frequency in kHz
F = 110.001
#The length of a scale is 50 pixels
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
F *= 1000
XU *= 1000 / 50
YU *= 1000 / 50
olist = []
e = 0.0
for s in sys.stdin:
if (s.strip() != ""): olist.append(int(s))
for t in range(len(olist)):
vlr = olist[t] * YU
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Output power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
Spreadsheet of the input part.
Someone said maybe increasing R3 may help the coil to get more energy or such, i don't know...
Quote from: F6FLT on September 26, 2018, 10:29:55 AM
Hi everybody
The current experimentations here and there with bifilar coils made me want to try it too (thanks guys). If anomalous results are observed, which remains to be confirmed, then we may have a theory behind it with nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena. The NMR/ESR is the guiding idea that gets me started in experimentation, that's why I plan to change from conventional wire coils to flat copper tape coils. In spite it will not be an exact duplication of ayeaye's experiment, I would like to inform you that I started today. I failed to do a correct winding, the copper tape is very thin and easily damaged. I just ordered some of these tapes again, like these:
https://www.amazon.com/Double-Sided-Conductive-Shielding-Soldering-Electrical/dp/B074QN1YNH/ref=sr_1_25
These tapes should provide a higher capacity between turns. Although they are very thin, the effective conduction depth due to the skin effect is only 65µm at 1 MHz and 20 µm at 10MHz so we will not lose much of the effective resistance at RF frequencies.
I think another interest is the much better regularity of the electric field between the two tapes because of a constant spacing between conductors unlike wires of round cross-section.
The thinness of the tapes is also an advantage if nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena are involved, as there will be less dispersion of the magnetic field in the conductor bulk.
I hope for my first results next week (positive or negative!).
Great, F6FLT ! I'm sorry, i didn't notice your post, was busy here with other things. These copper tapes, would be interesting to make a bifilar coil out of these, then the capacitance between the bifilar coil windings would be likely greater than can be achieved in any other way. Will wait for your results with interest :) Hope that what is written here about how to calculate, etc, may help you in some way.
About other things, i tried the output part calculation now also with spreadsheet calculator. It is for linux, for windows all there is, is the following in github, and when one knows how to use that thing.
https://github.com/n-t-roff/sc (https://github.com/n-t-roff/sc)
With spreadsheet calculator, the result was *exactly* the same as with python. This shows that some spreadsheets calculate with the same precision as python, though libreoffice calc is not one of these, and excel may also not be. Some scientific spreadsheets i think may also give the same results.
I don't know what ones programming skills are, but below we will do it like spreadsheet, but not with spreadsheet.
In linux, there is a command line program named bc, that stands for "basic calculator". It is an arbitrary precision calculator, that is, it can calculate with any number of digits after the decimal point. By default, that is with the option -l, the number of digits is 20. It looks somehow primitive, and one may not believe it, but it is actually used by scientists. There is also the following windows version of it.
http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/bc.htm (http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/bc.htm)
In windows, one should use the cmd console. For that in the windows explorer, go to the directory where your files are, then click on the address bar above, write cmd and press enter, this opens the cmd console in that directory. Selecting things and pressing enter will copy, and right click will paste there.
It's a problem to get a list into bc, as it wants things in the form like a[7] = 17. So, write the following script, that is create a text file and paste the following into it, like with wordpad. Maybe one can use bc also with some ide, but i don't know which one some may like. Then save it as tobc.bc.
Quote
for (j = 0; j < 134; j++) {
n = read()
print "a[", j, "] = ", n, "\n"
}
Provided that we have list of samples in the file list.txt, and that we also know that there are 134 numbers (again, we do calculations like in a spreadsheet), and that we have bc installed, write the following on the cmd console (followed by enter).
Quote
bc -l tobc.bc < list.txt > tobc.txt
Then write the following script that does the calculations, as you see, it calculates almost exactly like a spreadsheet. Save it as output.bc.
Quote
for (j = 0; j < 134; j++) b[j] = a[j]*0.225*1000/50
for (j = 0; j < 134; j++) c[j] = b[j]*b[j]/99.91/1000
for (j = 0; j < 134; j++) e[0] = e[0]+c[j]
e[1] = e[0]*2.0*1000/50/1000000
e[2] = 110.001*1000*e[1]
print e[0], "\n"
print e[1], "\n"
print e[2], "\n\n"
for (j = 0; j < 134; j++) print a[j], " ", b[j], " ", c[j], "\n"
Then write the following on the cmd console.
Quote
bc -l tobc.txt < output.bc > output.txt
The output is a bit primitive, as the bc language doesn't have the fancy things to write numbers in some format. The following is the output.txt, calculated for the output part like in the previous posts here.
https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/w5gBZkqtfV (https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/w5gBZkqtfV)
The beginning of that output was the following.
Quote
25.44393954559103192763
.00101775758182364127
111.95435175818236334127
As one can see, the python result was correct, and the spreadsheet result was less precise, as i also said earlier. In fact, the python results were satisfactory. One can use spreadsheet as well when the precision is satisfactory, just that it has been proven now that spreadsheets are less precise than python, and in the scientific calculations they may in some cases not be satisfactory.
PS For plotting, as one has to find that magic number, in whatever way, where the input part ends and the output part starts, to then split it into two lists of samples, for separate calculations of the input and output part. Other than doing it online as i did show earlier, one can also install the mingw version of gnuplot for windows, from the following link. There is a huge number of various plotting programs, whatever one may prefer, but gnuplot is the most classic.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuplot/files/gnuplot/5.2.4 (https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuplot/files/gnuplot/5.2.4)
When there is a list of samples in the file list.txt, then run gnuplot and write plot "list.txt" followed by enter, this will plot a graph of it, it's that simple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbyNYn676dQ
On top, i have a "bifilar" pancake coil, in this experiment i have connected the pancake coil in one coil only, the other coil "induces" the current.
P = V * I
This is true about any part of the circuit, no matter whether there are coils or no coils. Both for input and output power of that part of the circuit.
Now it may look like that when the coil conducts more, the power consumption of the whole circuit may look like more. Thus one may think measuring power consumed by the coil by a dissipation of power on a resistor in series with the coil, etc. This does not measure the power consumed by the coil, not what concerns physics, different from some possible practical purposes.
Why? First because this is how power is always calculated, this is how electric power is measured, any electric power. Because this is the physical meaning of electric power. Several people who here doubted whether it's right, are therefore wrong. They are wrong in terms of physics, and this is what matters for research. They may not be wrong what concerns how some or other circuits are made, but this is not about the physical meaning of power.
So ok for their particular circuits, when more current goes through the coil, then their circuit consumes more power. But this is only about how their circuit is made, it is about their circuit and not about the physical power consumed by the coil. How so? Simply speaking, the current that goes through the coil, is not consumed by the coil. Like when the coil had zero resistance at any moment of time, the power it did consume at that moment of time were zero, zero and not a bit more.
Because again simply speaking, the current that goes through the coil, is most often dissipated in some resistance, and released as heat energy, thus none of that energy is lost in the coil. How the current that goes through the coil is used in the circuit, that depends on the circuit, whether it is used somehow or just wasted.
But the purpose of this experiment is to measure the input and output power of the coil, coil and coil only. Not the power in some circuit that can be incredible wasteful as well. But how much power some wasteful circuit consumes, gives no useful information about the coil, none and nothing, thus it makes no sense to measure, and has no physical significance whatsoever about the coil.
Please understand these things first. It makes no sense to do the experiments to measure the power efficiency of a coil otherwise.
You may want to review this PDF slideshow on power measurement, from IEEE:
http://ieee.rackoneup.net/rrvs/13/fundpwrmea.pdf
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 01, 2018, 02:45:07 PM
You may want to review this PDF slideshow on power measurement, from IEEE:
http://ieee.rackoneup.net/rrvs/13/fundpwrmea.pdf
First of all, in this experiment the power is not measured by whole waveforms, so what at all has this to do with it?
This pdf is correct, but it is about something different. If you disagree and if you insist, i will talk directly to the IEEE guy, i'm sure he does understand.
But no matter what, you may notice even from that document, power is always P = V * I at any moment of time, this doesn't depend on what circuit or a part of it is measured.
If we measure power at an instant of time, then it's always P = V * I . If we don't measure power at an instant of time, but measure like the amplitude of a sine waveform instead, then we have to multiply it by cosine fii, this comes from the waveform, not that power is any different. And even when we measure sine waves, no matter what circuit or part of circuit we measure, no matter whether it contains coils or contains no coils, power is always measured the same way, not different when it is a coil or the circuit or a part of it contains a coil, as you insist. It is never said in that pdf either, that a different equipment or a method of measurement should be used depending whether the part of circuit measured contains a coil or not, read by yourself if you don't believe.
P = I * V is not correct if the current and voltage are not in phase.
Ayeaye it is very clear you have a great ability to write programs and make graphs. But unfortunately it is also very clear you lack some basic understandings about inductors. Every first year electronics student learns in the Elementary AC and DC class about ELI the ICE man. That is a little saying to help you remember the difference between an inductor and a capacitor. The ELI part stands for an inductor. That is what the L means. You can also see that the E (voltage) is before the I (current). That is because the voltage always leads the current in an inductor. In other words they are NEVER in phase in an active inductor. Therefore the formula P = I * V is incorrect. By active I mean while the current is changing. Once the inductor current reaches peak there is no more change and the inductor is then just a resistor.
In a capacitor the current leads the voltage and therefore we get the ICE part.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: citfta on October 01, 2018, 03:35:03 PM
P = I * V is not correct if the current and voltage are not in phase.
Holy cow, phase is only important when we measure a whole waveform, like when we measure the amplitude of a sine waveform and know that the form of the signal is a sine. But in this experiment we measure the power at every *instant* of time, during the waveform, not the whole waveform. And at every instant of time P = V * I , at every instant of time, this is not true like for the amplitude of the sine waveform during all its duration.
I know what you are talking about, i learned about it in the university too. But i didn't learn electrical engineering, i learned automatic control, and there is often important to do measurement at every instant of time, and do calculations from it. Say you regulate a dc power voltage, it can change in every kind of ways, sure you cannot measure power by sine or any waveform, this and everything else has to be calculated at every instant of time.
To show you how the power calculated from the amplitudes of sine, comes from the instantaneous power, let's calculate a power of a sine signal, with amplitude 1, so that the voltage and power are shifted by 20 degrees. Using the following bc script, you can try it. We calculate it during a time 10000 seconds, and then calculate the same for the sine waveforms by Vrms * Irms * cos(20 degrees) . The amplitude of both our voltage and current is 1, but by that equation both have to be root mean square, so it becomes rms * rms * cos(20 degrees) .
Quote
pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433
pi2 = 2 * pi
#20 degrees to radians
r20 = 20 / 360 * pi2
rms = 1 / sqrt(2)
energy = 0
for (t = 0; t < 10000; t += 0.1) {
current = s(t)
voltage = s(t + r20)
power = voltage * current
energy += power
}
energy *= 0.1
power = energy / 10000
print "Power when measured at instants of time: ", power, "\n"
power = rms * rms * c(r20)
print "Power when calculated from the amplitudes of sine: ", power, "\n"
quit
The output of that script is the following. As you see, the results are quite close, and the results become closer the longer is the time over which we calculate it.
Quote
Power when measured at instants of time: .46983333927318779782
Power when calculated from the amplitudes of sine: .4698463103929541\
9202
So as you see, the instantaneous P = V * I is correct, different from that said.
Carroll understands that _instantaneous_ multiplication of voltage times current is correct and remains true whatever the phase angle is between V and I. And that integration of the power waveform over time yields energy in Joules.
But you only have _one_ measurement, a voltage, not two. Are you saying that the measured voltage drop across the resistor (which is parallel to the inductor and remains so during the measurement) can be used for both V and I in the instantaneous multiplication?
Have you rebuilt and remeasured your circuit yet, so that we can interact to determine such things as proper settings of the baselines on your oscilloscope? Properly compensated probes? And etc.
Has anyone else been able to duplicate your OU results? Has anyone besides me even tried?
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 01, 2018, 06:47:52 PM
But you only have _one_ measurement, a voltage, not two. Are you saying that the measured voltage drop across the resistor (which is parallel to the inductor and remains so during the measurement) can be used for both V and I in the instantaneous multiplication?
I theoretically think that the voltage drop on the saturated transistor should be constant. So during the input part the voltage on R2 should be the power supply voltage, minus voltage on R3, minus the voltage drop on the saturated transistor. Which i chose to be 0.3 volts, as this is written on the c945 datasheet. And knowing that voltage, the current through R2 can be calculated. But i calculated it so only in the last code that i wrote, in my experiment i measured voltages both on R3 and R2.
F6FLT is trying using the copper tape coil, hope he writes the results.
This method is important, no matter whether overunity or not overunity, this is a general method to measure the energy efficiency of a coil.
PS The following is where one can try, like bc, online linux terminal. I tried copy and paste works, for pasting into it, right click the "Paste Here" below. I just did all the output calculation from above there. The trick is cat > file then paste, then press ctrl-z, creates file. then cat file | less views file end with q. > file sends output to file, < file takes input from file. All there is to it. Hehe, there is even python.
https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=https://bellard.org/jslinux/buildroot-x86.cfg (https://bellard.org/jslinux/vm.html?url=https://bellard.org/jslinux/buildroot-x86.cfg)
Can you discuss how your "coil efficiency" measurement relates to the more commonly used coil quality factor called Q which is the ratio of the inductive reactance to the resistance of the coil ? That is, it compares the energy reversibly stored in the coil, to the energy irretrievably lost to the system due to resistance, em radiation, etc.
I should think, at first guess, that an OU coil should have a very high Q at the frequency of interest.
https://www.radio-electronics.com/info/formulae/q-quality-factor/inductor-q.php (https://www.radio-electronics.com/info/formulae/q-quality-factor/inductor-q.php)
http://www.giangrandi.ch/electronics/ringdownq/ringdownq.shtml (http://www.giangrandi.ch/electronics/ringdownq/ringdownq.shtml)
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 01, 2018, 11:46:09 PM
Can you discuss how your "coil efficiency" measurement relates to the more commonly used coil quality factor called Q which is the ratio of the inductive reactance to the resistance of the coil ?
The way that it does not describe everything. This experiment, and doing calculations from the oscilloscope results, just shows everything about the coil. No abstraction shows everything.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 02, 2018, 12:06:43 AM
The way that it does not describe everything. This experiment, and doing calculations from the oscilloscope results, just shows everything about the coil. No abstraction shows everything.
No, Q is not an "abstraction", any more than is inductive reactance. It is a well defined parameter of coils, and I've given you links to an introduction to the concept and also one of many different experimental means of MEASURING the Q of a coil. Your experiment does not show "everything" about the coil at all. Your measurement does not yield the coil's self-inductance, its distributed capacitance, its self-resonant frequency, its reactance at the test frequency, etc. I'm not sure it is even a valid measurement of anything.
Once again, I ask you to discuss Q as it pertains to your particular coil, and what to expect in terms of Q for a coil that returns more energy than it is pulsed with initially.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 02, 2018, 01:46:24 AM
No, Q is not an "abstraction"
Yes it is abstraction, it doesn't stand for everything.
The DC resistance we already measured, it's so small that can be disregarded. Skin effect can be calculated too, and i think it's small. I don't know that there are significant eddy currents in the air core.
But ok, if Q is the only thing you are interested in, then you are not interested in this experiment.
This experiment is about researching the induction, not everything else as Q. Though this can be seen too. Induction is the phenomenon to research, and this experiment shows everything about induction.
But if this experiment is not what interests you, then don't do it. I just don't want to read the forum every morning just to see yet another post from you saying that you don't really like this experiment, this is not what interests me.
I want to know some other things from other people here. What equipment do you use to do experiments like this, what oscilloscope? Desktop DSO, USB, analog, things like DSO138? Two channels, one channel? I think DSO138 is too imprecise and not capable of necessary frequencies, but then i don't exclude anything. I don't see that anyone uses DSO138 though. Does it make sense for me to do it using analog oscilloscope, yes i can do it and it can be done precisely, though it's more work. But does anyone do it, is there any value to anyone to show how to do it with analog oscilloscope? All i have is an old analog oscilloscope, which is the cheapest option for experiments like this maybe, so should be affordable for everyone. It looks though that most use desktop digital oscilloscopes, so maybe i should have one, a cheapest one. I don't think though that i can afford one in any foreseeable future. Even the cheapest one like owon sds1022. It's like the cheapest usb oscilloscope owon vds1022, hardly ever more than 5 mhz, only made as a desktop oscilloscope, which is in several ways better. Rigol i think i cannot even dream about.
Like i saw one who showed one's experiment with a pancake coil here. I didn't really understand what this experiment was about, there was no circuit diagram or anything. But i noticed that one only had a multimeter. Better get an oscilloscope, even an old analog one, even DSO138 may be better than no oscilloscope. I saw another experiment of a pancake coil charging a battery, that had a very similar coil, was it yours? Like a coil with overunity should in theory be something like, you send a signal in, and instead of consuming the signal, it generates one. Were very interesting to see with oscilloscope what was going on there. Like to see whether this was really the case, the batteries are tricky, and especially when using sharp pulses. Like Bedini liked to do a lot, they generate surface charges, that is creating ions only near the electrodes. Which increase the voltage but don't contain much energy. When using batteries, they should also be discharged, measuring the energy. And slowly, not creating residue on the electrodes, and then also see for some time that their voltage doesn't increase. Something that Bedini completely omitted.
I got the figure below by the following when running gnuplot, it's rather tricky. I think you got an idea. One sure wants to find some simple plotting program, but this is what they often are. This is a verbatim copy from the TinselKoala's oscilloscope screen.
Quote
set xtics 20
set grid xtics lt 1 lw 2 lc rgb "#bbbbbb"
set grid ytics lt 1 lw 2 lc rgb "#bbbbbb"
plot "alllist.txt" with lines linewidth 3 linetype rgb "blue"
I have just started testing, no serious measurements (my "lab" is now a mess...).
The bifilar coil is made of two 30 m X 6 mm copper tapes (like these but with non conductive adhesive https://www.amazon.co.uk/UEETEK-Conductive-Soldering-Electrical-Grounding/dp/B0755BHTC5 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/UEETEK-Conductive-Soldering-Electrical-Grounding/dp/B0755BHTC5), separated by 30 m X 8 mm adhesive tapes https://www.amazon.co.uk/Double-CODIRATO-Strong-Adhesive-Craft（6/dp/B07FZ5KH6Y (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Double-CODIRATO-Strong-Adhesive-Craft%EF%BC%886/dp/B07FZ5KH6Y).
Inductance: 2x 0.76 mH, resistance : 2x 5.4 Ω, capacitance: 55 nF.
The first resonance is at 1.790 MHz, obviously it is the frequency corresponding to a quater wave length of 30 m which is the tape length, corrected by the velocity factor.
Next step when time permits...
Quote from: ayeaye on October 02, 2018, 09:00:00 AM
Yes it is abstraction, it doesn't stand for everything.
The DC resistance we already measured, it's so small that can be disregarded. Skin effect can be calculated too, and i think it's small. I don't know that there are significant eddy currents in the air core.
But ok, if Q is the only thing you are interested in, then you are not interested in this experiment.
This experiment is about researching the induction, not everything else as Q. Though this can be seen too. Induction is the phenomenon to research, and this experiment shows everything about induction.
But if this experiment is not what interests you, then don't do it. I just don't want to read the forum every morning just to see yet another post from you saying that you don't really like this experiment, this is not what interests me.
I want to know some other things from other people here. What equipment do you use to do experiments like this, what oscilloscope? Desktop DSO, USB, analog, things like DSO138? Two channels, one channel? I think DSO138 is too imprecise and not capable of necessary frequencies, but then i don't exclude anything. I don't see that anyone uses DSO138 though. Does it make sense for me to do it using analog oscilloscope, yes i can do it and it can be done precisely, though it's more work. But does anyone do it, is there any value to anyone to show how to do it with analog oscilloscope? All i have is an old analog oscilloscope, which is the cheapest option for experiments like this maybe, so should be affordable for everyone. It looks though that most use desktop digital oscilloscopes, so maybe i should have one, a cheapest one. I don't think though that i can afford one in any foreseeable future. Even the cheapest one like owon sds1022. It's like the cheapest usb oscilloscope owon vds1022, hardly ever more than 5 mhz, only made as a desktop oscilloscope, which is in several ways better. Rigol i think i cannot even dream about.
Like i saw one who showed one's experiment with a pancake coil here. I didn't really understand what this experiment was about, there was no circuit diagram or anything. But i noticed that one only had a multimeter. Better get an oscilloscope, even an old analog one, even DSO138 may be better than no oscilloscope. I saw another experiment of a pancake coil charging a battery, that had a very similar coil, was it yours? Like a coil with overunity should in theory be something like, you send a signal in, and instead of consuming the signal, it generates one. Were very interesting to see with oscilloscope what was going on there. Like to see whether this was really the case, the batteries are tricky, and especially when using sharp pulses. Like Bedini liked to do a lot, they generate surface charges, that is creating ions only near the electrodes. Which increase the voltage but don't contain much energy. When using batteries, they should also be discharged, measuring the energy. And slowly, not creating residue on the electrodes, and then also see for some time that their voltage doesn't increase. Something that Bedini completely omitted.
You should be a politician. You dodge the issues quite well and are clearly adept at generating lines of off-topic verbiage. I truly wonder: how many people reading here have gone through any of the lines of code you've posted?
I've asked you twice now, nicely, to discuss the issue of Q as it relates to "overunity" from a coil. You have no clue, it's obvious from your imitation of a politician.
You should be _thankful_ towards me and others like me, because without us you'd just be posting line after line of code that nobody reads or cares about.
You should also be aware of the errors introduced by your processing. You cannot have a result that is more precise than the _least precise_ value that goes into a calculation. I reminded you of this before and your response indicated that you don't actually understand the concept of significant digits and the issue of precision versus accuracy.
If you don't want to read my posts in this thread, you can always place me on your Ignore list. Only people who are interested in the truth need see my posts.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 03, 2018, 10:43:55 AM
I've asked you twice now, nicely, to discuss the issue of Q as it relates to "overunity" from a coil. You have no clue, it's obvious from your imitation of a politician.
Who is the politician here, me, or you who just tried to distract? It looks like that you project.
I discussed the issue of Q, i said i think the effects of dc resistance, skin effect and eddy currents are all likely relatively small. I don't say it's not important for overunity, but it's a side issue. Do you want to replace this research with the conventional Q measurements, ending and ditching it all together? If anything is a politics then that is. Ah yes, and accuracy of measurements, who denies the immense importance of it.
BTW this experiment is also discussed in that board
http://open-source-energy.org/?board=92.0 (http://open-source-energy.org/?board=92.0)
You mean that anomalous effect Tinsel ;-) ?
https://www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1956:an-anomalous-coupling-mode-supports-wide-band-rf-pulses-in-a-high-q-narrow-band-resonator&catid=161&Itemid=189
I hope you will at least agree that the turn-off time of the transistor is critical. The faster turnoff the better, right? This is how we maximize the return pulse from a coil, by cutting off the energizing power as rapidly as possible.
It turns out that the 2sc945 is really slow to turn off in the unmodified circuit. Below behold some scope traces. Yes, I've spent another afternoon on this project, while still waiting for AyeAye to reproduce his circuit and scopetraces so we can engage in some interactive testing.
First trace below is the unmodified circuit with the 2sc945 transistor. The blue trace is the Vce, collector voltage with respect to emitter. When this trace is High the transistor is Off. The yellow trace is the signal from the FG to the base of the transistor. You can clearly see the turnoff delay and the rise time of the collector voltage.
Second trace below is the circuit modified with a 1k pulldown resistor between the transistor base and emitter, still using the 2sc945 transistor.
Third trace below is circuit with 1k pulldown but transistor is now MPSH10. This is a _much_ better result in terms of turnoff delay and rise time, and results in a larger coil return pulse when the circuit is tested as originally specified.
(I'm a political man, but I practice what I preach...)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOPDzD_P9gg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOPDzD_P9gg)
Thank you TinselKoala, we will go ahead.
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 03, 2018, 07:20:43 PM
It turns out that the 2sc945 is really slow to turn off in the unmodified circuit. Below behold some scope traces.
Yes, i noticed that myself, the long delay of c945 switching off is actually very weird. MPSH10 is certainly better, mostly because the slope is much sharper.
With oscilloscope i measured that my power supply voltage is 11.6 V, and it remains consant all the time.
It is actually not easy to take the analog oscilloscope screen images, as seen on the figure below, this is almost the best one can get. And yes, the brightness of traces is decreased for them to be sharper, yet this is all one can get. With a web cam, one may get some better images with some special cam perhaps.
My 555 timer somehow doesn't work any more, Arduino is the only other thing i got, so i'm now using that instead. And yes, i'm using it the way that it always stays connected to the computer, so i can always change the frequency and duty cycle from the terminal on the computer. It is not good to connect the circuit ground to the computer ground, but with the R2 resistor 1k, it is completely safe. But one should be very careful with it, and otherwise use Arduino with potentiometers and not connected to the usb or such, as they often do.
This screen image is of the voltage on the collector of the transistor, oscilloscope ground there is the circuit ground, the frequency was 100 kHz, duty cycle was 30%, time scale was 1 us and y scale was 2 V.
As you can see, the voltage on the open transistor starts almost from 0.8 V, and then drops to 0.4 V. By the c945 datasheet, the maximum voltage on the saturated transistor is 0.3 V, so maybe the transistor was not fully open.
Based on the above, i think that one can consider that the voltage on the open transistor was 0.6 V, and that it is always constant when the transistor is open. Thus my last scripts that were written assuming that the voltage on the open transistor is constant, can be used, and only the voltage on R3 should be measured with the oscilloscope. Except that i considered there that the voltage on the open transistor is 0.3 V, as it should be on the saturated transistor according to the c945 datasheet, this should be replaced with 0.6 V.
This makes the measurements also more precise, as R2 is relatively large, and a small change of voltage on it does change a lot. But calculating the input part instead from the power supply voltage, the voltage drop 0.6 V on the transistor, and the voltage on R3, is quite precise. Not to talk about measuring two traces instead of one, which even on digital oscilloscopes where waveform data can be taken from the oscilloscope, may cause some error of measurement or calculations.
Photographing an oscilloscope screen does take some practice. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
Here's one important thing: If you are photographing for quantitative purposes, you _must_ indicate where the channel baseline is on the screen. That is, you have to switch the channel input coupling to "ground" for a moment to show exactly where the channel's baseline is set, before turning the input coupling back to DC (or rarely AC) to make your measurement photo. Otherwise nobody knows where you are measuring from.
The scopeshot below is just a miscellaneous one from my files, showing stable display of two unrelated frequencies. I think the graticule and trace are clear enough for precise quantitative work, even though this image isn't intended for that (which is why I didn't bother to indicate baselines).
I now changed the transistor's base resistor, R1, from 1k to 560 ohms. This looks like right for Arduino and 5 V, for ne555 and 12 V, 1k is likely still right.
As you see on the figure below, with that resistor the voltage on the collector of the open transistor starts from almost 0.3 V, goes to almost 0.1 V, and then back to 0.3 V. As 0.3 V is the maximum voltage on the saturated c945, then this means that with that resistor the transistor was fully open.
The figure below is the same as the figure in my previous post, except that the time scale is 0.5 us, y scale is still 2 V. I tried to increase the y scale, but it didn't trigger then.
Yes, the ground was aligned with the central x axis, and the left edge of it exactly with the first vertical grid line on the figure below.
So now i think that 0.2 V in the script (or spreadsheet) as the voltage on the open transistor, is almost correct, the difference is then never more than 0.1 V, which is not more than 1% of the voltage on R2.
I just showed that the voltage on the open transistor doesn't change much, thus for this experiment only one channel, channel 1, should be measured, there is thus no need to measure two channels.
Ayeaye,
You keep using a term that drives me crazy when talking about transistor operation. When a transistor is turned fully on it is saturated as you have correctly written. However the term open is very confusing. Most novices use that term when talking about transistors. BUT some of them mean the transistor is open like a switch or in other words turned OFF. And some of them use the term open to mean open like a valve or in other words turned ON. I just read a few articles online and easily found both uses of the term open when talking about transistors. And I also found some articles where they used the term closed to mean a transistor was either on or off.
In the real world of electronics the term open refers to a bad transistor that has one or more of the internal junctions blown open, usually by an overvoltage or overcurrent condition. The proper terms for talking about transistors is either on or off or in the active region. Using those terms there can be no confusion as to what you mean.
Respectfully,
Carroll
I see. When i said that the transistor is open, i meant that the transistor is conducting. I will from now on say that the transistor is conducting instead of open, as this is the only word i know to substitute.
The following is only for these who have analog scopes. All here seem to be advanced people, and all seem to use digital desktop oscilloscopes, signal generators and everything. All i have though is analog oscilloscope.
Ok, make it simple, and make it much more flexible. This vector format, what concerns the oscilloscopes, all they seem to use is samples, so let's ditch the vector data completely. Inkscape though is the best thing to draw with, and the only thing to do it in any conceivable way. So just write a script that converts Inkscape path to sample list. So that this is all it does. Which means that it assumes that there is only one path in the svg file, which means that there should be separate svg files for creating the input list and output list. This also means that the output list is not inverted, thus this should be done later in the calculations.
An example calculation in script, with Y scale initially given in V, and X scale initially given in us. In calculations mV and ns are used, hence multiplying by 1000. The grid scale being 20 units means dividing that by 20. In digital oscilloscopes one should instead consider how many samples are in a time scale (in Rigol i guess it is 50) and how many units are in Y scale (when the sample length is 256 then may be maximum 32, but that is only a guess. one should know that exactly).
Quote
XU *= 1000 / 20
YU *= 1000 / 20
This is a very flexible method. All this script really does, is converting Inkscape path to sample list. No matter for what these sample lists may be used for. It' may even be useful for some other purposes, than drawing the oscilloscope traces.
Most importantly, the path always has to start from x = 0, y = 0, that is, the coordinates of the first point in the path are considered to be coordinates of the x axis and the initial x. It can end anywhere and usually not on the x axis. The script simply ignores the coordinates of the first point of the path, and considers them to be (0, 0). It is a very simple script.
I like to create a grid 1 unit in a square, and 20 squares in a big square, this is precise enough and higher precision is rather insane. But it doesn't really matter, this script always creates a sample list from the path, always. One big square represents one oscilloscope scale, and the number of units in it should be included in the calculation script or in the calculation spreadsheet, as the number of units in the x scale and y scale.
First in the document properties, select snap to grid only closer than, then move the slider below to the leftmost position. This enables to easily align the grid of the imported oscilloscope screen image with the drawing grid. When it's aligned, don't forget to check snap always before starting to draw the path, not doing so may cause a lot of trouble and weird results.
After creating the input and output lists with the following script, one can go ahead and calculate the input and output power with the same scripts or spreadsheets that are used for calculations for digital scopes.
Quote
import sys
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = str.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(str)
return int(float(str[begin:pos]))
str = ""
for s in sys.stdin:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
str = s[begin : end]
pos = 0
list = []
next(",")
next(" ")
list.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
while (True):
x = list[-1][0] + next(",")
y = list[-1][1] - next(" ")
list[-1][2] = x
list[-1][3] = y
if (pos == len(str)): break
list.append([x, y, 0, 0])
n = 0
for j in range(list[-1][2]):
while (j >= list[n][2]): n += 1
lx = list[n][2] - list[n][0]
ly = list[n][3] - list[n][1]
ratio = float(j - list[n][0]) / lx
if (j): print list[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio))
What concerns code, the following (input and output), and that in the previous post, is all the code that i ever use for this. I use python, but one can use whatever else.
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.2
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 987.2
R3 = 99.91
#Voltages of power and collector in V
V = 11.6
VC = 0.2
#Frequency in kHz
F = 50.0
#Scale is 20 units
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
V *= 1000
VC *= 1000
F *= 1000
XU *= 1000 / 20
YU *= 1000 / 20
e = 0.0
for s in sys.stdin:
if (s.strip() == ""): continue
vlr = int(s) * YU
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
ilr = (V - VC - vlr) / R2
plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Input power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
Quote
import sys
#Time scale in us
XU = 2.0
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.2
#Resistor 3 resistance in ohms
R3 = 99.91
#Frequency in kHz
F = 50.0
#Scale is 20 units
#In calculations XU and YU are in ns and mV for unit
#Voltages are in mV and frequency is in Hz
F *= 1000
XU *= 1000 / 20
YU *= 1000 / 20
e = 0.0
for s in sys.stdin:
if (s.strip() == ""): continue
vlr = -1 * int(s) * YU
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Output power was %.3f uW" % (F * e))
On the figure below, is the collector voltage (relative to the circuit ground) when the transistor is conducting. With the voltage scale even less, the oscilloscope started to distort the waveform. My oscilloscope is 20 MHz Hitachi V-222, and it was calibrated by every detail of the manual.
The frequency was 50 kHz, the duty cycle was 10%, voltage scale was 0.5 V, time scale was 0.5 us, base resistor R1 was 560 ohms, Arduino was used as the signal generator, the power supply voltage was 11.6 V. It was aligned with the ground before measuring DC, the ground was on the central X axis on the screen.
It was the most precise measurement that i can make of the collector voltage. It appears to be even less than the previous less precise measurement. As it can be seen, It starts from almost 0.2 V, then goes to 0.1 V, and then goes back to 0.2 V. In the calculations thus it should better considered to be 0.15 V, instead of 0.2 V as i suggested earlier. The difference will be never greater than 0.05 V, which is small enough to measure only one channel as i said, with no significant imprecision.
About drawing the analog oscilloscope screen images with Inkscape, it may sound weird but it appears to be the most precise method. The drawn images can be compared to the original, to estimate any imprecision. It is likely more precise than weighing paper, as TinselKoala suggested, as drawing on the paper is less precise, it can be drawn with great zoom in Inkscape. With high enough resolution, the precision is great enough. What concerns extracting the samples directly from the images, the traces there look something like a cloud, i see no way to do it with any precision. The digital scope screen images are better, as they are digitally made, i have done that here. But even there, the traces are rendered and antialiased, so the result is not precise enough. What concerns the Inkscape script, it should be the following.
Quote
import sys
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = str.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(str)
return int(round(float(str[begin : pos])))
str = ""
for s in sys.stdin:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
str = s[begin : end]
pos = 0
list = []
next(",")
next(" ")
list.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
while (True):
x = list[-1][0] + next(",")
y = list[-1][1] - next(" ")
list[-1][2] = x
list[-1][3] = y
if (pos == len(str)): break
list.append([x, y, 0, 0])
n = 0
for j in range(list[-1][2]):
while (j >= list[n][2]): n += 1
lx = list[n][2] - list[n][0]
ly = list[n][3] - list[n][1]
ratio = float(j - list[n][0]) / lx
if (j): print list[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio))
As i just noticed, that Inkscape once wrote there something like 94.998 instead of 95. In spite that when it always snaps to grid, all numbers in the path except the first two, must be integers. That one wasn't, this must be a bug kind of. Why always snap to grid, because in the path, for every point there is written the difference from the previous point. When the path is long, adding the float numbers will every time be a bit inexact, but adding integers is always exact. Make the grid as small as you like, but always snap to grid.
Say that we call it svgtolist.py, we paste the text from above into eg worpad, then save it with that name. We can run it on the command line like the following. It reads the standard input and writes to the standard output as such simple scripts do. We can provide a file as an input such as mypath.svg, that was written with Inkscape, with <, and we can provide a file where the output goes with >, like list.txt. Works in linux and in windows cmd console. In ide-s there are other ways to provide input and output, by copying or providing file names somewhere.
Quote
python svgtolist.py < mypath.svg > list.txt
I continue to struggle with the Inkscape script, i cannot make it perfect, i don't know how Inkscape really does things and i don't have all the time in the world to find out, i just hope that i can make it usable.
In the following version of the Inkscape script i simply made the added x absolute. As i encountered a case where the change of x was negative, and the biggest problem was that i couldn't figure out when it is negative, as both times the beginning x coordinate of the path was negative. Inkscape also did other weird things, like i added a segment to the beginning. Joining the nodes of the segment and the path should merge all into one path, which it did, but the problem, the beginning segment was still missing in the path in the svg file. What was the reason for that, i yet cannot figure.
Quote
import sys
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = str.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(str)
return int(round(float(str[begin : pos])))
str = ""
for s in sys.stdin:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
str = s[begin : end]
pos = 0
list = []
next(",")
next(" ")
list.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
while (True):
x = list[-1][0] + abs(next(","))
y = list[-1][1] - next(" ")
list[-1][2] = x
list[-1][3] = y
if (pos == len(str)): break
list.append([x, y, 0, 0])
n = 0
for j in range(list[-1][2]):
while (j >= list[n][2]): n += 1
lx = list[n][2] - list[n][0]
ly = list[n][3] - list[n][1]
ratio = float(j - list[n][0]) / lx
if (j): print list[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio))
On the figure below is the plot of the collector voltage from above. The oscilloscope screen image was drawn with Inkscape with 50 units in a big square, converted to samples with the script above, and the list of samples was then plotted. As the scale was 50 units and considering the oscilloscope scale, 10 units there correspond to 0.1 V. The following are the gnuplot commands to plot this, collector.txt is the file that contains the output of the Inkscape script, sample list.
Quote
set xtics 10
set ytics 1
set grid xtics lt 1 lw 2 lc "gray"
set grid ytics lt 1 lw 2 lc "gray"
set yrange [0 : 40]
plot "collector.txt" w l lw 3 lc "blue"
You could check for one type of oscilloscope artifact (DC bias offset) by inverting the channel display on the oscilloscope and then running your analysis on that inversion. Your normal trace has the input pulse above the baseline and the return pulse below the baseline. Inverting the channel will put the return pulse above and the input pulse below the channel baseline. If your effect is not the result of a scope channel DC bias offset, the output pulse may still be larger than the input pulse even when their positions relative to the baseline have flipped. On the other hand if the "OU" does not survive channel inversion.... well, we may have learned something about oscilloscopes and measurements.
Quote
You could check for one type of oscilloscope artifact (DC bias offset) by inverting the channel display on the oscilloscope and then running your analysis on that inversion.
I don't quite understand what do you mean, if i invert something, then i also invert that in the calculations.
You should understand simple code, there is really not much in it to understand. You may ask questions, i will answer. I'm not the best coder in the world, but things like that i certainly can do, and i think everyone can when learning a bit. I don't think it's good to add comments to every line of code, because then one cannot really see what the code does. Also i have no idea what one doesn't understand, so i don't know what to explain. But as you wanted a commented code, that is the following.
Quote
import sys
#Return next number, ending with the separator
def next(separator):
#pos can be changed in this function
global pos
begin = pos + 1
#Find the separator, starting from begin
pos = str.find(separator, begin)
#If not found, then that's the last number
if (pos == -1): pos = len(str)
#Return the number as int from rounded float
return int(round(float(str[begin : pos])))
str = ""
#Iterate through the input, every line will be in the string s
for s in sys.stdin:
#Find the start of the path
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
#If not found, go to the next iteration
if (begin == -1): continue
#Find the beginning of the sequence of pairs
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
#Find the quotation mark that ends the sequence
end = s.find("\"", begin)
#Assign the found sequence to the string str
str = s[begin : end]
#The index of the current character in str
pos = 0
#Create the list of segments
list = []
#Ignore the first pair
next(",")
next(" ")
#Make the start of the path to be (0, 0)
list.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
#Iterate through the sequence in str
while (True):
#Add the change to the last x and y
x = list[-1][0] + abs(next(","))
y = list[-1][1] - next(" ")
#Assign them as the end coordinates of the segment
list[-1][2] = x
list[-1][3] = y
#When the end of the string was reached, don't continue
if (pos == len(str)): break
#Add next segment, with last x and y as start coordinates
list.append([x, y, 0, 0])
#The index of the segment in the segment list
n = 0
#Iterate through the segments, ending with the last x
for j in range(list[-1][2]):
#While the iterator is last x or more, go to next segment
while (j >= list[n][2]): n += 1
#The x and y length of the segment
lx = list[n][2] - list[n][0]
ly = list[n][3] - list[n][1]
#The ratio of the current position to the x length
ratio = float(j - list[n][0]) / lx
#Output the start y, adding length corresponding to ratio
if (j): print list[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio))
The Inkscape script above run in the ideone online compiler
https://ideone.com/UGNXl1 (https://ideone.com/UGNXl1)
QuoteI don't quite understand what do you mean, if i invert something, then i also invert that in the calculations.
Really? You don't understand? That indicates two things to me: First, you don't understand the kinds of errors that oscilloscopes can suffer, and second, you don't understand how to do control experiments to check whether you are suffering from systematic experimental errors, like BUT NOT LIMITED TO improper use and understanding of your test equipment.
Let's say you have two weights that you need to compare, and your only measurement tool is a two-pan balance scale. So you put weight A on the left pan and you put weight B on the right pan, and sure enough, the scale deflects with weight A being lower than weight B. Do you immediately conclude that A is heavier.... OR DO YOU DO THE CONTROL EXPERIMENT of swapping positions and putting A on the RIGHT pan and B on the LEFT pan to see if the "heaviness" follows the A weight or stays on the same side with the SCALE itself being out of kilter some how....?
Do you get it now?
Quote from: TinselKoala on October 09, 2018, 04:38:51 PM
Let's say you have two weights that you need to compare, and your only measurement tool is a two-pan balance scale. So you put weight A on the left pan and you put weight B on the right pan, and sure enough, the scale deflects with weight A being lower than weight B. Do you immediately conclude that A is heavier.... OR DO YOU DO THE CONTROL EXPERIMENT of swapping positions and putting A on the RIGHT pan and B on the LEFT pan to see if the "heaviness" follows the A weight or stays on the same side with the SCALE itself being out of kilter some how....?
With weights yes. With oscilloscope... Sure what goes through the different circuits there, can be different, though it mostly isn't. I calibrated my oscilloscope to the inverted channels too, as much as i remember. Or then was it written in the manual, i did everything written in the manual.
But about programming. It should really not be an unsurmountable obstacle to take samples from the oscilloscope and write some simple code to do calculations from these. The results of these calculations can be trusted too, they are reality, telling what really is there. Or it can be found out how much they correspond to the reality. More than that, when taking samples from the oscilloscope, it's more precise, as samples are precise.
Even with an analog oscilloscope, like look at the screen image of the collector voltage above, you cannot very exactly see where it goes, right? But after drawing it with Inkscape on the image of the oscilloscope screen, and plotting the obtained samples, one can easily see the particular values of the voltage.
Like as my mathematics teacher once told, computer is a tool of perception And this is what it really is, computer is for modeling reality.
What concerns all kind of finding an area, etc, this is making simpler the things that don't need to be made simpler. As when there are samples, it's not difficult to do all kind of calculations from these, area is the most trivial.
The following are scripts that calculate from lists, also put in ideone. With i don't know what lists, just that you can see that it works. There is unfortunately no other way, that i know, to change the code, than to go to main page, and paste the code and input again. Not really the best, certainly not for python, but it is most widely used. Why so, it's more like a paste board for code, that then runs it too.
Input.
https://ideone.com/KpnQoU (https://ideone.com/KpnQoU)
Output.
https://ideone.com/gZVrj5 (https://ideone.com/gZVrj5)
Is it really so complicated? Like run the following in ideone. Write any sequence of numbers in stdin, run it, and in stdout will be all these numbers multiplied by 1.2. In that case no lines in stdin should be empty, including the last one. In every iteration, the string s is the next line in the standard input, and float(s) converts it to a floating point number. If there is something that can be converted to a number. There must be : after the for statement, and say 4 spaces before every statement in the loop. Assigning like 0.0 to variable, creates a floating point variable. Then it should be no problem to do any calculations from the list. import sys imports the sys module, to read the standard input. That's all.
Quote
import sys
a = 1.2
for s in sys.stdin:
print(float(s) * a)
There is also a python interactive shell, at the following link. Code can be pasted there. I tried the input script, it worked when i pasted all bout the last two sentences, and pressed enter. Then pasted the list, then pressed ctrl-d, this ends the input. Then pasted the last two statements, and got the right result. It's very nice to play, to learn python.
https://www.python.org/shell (https://www.python.org/shell)
One small problem that i encountered, some versions of python require parentheses after print, some don't. So the Inkscape script should better be the following for it to work with all versions.
Quote
import sys
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = str.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(str)
return int(round(float(str[begin : pos])))
str = ""
for s in sys.stdin:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
str = s[begin : end]
pos = 0
list = []
next(",")
next(" ")
list.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
while (True):
x = list[-1][0] + abs(next(","))
y = list[-1][1] - next(" ")
list[-1][2] = x
list[-1][3] = y
if (pos == len(str)): break
list.append([x, y, 0, 0])
n = 0
for j in range(list[-1][2]):
while (j >= list[n][2]): n += 1
lx = list[n][2] - list[n][0]
ly = list[n][3] - list[n][1]
ratio = float(j - list[n][0]) / lx
if (j): print(list[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio)))
I played with online shells, in the python shell i had to right click at the bottom right and select open frame in the new tab, as otherwise in my browser the last line was rather half. There are other shells like the following, and all worked for me.
https://trinket.io/console (https://trinket.io/console)
There is also the following online compiler that also enables to edit code. It is perhaps the best onine compiler, but rather difficult to use.
https://repl.it (https://repl.it)
Python, some say no, spreadsheet. I showed before that spreadsheets are not precise enough when many numbers need to be calculated and added. Sometimes they may be good enough. But that spreadsheets are overall good for electronics calculations, i don't quite agree, but opinions may vary.
I think i now told everything. For this experiment it's necessary to somehow calculate power from samples for the input part and output part. Thus all the python scripts and such. No matter what one prefers for that. I hope that i at least provided enough information to show what calculations have to be done, and how to do them. I think that i have nothing more to say, ask if anything is not clear.
No, i'm sorry, the trinket shell doesn't work when pasting the scripts. The python.org one however does. Go to the following link.
https://www.python.org (https://www.python.org)
And there click on the > in the big yellow square. This launches the interactive shell. And when doing it like that, the last line was not half in my browser, it worked fine.
You cannot paste code beyond the for loop that reads the standard input. You can paste up to and including that loop and then press enter, this indicates that you entered the loop, and it will be executed. Then paste the input, then press ctrl-d, this ends the input. Then paste the rest of the code, it will be executed right away, and the result will be printed. One can even run the Inkscape script in that way, pasting all the content of the svg file. In the input loop it just finds that string of the path. You can write print(str) and see that it's there. Then paste the rest of the code, and it will output the list made from that string.
There is Trinket online compiler that enables editing. A text file can be created there, it is not so good though that it cannot be used as standard input. So to solve that, name that file always input.txt, and it is used the same as input. The following are the scripts in there, and they can be run and edited.
Inkscape.
https://trinket.io/python/bcebcac99c (https://trinket.io/python/bcebcac99c)
Input part.
https://trinket.io/python/3b8301221e (https://trinket.io/python/3b8301221e)
Output part.
https://trinket.io/python/249128ab54 (https://trinket.io/python/249128ab54)
PS Rigol DS1052E has seemingly in its samples 25 units in one y scale and 50 samples ("points") in one time scale. In run mode it gives 600 samples that should correspond to one screen https://rigol.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2269119-how-do-i-format-the-data-returned-from-a-ds1000e-d-series-scope- (https://rigol.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2269119-how-do-i-format-the-data-returned-from-a-ds1000e-d-series-scope-) . This can be tested. There the raw value is subtracted from 240, then the value corresponding to the center of the screen is subtracted.
The inherent error of Rigol DS1052E is by that +/- 2% of the voltage scale. Which is two times more than the error of the analog oscilloscope like mine, by its calibration requirements. By the specifications the precision of my oscilloscope is +/- 3%, but this doesn't correspond to the rest of data, and is thus likely artificially too low, as i said.
When the traces of the analog oscilloscope are drawn with 50 units per scale, and it's done correctly, then it's thus twice the precision of Rigol, and most of the error doesn't come from the method, but from the oscilloscope. But overall one can get the Rigol precision +/- 2% of the scale, when getting samples with that method.
To estimate the error thus, calculate the input part with 2% of the voltage scale added, and the output part with 2% of the voltage scale subtracted from all samples (points). The efficiency that there is by calculating in that way, is the minimal efficiency there is considering the errors. Based on what i can say from what i know so far.
Which is one more reason i think to get the waveform data out of the oscilloscope and do calculations from that. I don't have much idea how any calculations the oscilloscope itself may do, can be altered in that way. The other reason being that about the calculations that the oscilloscope does, it is likely not known how these calculations are exactly done, and thus their possible error cannot be estimated.
I'm sorry, reading things here, get some new ideas. Or just to explain. TinselKoala thought that a coil, and a capacitor in parallel with it or something, is an equivalent of a bifilar coil that has capacitance. This is certainly not the equivalent, one thing it has not twice the inductance of the ordinary coil, as a bifilar coil has.
But i thought, what may be closer to an equivalent, is. Add capacitors between the windings, in several places of the coil. Like, the coil has the radius 100 mm, one capacitor between the bifilar windings for every 10 mm of the radius, that is, one 10 mm from the center, other 20 mm from the center, etc. Then the current doesn't have long way to go to the nearest capacitor, and maybe not so much lenz effect. That way bifilar coils can be made with a great capacitance between the windings, that cannot otherwise be made an all.
Just an idea that came to my mind, when reading some things. Don't judge me, i have not analyzed that idea, not tested, don't know whether it's right or any good. Just got an idea and put it out.
Yes, Trinket is a good online Python. Very easy to change both the code and the input data, all in one place, nothing else really provides that. Except spreadsheet, yes spreadsheet, spreadsheet is not good for all calculations.
https://trinket.io/python/403945f28d (https://trinket.io/python/403945f28d)
https://trinket.io/python (https://trinket.io/python)
I created a thread about it here.
https://overunity.com/17949/python-online-compiler (https://overunity.com/17949/python-online-compiler)
When you get the waveform data out of the oscilloscope somehow, then i may help to convert it and do any calculations from it.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 13, 2018, 08:04:52 PM
I'm sorry, reading things here, get some new ideas. Or just to explain. TinselKoala thought that a coil, and a capacitor in parallel with it or something, is an equivalent of a bifilar coil that has capacitance. This is certainly not the equivalent, one thing it has not twice the inductance of the ordinary coil, as a bifilar coil has.
...
I think this TinselKoala's view of the bifilar coil is right in the quasi-stationary states approximation. We only have a resonant classical LC circuit.
But when the length of the coil if of the same order as the wavelength of the signal frequencies, stranger things begin to appear.
It doesn't matter the coil is monofilar or bifilar, only wire length and capacity matters: the coil becomes a transmission line BUT a signal can pass through the coil diametrically, through the inter-turn capacity, and we have a possible overlap of the two phenomena.
The coil in the photo is monofilar, it is connected to nothing but weakly coupled by induction to two turns of the red wire that can be seen, which is connected to a signal generator. Its resonance frequency is about 1.5 MHz and rather sharp.
By injecting the signal directly into the external end of the coil, not by induction, the resonance is at approximately the same frequency.
According to a measurement of a second coil of 55nF, bifilar this one, with copper strips 5 mm width, I estimate the capacitance of the first one in the photo, 1.5 cm width and tighter turns, to be more than 200nF.
With such a capacity associated with such an inductance, it is impossible to get a resonance at 1.5 MHz but only at a few KHz or tens of KHz. The resonance is therefore not related to the LCω² product.
To set things straight, I wanted to measure the transmission time. I injected a 16 ns pulse into the outer end of the coil (not in the photo). I connected the inner end to the ground with a 47 ohm resistor at the terminals of which I observed the output signal. The pulse repetition frequency was only 1 KHz so that possible echoes from one pulse do not interfere with the next.
To my great surprise, I didn't notice any delay! On the scope screenshot (20 ns/div), you can see that the pulse passes directly through the coil: the output is activated almost simultaneously with the input, and we see that the effect is capacitive thanks to the negative value of the output during the falling edge of the pulse. More surprisingly we don't see any other signals, no delayed pulses.
The coil length is 30 m. The quarter wavelength at 1.5 MHz is 50m. With a coefficient of velocity of 0.6, the coil length fits a quarter length resonance. It remains a pure speculation because the coefficient of velocity is strangely low and also because I don't observe echoes when I use pulses!
I think we need to clarify these elementary effects of a capacitive coil before we go further. For me it's really unclear, and yet I'm familiar with RF devices.
So it acts as a capacitor? But the oscillation in the end is because of coil?
My interpretation: it's like a RC circuit, C being the capacity of the coil and R the terminal load where we take the output signal. There is a slight delay due to the circuit time constant t=RC.
Since the capacitor is in parallel with the coil, the resistance of the coil discharges the capacitor.
As a first result, the falling edge of the input pulse causes the output pulse to drop below zero because at the time of the drop, the capacitor was already no longer charged to the maximum value required by the upper level of the input pulse.
As a second result, after the lowest point, which is a negative potential while the input pulse is always positive, the discharge of the capacitor causes the signal to return to zero after the end of the input pulse, and I suppose that it is the part of the signal that you see as an "oscillation".
I think that the weirdness come from the fact that we have a special transmission line: like a transmission line it has a distributed inductance and capacitance, but unlike a real transmission line, the capacitance is instantly linking all "section" of the line together.
I'm not sure at all of what I said. May be I'm wrong. Other interpretations are welcome.
The fact that I don't see a pulse delayed by the time needed to move along the line and yet by using a sinusoidal signal, I get a resonance at a frequency without any relation to the LC time constant is very annoying!
Hi F6FLT,
Would you clarify little more precisely how you connected the bifilar (copper strip) coil? Are the other two ends
of the coil left floating independently or they are connected together and left floating?
From your measurements, if I understood it correctly, could it be deduced that your bifilar coil as you connected it
behaves like a series LC circuit (at 1.5 MHz) resonance?
I mean as if a series (lumped) LC is driven at one end from the "hot" output of a generator and its other end is
connected to a 47 Ohm resistor across which your scope probe is connected and the ground of the generator is
connected to the cold end of the 47 Ohm (and to the ground of the scope of course).
Thanks,
Gyula
Gyulasun, as much as i understand, this was, a pulse from the signal generator, through the coil, there was a resistor in series with the coil, and the voltage was measured on that resistor. Like on the figure below i guess. So it seems to be, like resistance was charged, then when the pulse ended, it discharged. But i'm not sure whether i understood rightly. What i asked was, in the end of the negative part of the signal, there is some ringing, waving or such, i ask whether this was caused by the coil.
Traces of the F6FLT experiment drawn with Inkscape, and converted to samples. 50 units per square (scale), the drawing precision is great enough.
ch 1
https://trinket.io/python/69a421854d (https://trinket.io/python/69a421854d)
ch 2
https://trinket.io/python/61f11be8fe (https://trinket.io/python/61f11be8fe)
On the next figures are the gnuplot plots of ch1, input part and output part.
F6FLT, what were the scales of ch 1 and ch 2 on your traces? I assumed 5 V and 0.2 V but i couldn't really read it from your screen image.
With that not right the calculations below are not correct at all. So below are the obviously absurd results with the assumed scale values.
Calculation of the input part and its output.
https://trinket.io/python/4d26084a5b (https://trinket.io/python/4d26084a5b)
Quote
Input power was 21.5164 uW
Calculation of the output part and its output.
https://trinket.io/python/ea65242ecf (https://trinket.io/python/ea65242ecf)
Quote
Output power was 0.0097 uW
It may be simpler to do it in that way in some respect, but only the signal generator output can take it, a ttl output cannot take it, thus the need for transistor. If one has no signal generator. But calculations are more complicated, and there is a need to measure two channels, which greatly increases the error, so doing it with transistor is clearly better.
Make the resistor much greater maybe, perhaps you waste so much power.
Please if you want to change the Trinket Python scripts above, make first your own fork, that is, get a different link, go there, and then change it there, but make sure that the link is different, don't change the script at the original link please.
Just in case i just write here the actual calculation parts when using the circuit below. For calculating input, two input files were used, for ch 1 and ch 2 lists. Assume that v is the voltage on the output of the signal generator, vl is the voltage on the coil, vr voltage on the resistor, pl power in the coil, and pr power in the resistor, R is the resistance of the resistor (in ohms), and e is the sum of powers at the instants of time. Voltages are in mV, thus dividing by 1000 when calculating power, to get mW.
Input power calculation.
Quote
vl = v - vr
il = vl / R
pl = vl * il / 1000
e += pl
Output power calculation.
Quote
pr = vr * vr / R / 1000
e += pr
Quote from: gyulasun on October 14, 2018, 04:43:57 PM
...
Would you clarify little more precisely how you connected the bifilar (copper strip) coil? Are the other two ends
of the coil left floating independently or they are connected together and left floating?
From your measurements, if I understood it correctly, could it be deduced that your bifilar coil as you connected it
behaves like a series LC circuit (at 1.5 MHz) resonance?
I mean as if a series (lumped) LC is driven at one end from the "hot" output of a generator and its other end is
connected to a 47 Ohm resistor across which your scope probe is connected and the ground of the generator is
connected to the cold end of the 47 Ohm (and to the ground of the scope of course).
...
Hi Gyula,
It's not a bifilar coil but monofilar. My first tests were made with a bifilar coil that gave bizarre results, so I simplified for a monofilar coil (that gives the same bizarre results).
My method is to go towards the most elementary phenomena with the simplest possible configuration. Now I just want to qualify the properties of a coil having a very high distributed capacity (> 200 nF for mine, like this one but wider : https://www.amazon.co.uk/6mmx30-Copper-Horse-Irmband-Adhesive/dp/B016Y58PPG/ref=sr_1_5 ).
All your other considerations are perfectly correct. I use the schema given above by ayeaye.
My main question is: why is there a resonance at 1.5 MHz while L and C are obviously too big values to reach this frequency?
(It's may be interesting to know that with my bifilar coil of same length, which was 0.6 cm wide instead of 1.5 cm for the monofilar and not so tight turns, the resonance frequency was 2.3 MHz when both wires are not connected together and no resonance when in series).
Hi F6FLT,
QuoteMy main question is: why is there a resonance at 1.5 MHz while L and C are obviously too big values to reach this frequency?
Why do you think L is to big here? Did you measure it? What was the value?
According to http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm , the inductance at 1.5Mhz with 200nF is 0.056uH (56nH).
According to https://www.emisoftware.com/calculator/stripline/ , the biplanar inductance of a stripline
with Width=15mm, seperation=1mil and length=30m is 6.384e-8H = 0.06348uH = 63.48nH
I know that the biplanar configuration is not like your coiled up strip, but it confirms that striplines are
known for their low inductance as you will know.
Itsu
Channel 1 measures vs, and channel 2 measures vr. Typical calculation of power from voltage, nothing complicated. Divide by 1000 as voltages are in mV, to get mW.
p = v * v / R
The input part.
Quote
vl = vs - vr
pl = vl * vl / R / 1000
e += pl
And the output part.
Quote
pr = vr * vr / R / 1000
e += pr
The following things are important to consider.
* We calculate input and output power only for the coil.
* We calculate instantaneous power for the input part, as the power consumed by the coil.
* We calculate instantaneous power for the output part, as the power generated by the coil, that was consumed by the load resistor.
Because the voltage on the coil has to be calculated from the voltage on the signal generator and the voltage on the resistor, both the voltage on the resistor and the signal generator voltage, have to be measured.
Unless it is known that during all the input part the signal generator voltage didn't change, and this voltage is known. Then only one channel, the voltage on the resistor, has to be measured.
In the case above, the signal generator voltage did change, thus two channels had to be measured, and included in the calculations.
To fork Trinket Python code make a small unimportant change, like add a space to the beginning of a comment, which after making a fork can be changed back. When making a fork after that, the link provided will be different from the page where the original code is. This is inconvenient, with otherwise so nice tool.
Quote from: itsu on October 15, 2018, 05:50:58 AM
Hi F6FLT,
Why do you think L is to big here? Did you measure it? What was the value?
According to http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm , the inductance at 1.5Mhz with 200nF is 0.056uH (56nH).
According to https://www.emisoftware.com/calculator/stripline/ , the biplanar inductance of a stripline
with Width=15mm, seperation=1mil and length=30m is 6.384e-8H = 0.06348uH = 63.48nH
I know that the biplanar configuration is not like your coiled up strip, but it confirms that striplines are
known for their low inductance as you will know.
Itsu
Hi Itsu
The thickness of the winding is 20 mm and there are about 95 turns. We have 20/95=0.2mm for the thickness of the strip, including conductor + insulation. Reporting width=15mm, separation=0.2mm, length=30m in your site, we get an inductance of 125 nH.
This value being not so far from a resonance at 1.5 Mhz, I decided to calculate more precisely the capacity for which I had given the minimum value of 200nF.
I had measured 55 nF for the bifilar coil (tape width 6 mm, same length). So my monofilar coil (width 15 mm) would have a capacity of 55*15/6 = 137 nF. But the monofilar coil has turns much more tight, the thickness of the winding is 2 cm while it is 5 cm for the bifilar coil. The capacity of a plate capacitor being insersly proportional to the thickness of the dielectric, this leads us to a capacity of 137*5/2=342 nF.
This give us a frequency of 770 KHz, about the half of what is observed. Nevertheless you are right. Taking into account the margins of uncertainty, we are in the correct order of magnitude, unlike what I thought. I must have been mistaken by my habit of using capacitors of only a few hundred pF to obtain resonances at about 1 MHz which is the AM MW radio band, and with much smaller coils (in volume) but probably not in value due to the ferrite core.... :-[
So there is no mystery here. This flat capacitive coil works strictly like a normal coil tuned with an external capacitor.
Probably we can explain the absence of propagation of a pulse in the line because we are really in the approximation of quasi-stationary states: the capacity concerns the whole winding as a block, and each coil turn shares the same magnetic field, so that at a given time, currents and voltages do not depend on the position that is measured in the circuit.
So now I have to go back to the bifilar coil.
Thanks
F6FLT
concerning the pulse, i am not sure if one could use such a Time Domain Reflection setup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-domain_reflectometer on a single wire.
Its used on transmission lines (coax etc.) which have 2 wires.
The reflected pulse, when shorted, comes back as a negative pulse and with an open at the end as a positive pulse
(hmmm, could that be considered as a single line? I don't think so as we miss the distributed capacitance and
inductance between the 2 wires).
Itsu
Hi F6FLT,
Okay on your monofilar coil and not a bifilar one.
The reason I believed you had referred to a bifilar coil was because you wrote this in your Reply 135:
Quote from: F6FLT on October 14, 2018, 09:31:43 AM...
According to a measurement of a second coil of 55nF, bifilar this one, with copper strips 5 mm width, I estimate the capacitance of the first one in the photo, 1.5 cm width and tighter turns, to be more than 200nF.
...
Anyway, no problem.
I would suggest two measurement methods to arrive at your coil's self capacitance value. One is described here in Answer 6, scroll down to about the middle: https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/measure-capacitance-in-a-coil-of-wire.8660/ (https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/measure-capacitance-in-a-coil-of-wire.8660/)
I think in that measurement method capacitor C2 should have a lower value than C1. So you need say at least a C2=100 nF and say C1=220 nF good quality capacitor for such measurements. Of course, lower values at hand would also do.
The second method can be derived from this interesting current amplifying resonant circuit shown here:
https://www.accelinstruments.com/Applications/WaveformAmp/Magnetic-Field-Generator.html (https://www.accelinstruments.com/Applications/WaveformAmp/Magnetic-Field-Generator.html) (this paper was already mentioned in this forum and at other forum I think)
This paper can also be found here:
https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/resonant-circuit-generates-high-frequency-magnetic-field (https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/resonant-circuit-generates-high-frequency-magnetic-field)
I mean that in the circuit shown in Figure 4, capacitor Cp would be the self capacitance of your monofilar (or bifilar) coil which gives the 1.5 MHz parallel resonance as you already measured. And capacitor Cs should be chosen so that you get a series resonance with it when the generator is set to 0.707 x 1.5 MHZ = 1.06 MHz frequency. And the value of the Cs capacitor when it series resonates your coil at 1.06 MHz will be equal to the self capacitance of the coil.
Maybe this method is harder to use because one would need a capacitor box adjustable in the some 10 nF values in some nF steps.
Gyula
Quote from: ayeaye on October 14, 2018, 05:53:33 PM
Gyulasun, as much as i understand, this was, a pulse from the signal generator, through the coil, there was a resistor in series with the coil, and the voltage was measured on that resistor. Like on the figure below i guess. So it seems to be, like resistance was charged, then when the pulse ended, it discharged. But i'm not sure whether i understood rightly. What i asked was, in the end of the negative part of the signal, there is some ringing, waving or such, i ask whether this was caused by the coil.
....
Hi ayeaye,
Thanks for making the schematic for the F6FLT coil setup, that is also how I imagined.
Regarding your question on the negative part of the output waveform, it should come from the resonant LC circuit behaviour when the self capacitance part of the coil charges back current with an opposite polarity and the coil will have an opposite magnetic field like earlier, a normal LC resonant tank circuit behavior takes place: magnetic and electric energy changes back and forth. No matter whether you have a distributed capacitance or inductance like in a transmission line or in such flat strip wound coils or you have a normal lumped element LC components. And even if there is no direct resonance between the input pulse frequency and the LC circuit resonant frequency, the energy ping-pong is able to happen to a certain degree, hence a negative voltage can appear too.
Gyula
This Trinket Python shell, it's a kind of weird, but it's a good thing. You make changes, run, even go back to that page later, and the changes are there. Yet after some time, the changes are gone, and it's back again as it previously were.
The only way to make the changes permanent, is to make changes, and then fork.
I saw no easy way to get an empty Python shell to play with, so the following is the one that i made. Fork it, then change it, then fork it again.
https://trinket.io/python/ab5dff2b29 (https://trinket.io/python/ab5dff2b29)
There are two ways, a convenient way, and a way that always works. The following is how to go through two input files. You can likely figure out how to modify it, to go through whatever number of files. There is one more thing though. Like len(s1) < 2, if the length of the line that we just read from file, is less than 2, right? Trinket always has only one character, line feed, at the end of the line. Now if we don't want empty line, we end reading the file when the length < 2. But if we read like an svg file, it can have empty lines in it, and we should only end when the length is < 1. I hope this was not too difficult to understand, if anyone reads at all.
Quote
f1 = open("input1.txt")
f2 = open("input2.txt")
while (True):
s1 = f1.readline()
s2 = f2.readline()
if (len(s1) < 2 or len(s2) < 2): break
#Your code goes here
f1.close()
f2.close()
The following are the scripts how they should be, i didn't make the changes in the previous ones permanent i think, though they too work.
Input part calculation.
https://trinket.io/python/93b0840917 (https://trinket.io/python/93b0840917)
Output part calculation.
https://trinket.io/python/7b498b9a8c (https://trinket.io/python/7b498b9a8c)
Quote from: gyulasun on October 15, 2018, 06:41:20 PM
a normal LC resonant tank circuit behavior takes place
Yes that was all that i said. As in the F6FLT's last test, the negative part of the waveform was due to the capacitance, the capacitance discharging when the signal generator output went to zero. But i said that we see some waving in the negative part, and this i think was due to this equivalent LC circuit oscillating. Which was maybe the only way how the coil's inductance revealed itself in that waveform.
How the capacitive coil is different from an ordinary LC circuit, is that current doesn't have to go through all the coil for induction to start in some part of the coil. But it may also mean that the current doesn't have to go all the way through the coil to charge the capacitance by induction, and the less current through the coil, the less lenz effect there may be.
There is always input and output part. And it is determined by whether there is any external supply of power or not. Like in the circuit that F6FLT used, when the output of the signal generator is greater than zero, a power is supplied to the coil and its capacitance, and this is the input part. But when the signal generator pulse ends, the signal generator becomes like connected to the circuit ground, and all the power in that circuit then comes only from the coil and its capacitance. Thus this is the output part. There is overunity when more energy is generated during the output part by the coil and its capacitance, than consumed by the coil during the input part.
F6FLT, please increase the resistor a lot, you waste terribly lot of energy, by the calculations i made that's insane. I guess the resistor should also be such that it fills the coil's capacitance in any observable time, otherwise there is too much input energy, and it kind of floods it. Oh wait, the time constant to charge the capacitance 63%, is RC, which in your case is 47 * 200 = 9400 nanoseconds, that is 9.4 us, which is a lot greater than your 16 ns pulse, it should not charge all the coil without any delay. Now i don't know. Because of the time constant, it has time to charge the capacitance only a tiny amount during the 16 ns pulse. Which may happen instantly, i don't know. But the calculations also show that the output power in your case must be very small.
What am i doing? The only thing i provide is a method of doing experiment. No new circuits or anything.
But what was i thinking. The following is the right calculation for the input part.
Quote
vl = vs - vr
pl = vl * vr / R / 1000
e += pl
Notice there, it's vl * vr / R, not vl * vl / R as i wrote before,
never do that mistake. There, vr / R is really current going through the coil.
Calculation for the output part is still the same.
Quote
pr = vr * vr / R / 1000
e += pr
The following are the correct Python scripts in Trinket, use only these, not the previous ones.
Calculation of the input part and its output.
https://trinket.io/python/8b7ea90215 (https://trinket.io/python/8b7ea90215)
Quote
Input power was 0.7622 uW
Calculation of the output part and its output.
https://trinket.io/python/e181754f5f (https://trinket.io/python/e181754f5f)
Quote
Output power was 0.0111 uW
As you can see, the input power is almost a hundred times more than the output power. And this is likely because the pulse length is hundreds of times less than the time constant, and during that time only a tiny amount of the coil's capacitance can be charged.
Empty Trinket script, to play with. There int(s) would be a number in the input, when there is an integer on the line, or it's float(s). Output first number of the two number csv print(int(s[: s.find(",")])) and the second number print(int(s[s.find(",") + 1 : ])).
https://trinket.io/python/ab5dff2b29 (https://trinket.io/python/ab5dff2b29)
The Trinket online Python can also do some plotting, with matplotlib.pyplot, but only a part of it is available. The input has to be stored in a list for that. Yes sure one can plot the lists, but the image would be rather small, and the only way to save it, seems to be screenshot. I prefer to use gnuplot for plotting, but the figure below was plotted with Trinket and Python, using the following script.
https://trinket.io/python/1c378d0174 (https://trinket.io/python/1c378d0174)
I don't know how an oscilloscope saves a csv data to the usb stick, so i have to guess. They mostly open the csv file in excel, so no one even knows how its written, no one opens it with a text editor, though it's a text file. The thing i may be missing, are the numbers there in quotation marks, or not. Of course it can be opened in excel, then a column copied to Trinket, though i feel it's like a kind of banal way. In any case the first two rows are likely header, and must just be omitted.
As i have seen, it's time in seconds and voltage in volts, both float numbers in the exponent form. I don't know why so, i think the time column can just be ignored, as the samples are all after regular intervals, check it, but it's almost certain. All that is necessary for the list, is the second column.
There should be only two ways how csv can be written, without quotation marks and with quotation marks. The following are the trinkets to extract the second column in both ways.
https://trinket.io/python/fbf69fdd0e (https://trinket.io/python/fbf69fdd0e)
https://trinket.io/python/85ad4a832f (https://trinket.io/python/85ad4a832f)
Then when the voltage is already in volts, there is no need to divide by 50, or whatever number of units in a scale. Because the unit already is volts. And write the y scale just 1. The x scale, when the time column is omitted, should then be the time interval between samples in us. The samples there are float as well, otherwise scale is float, and only multiplying by float makes it float.
Yes all the calculations can be done in excel the same way as in Python, you see how, and there may be a precision problem as i said. Oh well, the lame excel, but do it if you want it so. I still consider the standard to explain things, is Python. One can make a mistake in Python, where all variables are named, it is difficult to make it faultless in python, but then what about excel with its totally not intuitive a3, b4 stuff.
Tell me excel, or maybe tell me matlab. And then you effectively do it so that i cannot say anything at all. Because in what should i talk then, excel or matlab or python? I don't understand why in hell they recommend to open these csv files in excel, people for whom precision should be so important. Excel is not proper for that purpose at all.
Paste your csv file somewhere? It's a text file as i said. Or paste it into a Trinket input.txt, and post the trinket here :) Then i can write a script to extract data from it in an instant.
And how you likely did guess, i should post these two trinkets here, yet again. Why in hell i had to convert the input to int, there was no need to, all works the same when it's converted to float.
Trinket for the input part.
https://trinket.io/python/489cd08ab6 (https://trinket.io/python/489cd08ab6)
Trinket for the output part.
https://trinket.io/python/7a74b9bc3f (https://trinket.io/python/7a74b9bc3f)
It is easy to convert CSV, if that really is a problem. No need for spreadsheet, no need for excel. I did write a Python script as you may guess, but if you don't feel like doing it. Like the following web page, choose output options, then choose only one column, and you got it. This is only one of many such online converters. Not to talk about other tools, there are a great number that can do it, CSV is so common format. It's also so terribly simple. I don't understand finding ways to go around, instead of straightforward taking CSV out of oscilloscope and directly doing calculations. It is there and it's a great thing, so why not use it.
http://www.convertcsv.com/csv-to-csv.htm (http://www.convertcsv.com/csv-to-csv.htm)
Otherwise, what do you prefer to use for calculations? Like spreadsheets, they are not precise enough as i did show earlier, excel is also not really free. Only spreadsheet calculator i found was precise enough, but i cannot provide it online anywhere, may be too minimal for you as well.
How are you going to do calculations from the oscilloscope traces?
What else can i say. In Python something is float when it is assigned a float value, that is like 0.0 instead of 0. Any expression where at least one variable or value is float, is also float. while (True): is followed by colon, it just has to by syntax. Otherwise all the statements that follow, have tab before them (indent). It is a tab that is converted to two spaces when you copy code from there, any number of spaces work instead, but there always has to be the same number. The statements that are in such way indented, are in the loop, loop ends with a statement that is less indented, and that statement is already out of the loop. Going through the loop one time, is called iteration.
You don't need to know all Python, only a small subset of it, for almost all electronics calculations that you may need to do. This small subset is almost all that one needs to know to understand these small trinkets above. Is it really so absolutely impossible to learn.
The latest scripts for input and output parts posted here again, for eternity. These are exactly the same as in the trinkets above, just posted here in case if trinkets disappear in some mysterious ways, or such.
Thank you for all your attention.
Quote
#Time scale in us
XU = 0.02
#Voltage scales of ch1 and ch2 in V
YU1 = 5.0
YU2 = 0.2
#Resistor resistance in ohms
R = 47.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 1000.0
#In calculations XU is in ns for unit
#Voltages are in mV, scale is 50 units
XU *= 1000 / 50
YU1 *= 1000 / 50
YU2 *= 1000 / 50
e = 0.0
f1 = open("input1.txt")
f2 = open("input2.txt")
while (True):
s1 = f1.readline()
s2 = f2.readline()
if (len(s1) < 2 or len(s2) < 2): break
vs = float(s1) * YU1
vr = float(s2) * YU2
vl = vs - vr
pl = vl * vr / R / 1000
e += pl
f1.close()
f2.close()
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Input power was %.4f uW" % (F * e))
Quote
#Time scale in us
XU = 0.02
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.2
#Resistor resistance in ohms
R = 47.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 1000.0
#In calculations XU is in ns for unit
#Voltages are in mV, scale is 50 units
XU *= 1000 / 50
YU *= 1000 / 50
e = 0.0
f = open("input.txt")
while (True):
s = f.readline()
if (len(s) < 2): break
vr = float(s) * YU
pr = vr * vr / R / 1000
e += pr
f.close()
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Output power was %.4f uW" % (F * e))
Now say you get CSV from the oscilloscope, where samples (points) are already in volts, the scripts for input and output parts would be like this.
Quote
#Time between samples in ns
XU = 0.4
#Voltages are in mV
YU1 = YU2 = 1000.0
#Resistor resistance in ohms
R = 47.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 1000.0
e = 0.0
f1 = open("input1.txt")
f2 = open("input2.txt")
while (True):
s1 = f1.readline()
s2 = f2.readline()
if (len(s1) < 2 or len(s2) < 2): break
vs = float(s1) * YU1
vr = float(s2) * YU2
vl = vs - vr
pl = vl * vr / R / 1000
e += pl
f1.close()
f2.close()
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Input power was %.4f uW" % (F * e))
Quote
#Time between samples in ns
XU = 0.4
#Voltages are in mV
YU = 1000.0
#Resistor resistance in ohms
R = 47.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 1000.0
e = 0.0
f = open("input.txt")
while (True):
s = f.readline()
if (len(s) < 2): break
vr = float(s) * YU
pr = vr * vr / R / 1000
e += pr
f.close()
e *= XU / 1000000
print("Output power was %.4f uW" % (F * e))
Trinkets with these scripts. Input part.
https://trinket.io/python/d99dee2247 (https://trinket.io/python/d99dee2247)
And output part.
https://trinket.io/python/fdd30eb52e (https://trinket.io/python/fdd30eb52e)
I don't know what about this 10x attenuation by probes, i assume in the samples of digital oscilloscope this is already considered.
1)
When my bifilar coil is not connected to anything but is weakly coupled to the generator by a 2-turn loop, the resonance is around 2400 KHz.
This resonance is easily detectable, either by moving the scope probe towards the center of the coil (electric field), or by connecting the end of the probe to its ground wire and coupling this small loop to the coil (magnetic field).
This case also corresponds to the behavior of my monofilar coil.
2)
But when connecting the generator to one of the conductors at one end, and the ground to the other conductor at the other end (see diagram), the resonance drops dramatically, in my case to 28 Khz.
Surprisingly in this case of resonance, in the vicinity of the coil the probe detects the same weak electric or magnetic field as if there was no resonance.
Resonance is detected only by the increase in current supplied by the generator and by the significant voltage drop due to the overcurrent of the inrush current in the coil. We fall from 20v pp to a few hundred mV.
I confirmed this effect with a "bifilar" coil of a very different nature: an RG214 coaxial cable. The two conductors are the inner conductor and the shield, they are coupled by the 106 pF/m capacity of this type of cable. My coaxial loop is a single turn of 6m in circumference.
At the resonance frequency which is now 2550 Khz instead of 28 Khz with the other coil, the voltage drops from 20 V to 600 mV (sign that the loop has a much lower impedance than the 50 ohm of the generator), but the probe near the conductors does not detect a signal higher than what it is outside resonance.
In both cases, that of the flat coil or that of the coxial, as there is an overcurrent at resonance, at least the magnetic field should increase. But we don't detect an increase. I don't have a clear explanation for that. Does anyone have an idea?
Quote from: F6FLT on October 19, 2018, 11:59:20 AM
In both cases, that of the flat coil or that of the coxial, as there is an overcurrent at resonance, at least the magnetic field should increase. But we don't detect an increase. I don't have a clear explanation for that. Does anyone have an idea?
Well, when the current increases, and the voltage on the coil decreases, then the coil consumes less energy. All current just goes through it, it is not consumed. It would be weird to expect the magnetic field to increase in that case, it would be weird if it doesn't *decrease*.
It would be interesting to see if you do input and output power calculations at resonance. Does the input power decrease at resonance? Ah yes then, but what means resonance when the input is pulse. Pulse length when the voltage on the coil is minimal?
Hi F6FLT,
I think the 'poles' of the fields are so close to each other, both for the case of the bifilar at 28 kHz or for the one turn coaxial loop, that they (i.e. the poles) are able to close themselves magnetically so that little stray fields remain to the outside world. The case is similar to closed magnetic circuits: if you have two identically sized horse shoe magnets and you let their facing unlike poles join to each other (to form a kind of horse race track), then the strong fields near the earlier unclosed ends reduce to much weaker fields.
The electric field for the case of the coaxial cable loop should behave similarly: the shield is connected to the generator BNC body output i.e. to a very low voltage potential and the E field is mainly confined inside the coax dielectric. Very likely the magnetic field is also able to close itself mainly inside the coax.
The E field for the bifilar coil also remains inside its structure, I think.
If you feed a DC current into the bifilar coil, where do you think the static poles would appear?
Would like to ask whether you already had time to read my reply to you on the measurements of coils self capacitance? (reply #145, previous page)
I partially agree with ayeaye in that the power that remains to feed the coil or the coax at resonance is small but still I maintain what I have written above.
Ayeaye wrote this: "All current just goes through it, it is not consumed."
I would say: Any time current is able to flow, it creates losses (in the form of heat and radiation), so it is consumed to a certain degree (worst case is 100%).
Thanks,
Gyula
An ignorant thinking perhaps, but is it resonance, or is it frequency above which it just cannot do induction any more? Resonance i guess should be when the input power is the greatest, then i think also the output power is the greatest. Like the length of pulse when it's pulsed, this i think is the only thing that matters when it's pulsed.
Quote from: gyulasun on October 19, 2018, 12:57:28 PM
Hi F6FLT,
I think the 'poles' of the fields are so close to each other, both for the case of the bifilar at 28 kHz or for the one turn coaxial loop, that they (i.e. the poles) are able to close themselves magnetically so that little stray fields remain to the outside world. The case is similar to closed magnetic circuits: if you have two identically sized horse shoe magnets and you let their facing unlike poles join to each other (to form a kind of horse race track), then the strong fields near the earlier unclosed ends reduce to much weaker fields.
The electric field for the case of the coaxial cable loop should behave similarly: the shield is connected to the generator BNC body output i.e. to a very low voltage potential and the E field is mainly confined inside the coax dielectric. Very likely the magnetic field is also able to close itself mainly inside the coax.
The E field for the bifilar coil also remains inside its structure, I think.
Hi Guyla,
I understand what you're saying about the fields that are confined. It's surely one reason, in particular for the electric field. But I just found an additional explanation that I completely missed.
Remember that the input signal drops at resonance from 20v pp to 600 mv (and the current increases proportionally) and nevertheless I observe the same voltage from the open test probe feeling electric fields or with the "looped probe" feeling magnetic fields. From this I conclude that each field, the electric field and magnetic field that the probe detect, don't depend neither on the input voltage alone nor on the input current alone but depend on both. How is another question.
It's funny to see the strong resonance without the least effect on the amplitude but with a strong effect on the phase.
At resonance the signal probe is 90° out of phase with the input signal from the generator. When we change the frequency by only 2.5%, the signal probe becomes in phase or in opposition with the input signal (depending on the frequency lower or higher than the resonant frequency).
Quote
If you feed a DC current into the bifilar coil, where do you think the static poles would appear?
I don't understand the question in the context, no current is possible here in DC.
Quote
Would like to ask whether you already had time to read my reply to you on the measurements of coils self capacitance? (reply #145, previous page)
I partially agree with ayeaye in that the power that remains to feed the coil or the coax at resonance is small but still I maintain what I have written above.
Ayeaye wrote this: "All current just goes through it, it is not consumed."
I would say: Any time current is able to flow, it creates losses (in the form of heat and radiation), so it is consumed to a certain degree (worst case is 100%).
Thanks,
Gyula
I had read your reply on the measurements but didn't yet take time to study enough the method.
I remain troubled by the question of the probed magnetic field that doesn't increase at resonance while the current is increasing. The current goes the same direction in both wires and the magnetic field is proportional to the current only. So we should have an increase. May be it's a question of phase difference between the wires...
...to be continued
Quote from: ayeaye on October 19, 2018, 12:22:55 PM
Well, when the current increases, and the voltage on the coil decreases, then the coil consumes less energy. All current just goes through it, it is not consumed. It would be weird to expect the magnetic field to increase in that case, it would be weird if it doesn't *decrease*.
It would be interesting to see if you do input and output power calculations at resonance. Does the input power decrease at resonance? Ah yes then, but what means resonance when the input is pulse. Pulse length when the voltage on the coil is minimal?
The "looped" probe detect the magnetic field. V=dΦ/dt and the magnetic flux Φ crossing the probe loop area is proportional to the flux of the bifilar inductance L, i.e. to -Ldi/dt. If i is increasing, V should increase proportionally. It's only a question of current in the bifilar coil, not a question of voltage. The current generating the magnetic field of the bifilar coil is the sum of the current in each wire. These currents go in the same direction. I will try to measure them and to look at their phase relation.
Quote from: F6FLT on October 19, 2018, 04:11:40 PM
At resonance the signal probe is 90° out of phase with the input signal from the generator.
And what does that 90° there mean, as much as i understand it means that then the back-emf is almost equal to the forward emf, means that the net power is zero, though induction and power is likely at its greatest. Now when there is overunity, it should go over 90°, which means that then back-emf generates more power than the forward emf provides. One video shows a bifilar pancake coil charging a battery that provides the power, this is what should happen at overunity. Unfortunately nothing bout the battery voltage is measured there, so not enough evidence for overunity.
How comes, it's when it's sine, power does two cycles during one voltage cycle. It is that power can be both positive and negative. Negative is the power generated by back-emf. So in that case it's seen that the negative power is equal to the positive power. Means the average power is zero.
Quote from: F6FLT on October 19, 2018, 04:11:40 PM
...
Remember that the input signal drops at resonance from 20v pp to 600 mv (and the current increases proportionally) and nevertheless I observe the same voltage from the open test probe feeling electric fields or with the "looped probe" feeling magnetic fields. From this I conclude that each field, the electric field and magnetic field that the probe detect, don't depend neither on the input voltage alone nor on the input current alone but depend on both. How is another question.
Hi F6FLT,
Yes, the EM field strength also surely depends on the power fed into the coil or coax loop at or near resonance. With a 50 Ohm generator output impedance only a few Ohm (or even under 1 Ohm) resonant impedance is connected in parallel, so a hugh voltage divison takes place via the internal impedance of the generator towards the coil, hence the small 600 mVpp amplitude remaining across the generator output i.e. across the coil input or across the coax loop input.
And a 600 mVpp voltage can maintain only a certain amount of current, certainly much less than the 20 Vpp would.
If you had a generator with much less than say 1 Ohm output impedance, then there would be much less internal voltage drop across the internal impedance at resonance, so much more voltage would be available across the coil hence the power feeding the coil would be much higher. I am sure you know these, sorry. But then the EM field would surely be stronger than now from the 50 Ohm generator.
QuoteIt's funny to see the strong resonance without the least effect on the amplitude but with a strong effect on the phase.
At resonance the signal probe is 90° out of phase with the input signal from the generator. When we change the frequency by only 2.5%, the signal probe becomes in phase or in opposition with the input signal (depending on the frequency lower or higher than the resonant frequency).
Yes the phase changes drastically around the resonance, it should because either inductive or capacitive reactance starts dominating the moment you detune the generator from the resonant requency. The voltage amplitude can remain quasi unchanged near the resonance because the figure of merit, Q is relatively low due to the 50 Ohm generator impedance. This 50 Ohm simply 'defines' the impedance the coil 'sees' at and in the vicinity of the resonance. See my further comment at the bottom too.
Quote"If you feed a DC current into the bifilar coil, where do you think the static poles would appear?"
I don't understand the question in the context, no current is possible here in DC.
I simply meant a case when there is only a static DC current fed into your bifilar coil, then where the magnetic poles develop? I asked this to reveal the closeness of the magnetic poles to each other so they can combine easily. But let's put this question for a later time if you wish.
QuoteI had read your reply on the measurements but didn't yet take time to study enough the method.
Okay, thanks.
QuoteI remain troubled by the question of the probed magnetic field that doesn't increase at resonance while the current is increasing. The current goes the same direction in both wires and the magnetic field is proportional to the current only. So we should have an increase. May be it's a question of phase difference between the wires...
I think it is also a question of the phase difference between coil input current and input voltage, when they are in phase the real power should be at a maximum but there is the generator impedance which prevents high current both at resonance or at off resonance (as long as at off resonance the capacitive or inductive reactance will not be higher than 50 Ohm, beyond that range already the reactances would infuence hence define coil current).
Gyula
There is no need for input and output part, and only one script is necessary.
Because when the power is positive, it's input, and when the power is negative, it's output. So the script becomes the following.
Quote
#Time between samples in ns
XU = 0.4
#Voltages are in mV
YU1 = YU2 = 1000.0
#Resistor resistance in ohms
R = 47.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 1000.0
ei = eo = 0.0
f1 = open("input1.txt")
f2 = open("input2.txt")
while (True):
s1 = f1.readline()
s2 = f2.readline()
if (len(s1) < 2 or len(s2) < 2): break
vs = float(s1) * YU1
vr = float(s2) * YU2
vl = vs - vr
pl = vl * vr / R / 1000
if (pl >= 0): ei += pl
if (pl < 0): eo += pl
f1.close()
f2.close()
ei *= XU / 1000000
print("Input power was %.4f uW" % (F * ei))
eo *= -1 * XU / 1000000
print("Output power was %.4f uW" % (F * eo))
The following is the trinket with that script. This script needs a full cycle of channel 1 in input1.txt and channel 2 in input2.txt, or maybe less if after some time both are 0. You can see that the results are exactly the same as when doing it separately for input part and output part.
https://trinket.io/python/a90a61d84e (https://trinket.io/python/a90a61d84e)
This script can be used to calculate input and output power of the coil also when the signal is sine, or when the signal is whatever, it's universal. No need to separate any parts.
Do you see :)
I took the figure below from wikimadia commons, By 121a0012 - self-made, after w:Image:ACPower03CJC.png by User:C J Cowie, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2866717 .
The following is the Inkscape script trinket with the channel 2 data above. Assuming that the output of the oscilloscope is voltages, so that the output of that script can be directly used for the input of the script for digital oscilloscope. That is, it supposed to provide the same sample list as in the csv file taken from the digital oscilloscope. So these who have analog oscilloscopes can do the calculations the same as if they had digital oscilloscope. All i know the people here use, are digital desktop oscilloscopes and old analog oscilloscopes, i have not seen anyone here using anything else.
https://trinket.io/python/a8d33f8989 (https://trinket.io/python/a8d33f8989)
This is what i offer, two Python scripts to calculate input and output power of a coil.
Seeing phi is a way to estimate the power efficiency when the signal is sine. With other waveforms, with digital oscilloscope, one can measure voltage on the coil and voltage on the resistor, then multiply these channels and show them as the math channel. This enables to quickly visually estimate the power efficiency, comparing the positive and negative areas of the waveform on the math channel.
It were easy to make power calculations if the oscilloscope did calculate positive and negative areas of the math channel. Unfortunately cheaper scopes cannot do calculations on the math channel at all, and cannot even output the math channel as csv. The accuracy of any calculations done by the scope may also be questionable on some scopes. So in that case there is no other way than to get the waveform data of both channels as csv, and do the calculations from that.
The more expensive scopes most likely provide more, and some may be able to accurately calculate positive and negative areas of the math channel. For that it were enough if they were like capable of calculating the area of the math channel waveform in a range. But that written here, should be so that everyone can do that, so that the results can be replicated by other people, and i think most here use rather cheap digital scopes with not many capabilities. Some use even analog scopes, like me, so i provided a method for them as well.
The resonance frequency of my bifilar coil when working as a normal monofilar is 2330 KHz. Its capacity is 55 nF thus its inductance is 84.8 nH ( L = 1/(C*ω²) ).
But with the bifilar coil connected as specified in reply #153, the resonance drops to 28Khz.
I have tried many LTspice simulations to get an equivalent circuit. The only LTspice simulation that fits what I observe needs the inductance (not the capacitance) to be multiplied by 5000.
It's indeed impossible to reach a so low resonance with values as small as 55nf and 84.8nH. The schematic is very simple but problematic. Did I miss something? (Otherwise imho it's useless to play with bifilar coils until we obtain an explanation for this elementary result).
Quote from: F6FLT on October 21, 2018, 04:00:18 PM
It's indeed impossible to reach a so low resonance with values as small as 55nf and 84.8nH. The schematic is very simple but problematic. Did I miss something? (Otherwise imho it's useless to play with bifilar coils until we obtain an explanation for this elementary result).
My guess is that because of the capacitance, some of the induction happens Lenz free, and this enables very high inductance. This conjecture is just intuitive, not really thought through at all. But the matter is that there seems to be by now no better explanation.
Please measure the powers at resonance. Either the voltage on the coil and on the resistor, and phi between them, multiplication of them, or such. Not that there should be overunity, but this is an anomalous phenomenon, so worth to study. It is not excluded that in certain conditions there may be overunity, with a different resistance of the resistor, or whatever else.
Yes we don't know, and it's worth to research something, when we don't know.
F6FLT
QuoteBut with the bifilar coil connected as specified in reply #153, the resonance drops to 28Khz.
I have tried many LTspice simulations to get an equivalent circuit. The only LTspice simulation that fits what I observe needs the inductance (not the capacitance) to be multiplied by 5000.
Right... lose the simulator it's useless. Real experiments done by real people produce real results.
QuoteIt's indeed impossible to reach a so low resonance with values as small as 55nf and 84.8nH. The schematic is very simple but problematic. Did I miss something? (Otherwise imho it's useless to play with bifilar coils until we obtain an explanation for this elementary result).
Impossible you say?.
It may help to go over some high school science textbook theory.
Let's imagine we have two wires in close proximity in a Bifilar Pancake coil where the end of the first conductor is connected to the beginning of the second conductor. If we send a quick spike of current down the first conductor we can expect that a Cemf will be induced in the second conductor as per Faraday's Law of Induction. However if the voltage rise is very fast then all kinds of transient effects can occur as we know. Now what do you think will happen if the two conductors in close proximity, in effect, constitute a capacitance?. Well we know what will happen and the capacitance will absorb and store the energy as a function of the difference in potential between the two conductors at that point between the conductors and the dielectric properties of the insulation... a capacitor.
Thus the reason none of this makes any sense to you is because you probably simulated a rather low frequency/low voltage sine wave, lol. I mean you could not have possibly done anything more pointless because this has no effect. Understand Tesla's patent was a way to store transient energy producing voltage spikes due to an absurd induced Cemf/voltage rise in the capacitance between the coil turns. A buffering capacitor built internal into the coil storing the difference in potential between each individual turn.
So let's ask the question... how many coil technologies have you seen which can counter a Cemf and absorb transient energy spikes on a cm per turn, non-lumped sum, basis... fucking zero is your answer.
Tesla didn't design his coil for low frequency sine waves he designed it for high voltage, extreme rise/fall time square waves which generate massive transient effects. This coil was designed for what we call a worst case scenario not sine waves. It was designed for square waves with a wave "period" not frequency much shorter than the length of the conductor. Which is the reason your lumped sum simulator is about as useful as tits on a boar.
Your completely out of your element here, imagine a long rope and I give it a quick snap producing a single wave travelling along it's length like a soliton wave. Now imagine if at any point the rope touches the ground energy is stored... this is the transient energy stored as capacitance(a difference in potential) at that singular point. However it is a conductor thus the energy stored at that point must conduct or move along the conductor ... the question is where and in what direction.
What your trying to do is understand joe blow down the street by looking at the Earth from the moon. Obviously it's all just water and continents and shit with no detail but your looking and thinking it's relevant... but no it's not. The context is so far removed from the truth it becomes a lesson in stupidity.
Quote from: onepower on October 21, 2018, 07:44:40 PM
What your trying to do is understand joe blow down the street by looking at the Earth from the moon.
Yeah i read one time what you wrote, didn't understand. Read second time, still didn't understand. Read several times more, and still don't understand. You like go on saying that it's all so clear and rational, but trying to find in what this clarity and rationality is, cannot find it.
That in a bifilar coil a part of the induction goes to charging the capacitance, yes i thought it's so. Then this capacitance discharges, giving the energy out again i guess. So much i can figure.
ayeaye
QuoteYeah i read one time what you wrote, didn't understand. Read second time, still didn't understand. Read several times more, and still don't understand. You like go on saying that it's all so clear and rational, but trying to find in what this clarity and rationality is, cannot find it.
I would ask... if 1 billion people believed that no man could possibly jump higher than 2.45 m would you believe them?. It seems impossible doesn't it? , I mean eight feet and one quarter inches and yet one man did it proving billions and billions of people wrong. The lesson here is simple, that man who in fact jumped over 8 feet and one quarter inches into the air and cleared that bar... was not you or me.
Should we presume just because we cannot do something that it cannot be done?. If this belief or construct were the case then no person could possibly know more or do more than we could. We would be all knowing all seeing god of sorts which is a special kind of messed up in my opinion because we are only human just like everyone else.
So yes I believe you and others do not understand many things I do however I may not understand many things you do.
Quote from: onepower on October 21, 2018, 09:25:25 PM
The lesson here is simple, that man who in fact jumped over 8 feet and one quarter inches into the air and cleared that bar... was not you.
That's ok. You see as i said, the native americans didn't see the big ships of the spanish, in spite they were clearly visible. The unknown plays tricks with us. Thus the only sensible way is to just go ahead, and do measurements.
The most right would likely be, with a floating scope, to have ground between the coil and the resistor, and measure the voltage on the coil and on the resistor, with the channel for the resistor inverted. Be careful with a floating scope as i said. But there i guess, the voltage on the coil should be in phase with the voltage on the signal generator, all sines too, though subtracting one sine from the other is not exactly sine? Anyway, very similar to sine, when the other voltage is small, like just for measuring current. What i can figure.
Sine they say is the simplest, but sine is not at all simplest for induction, it is a quite complicated case. Simplest is a positive square pulse, i think. But no phi there.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 21, 2018, 05:20:31 PM
My guess is that because of the capacitance, some of the induction happens Lenz free, and this enables very high inductance. This conjecture is just intuitive, not really thought through at all. But the matter is that there seems to be by now no better explanation.
...
I can't follow you on that point. If there was no Lenz effect, there would be no induction either. The induction law if the effect of moving electrons in a first circuit which creates the changing magnetic field onto electrons in a second circuit (circuits or current loops from electron spins if we deal with permanent magnets).
When the electrons of the second circuit begin to move, the induction law still applies, they have also an influence onto the electrons of the first circuit because same cause products same effect. Lenz's law is a name (in tribute to the name of the discoverer) we use arbitrarily for the induction law when we observe the reciprocal effect. But the induction law is only linked to the relative speed between moving electrons and there is no preferential viewpoint, we can take the electrons of the first circuit or the second. It's also explainable by relativity.
There is really not a Lenz law, it is not a separate law, it's just a symmetry of the induction process. If there is only one circuit involved, then it works in a way that it works against the changes in the current. But in case of capacitance, capacitance is not really the same circuit, and capacitance is everywhere, thus not much current in the main circuit is necessary to charge it either. So like not much works against the changes, that may enable the changes to become greater, like induction to be greater. This is only an intuitive thinking, as i said.
But induction, to get some idea. Atoms, they are like fire wheels. The electrons orbiting the nucleus. They are also the dipoles. Electrostatic charges are really all there is, and they are very strong, but there is always a balance. Magnetism is just a phenomenon caused by these charges. Induction is these atoms changing current in a conductor. When they are more or less towards the wire with their side, which is the orbiting electrons, then they can change the current. The electrons are orbiting, the force is moving. But that alone is not enough. Now in autumn, there are these leaves on the ground, many of them. And there are a kind of blowers, to blow them away. Now, when you direct them at any point, with not a great angle, all you get is the leaves just are blown away to all directions. Even if you move the air stream, they are still blown away to all direction, that movement doesn't cause them to move in one direction. You may try it once.
But when the atoms move towards the wire, or rotate towards the wire, like when the force goes over the electron, then first it pushes it to one direction, then to the opposite direction. And when the force is stronger when it pushes to the opposite direction, the result is a force in one direction, one force minus the other. Just to figure a bit. That's what induction is.
The matter is, it is a very symmetric process, expressed by the Lenz law. So that when there is this process alone, there likely cannot be any overunity. Not quite the same though when there are two processes at the same time. And one is charging the capacitance, charging a capacitance is not the same process as induction.
Now the electrons orbiting the nuclea of the atoms. When these electrons interact with some charges outside, they do work. As the result their energy should decrease, and they should ultimately fall to the nucleus. But they don't. So some energy has to come from outside to keep them orbiting, this is what a common thinking says, right? Now if you ask a quantum physicist, they give you various explanations, which finally still don't explain the thing. One may say, no, this is not how it happens. They say it happens in a different way, but still there is a need for energy to come somewhere, whatever the effect is called.
Quote from: onepower on October 21, 2018, 07:44:40 PM
F6FLT
Right... lose the simulator it's useless. Real experiments done by real people produce real results.
Impossible you say?.
It may help to go over some high school science textbook theory.
...
"Impossible" only in the context of our actual application of our knowledge, and it's very likely our application and not the current knowledge which is at stack.
So far, no alternative theory has produced the slightest energy, the slightest means of transport or the slightest useful product, contrarily to applications of textbook theories. It's at least premature to be immodest with regard to them. I would feel ridiculous to criticize textbook theories whose results are everywhere in the every day life, when I have nothing else to show. It's always the lack of mastery in interpreting what is observed that let the newbies think that they have to reinvent physics and that the genious men of the past in electromagnetism are wrong. I don't believe in wishful thinking about new physics.
That said, it's not "impossible" in absolute: I believe in observed facts and we have the facts, my coils resonate much lower than LCω²=1, so we have a misinterpretation of L or C or both.
A possible answer that came to me last night is that the stored charge in the capacitor goes back and forth along the capacitor dielectric and participates to a displacement current that is not only transverse as in a normal plane capacitor, but also partially directed along the conductors. This would explain a real C and L values higher than those calculated by applying basic methods. It's the first possibility I will explore.
Hi F6FLT,
Do you have an L meter which is able to measure in the some uH range or below? Because you could check inductance for your 6 m long coax cable at one of its ends when the far ends is shorted. Also, you could check inductance for the bifilar (strip) coil at one of its ends when the two ends at the other end is shorted.
For your RG214 coax (which is a 50 Ohm type) with 106 pF/m the C=6 x 106=636 pF. Using Z2=L/C impedance formula for transmission lines,
the L=C*Z2=636e-12 * 2500= 1.59 uH. It would be good to check the 636 pF cable capacitance with a C meter too becasue some data sheet say it can have 98 or 100 pF/m capacitance. The 1.59 uH gives resonance with the 636 pF at 5 MHz. To get your measured 2.55 MHz resonance, the L should be roughly 4 times of 1.59 uH i.e. 6.36 uH.
Is it possible that there is around 6.36 uH inductance either between the two ends of the shield or between the two ends of the center conductor? You could check the inductance of any one winding in the bifilar coil too. It is not likely the inductance between the shield ends (or the inner conductor ends) will be around 6.3 uH though.
To be continued. It would be great you happen to have an LC meter. 8)
Thanks,
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
I measured the capacitance of the cable with its 2 N-type connectors: 672 pF.
I have no L meter. For the inductance calculated at https://www.eeweb.com/tools/coil-inductance, I got 364 nH. But I just understood my mistake, I had entered 191 mm for the loop diameter instead of 1910 mm!
With the right value, I have now 6.4µH which gives a resonance frequency of 2.43 Mhz very close to that one measured.
So the answer to your question "Is it possible that there is around 6.36 uH inductance" is "yes it is" :). Thanks.
The strange effect with the flat coil is therefore not reproduced with the coaxial cable. This is a bad news.
So would it be possible that the inductance of the flat coil to be about 587µH instead of some tens of nH as previously thought?
Yes it is! >:(
I used this method: http://www.dos4ever.com/inductor/inductor.html
I measured 703 µH.
This gives a resonance frequency a bit lower than measured (28 KHz), but it's the order of magnitude.
Now we are back with the problem of the second resonance at 2330 Khz. How is it possible while LCω² implies 28 KHz?
It's one or the other resonance but not both. Or at 2330KHz we are no more in the quasi-stationary approximation and the resonance is due to propagation phenomena (at a given time, currents and voltages are not the same in the coil)?
Okay, good. Now it looks like that the bifilar coil operates with a much different self capacitance value when you measure its 2330 kHz resonance. In that case all the 4 winding ends are floating and I think the 703 uH self inductance cannot be influenced by the 55 nF capacitance. When you drive the bifilar coil from the generator as per you schematic, the 55 nF is inherently connected into the circuit.
This is because the 55 nF is between the two windings but not across any one of the bifilar windings, ok?
The 2330 kHz resonance should be a parallel resonance for any one of the windings, coming from the 703 uH and a 6.63 pF self capacitance for any one of the windings.
This 6.63 pF is in parallel with the 703 uH winding, I calculated from the normal formula C = 1/(L*ω²).
What do you think?
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on October 22, 2018, 10:52:54 AM
Okay, good. Now it looks like that the bifilar coil operates with a much different self capacitance value when you measure its 2330 kHz resonance. In that case all the 4 winding ends are floating and I think the 703 uH self inductance cannot be influenced by the 55 nF capacitance. When you drive the bifilar coil from the generator as per you schematic, the 55 nF is inherently connected into the circuit.
This is because the 55 nF is between the two windings but not across any one of the bifilar windings, ok?
The 2330 kHz resonance should be a parallel resonance for any one of the windings, coming from the 703 uH and a 6.63 pF self capacitance for any one of the windings.
This 6.63 pF is in parallel with the 703 uH winding, I calculated from the normal formula C = 1/(L*ω²).
What do you think?
Gyula
I think it's an interesting idea, very likely correct.
When I simply add 15 cm of wire to the end of a coil wire, at the center of the coil, the resonance frequency shifts by 60 KHz. When it is at the periphery it shifts by 120 KHz. This means that the capacity viewed by the open ends of the coil plays a decisive role in the effect as you suggested.
As the two wires are electrically coupled by 55 nF which is a low impedance at 2330 KHz, and are magnetically coupled because they share the same magnetic field, they must act as if they were only one wire. And indeed I observe the same effect with my monofilar coil.
So now I should be able to make a LTspice model of the bifilar coil.
Another point: when I slide the probe diametrically on the coil, the electric field is maximum near the center, then decreases and cancels out somewhere around the middle (the middle in terms of wire length, because this point is closer to the edge than to the center), then increases again with phase inversion when approaching the periphery but it reaches a final amplitude significantly lower than that in the center.
It seems there is a stationary wave.
It could be interested to design a coil where the lower resonance frequency meets the higher. This could lead to strange effects (I will try with my future LTspice model if I succeed).
F6FLT, why do you have to make an LTspice model? If there is overunity, LTspice never shows it. Or you have to change all the calculation, in effect you have to write your own simulation.Because this doesn't happen between components. one cannot separate components, like capacitance is everywhere. And it may participate in the very basic process, in the very equation of induction, which just isn't entirely the same as written in LTspice.
I mean, feel free to do whatever you want of course, i just wanted to say that LTspice doesn't model unknown processes, it has equations in it in a way that it can only model what has been known.
Ayeaye, I am well aware that modeling software cannot reveal or manage unknown processes. But until a solid experimental evidence of the contrary, there is no overunity in a bifilar coil, therefore it is modelizable with LTspice. A transmission line also constitutes distributed capacitance and inductance and it's model has been around for a long time.
What is experimental evidence? A reproducible protocol that any individual or independent team can implement, and that must have been implemented by several to achieve consensus on the fact. And the strength of the evidence must be proportional to the extraordinary nature of the proclamation. For OU, the least necessary is a looped device. We don't have it.
If you really believe that you are on the right track, you should do everything possible to complete the process by a looped device. On my side, from my last experiments I only see evidence that a bifilar coil obeys common laws of physics and even of electronics. Nevertheless I don't consider that the case is closed. I have yet some ideas to explore, especially in the field of displacement currents in dielectrics of coils.
Quote from: F6FLT on October 23, 2018, 05:28:54 AM
For OU, the least necessary is a looped device. We don't have it.
No, making a looped device is absolutely, completely wrong. We research a natural phenomenon, not a device. Maybe some succeeded to spin it the way that it is researching a device instead of a phenomenon, but it's completely wrong. When we research a device, we get an evidence about the device, not about the phenomenon, which may be all the way misleading. If there is one way to make it wrong, then that's making a device.
Looped device, then all my work about measuring power, it's completely useless? Because why, we make looped device, it will work forever, it's that simple, there is nothing to do. All is useless when taking an assumption that doesn't help to get the result. So that makes it much simpler, why bother, why not drink rum instead? That's a real clown logic, but then i really like rum, and it's jolly as well.
Transmission lines, yes, they have some inductance and some capacitance, but the problem is that transmission lines have only a certain amount of inductance and capacitance, and the model is only for that, also only tested for that.
Can you perhaps give a screenshot, of voltages on the coil and on the resistor at resonance?
Quote from: ayeaye on October 23, 2018, 05:48:43 AM
...We research a natural phenomenon, not a device...
Non sequitur. I know that and I agree. The device is only needed to prove that the "natural phenomenon" allegedly found, is really OU.
I have just finished the LTpice model. For reasons of symmetry, I have split the 55 nF capacity into two 27.5 nF capacitors "Cp" (p for "parallel"), the 6.63 pF coupling the ends of the coil into two 3.6 pF capacitors "Cs" (s for "series", with a small correction of the value), and added 4 capacitors "Cg" (g for ground) of 1 pF to each end of the wires to simulate the capacitive coupling of the coil to the ground. The value of 1 pF is not at all critical. I had to finally adjust the coil inductance that I had roughly evaluated, to 630 µH.
The left side is when the generator is directly connected to the coils. The Cs capacity plays therefore almost no role. The resonance frequency is the lower, 28 KHz, depending mainly on the Cp capacity (Cp1+Cp2).
The right side is when the generator is weakly and capacitively coupled to the coils. I choose 0.01 for the mutual inductance coupling factor, it's not critical. The Cp capacity plays almost no role. The resonance frequency depends mainly on the Cs capacity. Cs is easily influenced by the hand or any added conductor, like my connector that connects the coil wires. The resonance frequency is the higher, near 2300 KHz, depending mainly on the Cs capacity (Cs1+Cs2).
As we can see, all the things that have surprised me until now are perfectly modelized, without any need to introduce new phenomena.
Quote from: F6FLT on October 23, 2018, 08:26:22 AM
Non sequitur. I know that and I agree. The device is only needed to prove that the "natural phenomenon" allegedly found, is really OU.
Sequitur. The device is not needed to prove OU. Furthermore, a device may prevent the proof, as what is proven is not that which needs to be proven.
If one wants examples. The Bedini SG battery charger. Device yes, one battery can charge two batteries to their nominal voltage, yes. Like all one needs for overunity, right? But is it overunity? No. And how so, because again what is proven is not that which needs to be proven, what is measured is not that which needs to be measured for OU. As if one measures, one may find, the coil provides no overunity. The batteries are normal and provide no overunity either. Nothing in the device provides overunity, if overunity is that which we measure. Then how comes that it works. These are these sharp edges on the pulses, which they say give the "kick". What they really do, such sharp pulses create surface charge when charging a battery. Surface charge is when the battery is charged only near the electrode, and this happens when charging with short narrow pulses, the charge just cannot go further. Now what would be necessary to show the energy balance of the batteries, is not only charge, but also discharge them, measuring the output. That is always omitted in the Bedini experiments, because again, they measure the device, not anything else. And doing so completely excludes proving the overunity.
It is clear that our intellectual requirement for proof is not at the same level neither of same nature. I'm really very demanding.
Quote from: F6FLT on October 23, 2018, 08:52:24 AM
It is clear that our intellectual requirement for proof is not at the same level neither of same nature. I'm really very demanding.
Read the above, i'm much more denanding than most.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 23, 2018, 08:40:38 AM
...
If one wants examples. The Bedini SG battery charger. Device yes, one battery can charge two batteries to their nominal voltage, yes. Like all one needs for overunity, right? But is it overunity? No. And how so, because again what is proven is not that which needs to be proven, what is measured is not that which needs to be measured for OU.
non sequitur.
OU is for energy. A looped device must confirm the extra energy. There is no looped device with Bedini. A looped device must last long enough to produce more energy than it contained at the beginning. I'm sorry I didn't emphasize this obvious truism.
And don't forget either the purpose of this forum:
"Free energy will help heal the planet Earth.
In our discussion forum www.overunity.com, we talk about all kinds of free energy and alternative and renewable energy systems."
The ultimate goal is to build a device, not just to invoke a principle or a measurement by saying it is OU. Because we already have hundreds of such useless statements. That's why a sustainable device is required as proof.
Quote from: F6FLT on October 23, 2018, 09:25:49 AM
OU is for energy. A looped device must confirm the extra energy. There is no looped device with Bedini. A looped device must last long enough to produce more energy than it contained at the beginning. I'm sorry I didn't emphasize this obvious truism.
It is a looped device. The battery charged can be used to power device and charge yet another battery, and endlessly so. A perfectly looped device, right?
Quote
The ultimate goal is to build a device, not just to invoke a principle or a measurement by saying it is OU. Because we already have hundreds of such useless statements. That's why a sustainable device is required as proof.
Not sequitur. We don't have not a single measurement that proves OU. Or do you know one, maybe you can say. So what is the problem? There is no need and there can never be a need to go away from the conventional methods of research.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 23, 2018, 09:34:46 AM
It is a looped device. The battery charged can be used to power device and charge yet another battery, and endlessly so. A perfectly looped device, right?
Urban legend.
We have no proof that Bedini's device works endlessly. If we had it, we wouldn't be here to search for OU when we would have it for years! His device is looped but not sustainable, like a battery connected to a resistance.
Quote
Not sequitur. We don't have not a single measurement that proves OU. Or do you know one, maybe you can say. So what is the problem? There is no need and there can never be a need to go away from the conventional methods of research.
The problem is that: "Bifilar pancake coil
overunity experiment".
This is the title you have chosen yourself. Why this misleading title and reference in your first post to a "zero Lenz effect" before describing your experiment, if you don't have a single measurement indicating OU or no Lenz effect?
I thought you were talking about things related to the subject.
Quote from: F6FLT on October 23, 2018, 12:03:46 PM
We have no proof that Bedini's device works endlessly. If we had it, we wouldn't be here to search for OU when we would have it for years! His device is looped but not sustainable, like a battery connected to a resistance.
You told what is necessary is a looping device, so this is looping device all right.
"Zero lenz effect", this is what i thought, and i also said that this is only what i think.
Desolation.
F6FLT, now what is the value of your LTspice model? That you find when the reality differs from the model? It certainly does, the capacitance can only be modeled as many small capacitors between the conductors after some intervals all the length of the wire. There may not be such model in LTspice, because it is not many small coils in series, it is one coil, these capacitors would be like a part of the coil. Maybe there is something like that for transmission lines, but also for some restricted case perhaps. One may have to write ones own equations to really model it. This may have some purpose, to compare the simulation with the real, find the difference, that may enable to find everything that is going on there.
Modeling a coil at instances of time is even not so very difficult, the differential equation for induction is very simple. May be an interesting thing for some, sure it also has been done so one doesn't have to start from nothing.
But F6FLT, please understand we don't want to see only the output of your model. Because any value that your model may ever have, is in comparing it with the real data. So please also post the screenshot of your oscilloscope in addition to your simulation of that. Just if you want your work to have any value.
Bedini SG is indeed, looping and, no overunity whatsoever, so everybody should rejoice.
If showing that there is no overunity gives so much joy, then why don't you show that the various coils that are believed to have overunity, such as rodin coils, really have none? Or then again i don't see what gives joy and what doesn't.
Hi F6FLT,
Thanks for describing what you find by probing the E field around the bifilar coil, it is interesting. (Reply #175 in previous page)
I wonder if you still consider to design a bifilar coil where the lower and upper resonant frequencies would coincide?
I think you would need to decide first how you drive that coil because as you found the two resonances occur at two different driving methods.
Then decide whether you would increase Cs1 and Cs2 to bring the upper frequency down or you would choose to increase the lower resonant frequency by appropiate coil construction to reduce Cp.
But: now, after the simulations (Reply #179), I wonder if you still think that strange effects may be going to happen, when the lower and upper resonant frequencies are met? 8)
Regarding simulations on bifilar coils, would like to show such here:
https://overunity.com/17186/the-bifilar-pancake-coil-at-its-resonant-frequency/msg505402/topicseen/#msg505402 (https://overunity.com/17186/the-bifilar-pancake-coil-at-its-resonant-frequency/msg505402/topicseen/#msg505402)
However, in that simulation the two bifilar windings are connected in series (as per in the Tesla patent, Coil for electromagnets).
That thread, by the way, includes several ideas with measurements and with COP > 1 results but in the end the errors are recognized...
Addition: the bifilar coils are wound from normal enameled wires, see this video how they looked like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXKJjNAZDEM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXKJjNAZDEM)
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
I have now understood the bifilar coil in a quasi-stationary regime i.e. when the dimensions of the coils (not the wire length which can be much longer) are small in comparison with the wavelengths of the signals. This is largely due to your comments about the two capacitors.
The two frequencies are not parameters of the bifilar coil. Each one depends on the setup, in particular the highest. We can have only one for a given setup so my idea to make them converge is a non sens.
Either we have a low impedance connecting both ends of the coils (like a generator), then the small parasitic capacitance that loops them through air is negligible and we have the resonance LCω²=1 with C the large capacitance between wires, or we keep the ends open or weakly coupled, and then the two wires work as one and resonate at LCpω²=1 where Cp is the small parasitic capacitance. A more balanced compromise could be made leading to any intermediate frequency, through connections with adjusted impedances, but I don't see any particular interest.
In Tesla's patent, the wires are indeed connected in series, a case that does not correspond to either of the two I mentioned, because they have only been used to characterize the fundamental parameters.
In DC it's easy: we have the same number of turns in a bifilar or monofilar coil of the same size and wire, so the same current produces the same magnetic field. It is quite normal that TinselKoala measures almost the same value. At low frequency, it's the same thing. Although the capacitor is charged/discharged at each cycle, it does not allow a high current to pass through because its impedance remains high at this low frequency. At higher frequencies, especially near resonance frequencies that are different between the two coils, it is likely that the measured fields will be different.
I have simplified my previous LTspice schematic of my bifilar coil and I'm now designing a component easy to use in a model (see attached picture). I hate this non-intuitive software so I'm struggling a little bit. When it is ready (if I succeed) I will release it in a new thread and I will test Tesla's configuration.
There is no need of simulating the bifilar coil with many discrete components. A bifilar coil, or even a transmission line, is a quadrupole. It is sufficient to define four ports and establish the equations linking the voltages and currents of all ports to each other.
The connection in the Tesla's patent provides the maximum difference of potential between the windings, that is 1/2 of the voltage on the coil, which enables maximum charge between the windings. And there should have been a reason why this was necessary.
Now some may ask why did i create this thread. I found a way to calculate input and output power of a coil with Python. Then i did an experiment with a bifiar pancake coil made of some sort of shielded speaker cable. The calculations showed overunity, that is when i created this thread. But then, the more precise i went with the calculations, the less overunity there were. Though the overunity did not completely go away. By repeating the experiment i never got the same results again, and there were never overunity. So i cannot be sure whether that one time there was overunity, or was it about some imprecision of measurement. Without being able to replicate it exactly the same, i cannot be sure what was the case. That's all i can say, i don't want to cheat anyhow.
I have a kind of poor equipment. Only an old analog oscilloscope, only Arduino to generate signal, and i have to make some DAC with it to even create sine, with any higher frequency, otherwise i cannot even find resonance. All i have is a pulse.
This here, is really everyone doing important work. Finding no overunity is as important as finding overunity. Like if it will be found that some type of coil never has overunity, that's important, that's much less remaining to find out. Do any coils even have overunity, what would be left then is cold fusion, big Tesla coils, resonance, things like that. Overall, the work of everyone here, doing important contributions, should be rewarded. Not only these who once may find overunity. Because when they once do, that's also because of the work of many others, whose work finally enabled to get the result. I know here are serious people who do everything they can to research overunity, i love you guys, you do good work, that needs to be done, not done wrongly at all.
And yes i understand, with an unknown thing one wants to get as much information about it as one can get. F6FLT did a good job in that, i appreciate, there is nothing negative i want to say. And yes i know how difficult it is.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 26, 2018, 12:26:55 PM
The connection in the Tesla's patent provides the maximum difference of potential between the windings, that is 1/2 of the voltage on the coil, which enables maximum charge between the windings. And there should have been a reason why this was necessary.
The reason is that it maximizes capacity.
As you said, in the Tesla's patent there is a voltage U/2 between two consecutive turns while there is only U/n in a normal coil, n being the number of turns.
In any case, it's just an LC circuit but with a much bigger capacity with the Tesla's winding.
Tesla used it because particularly at his time (but also today less or more) high voltage capacitors were difficult to make.
A sizable advancement a few days ago
Capacitors and 3D printing of Graphene
https://www.insidescience.org/news/3d-printed-graphene-scaffold-breaks-capacitor-records (https://www.insidescience.org/news/3d-printed-graphene-scaffold-breaks-capacitor-records)
you are truly men of science and character , The Sun delivers in one hour what our entire Planet uses in one year.
we will find that "Tap" into this "wheelwork of nature"
your examples here sharing your hard work as well as honesty and integrity are priceless examples and very much appreciated and inspiring .
with much respect
Chet
Hi F6FLT,
Okay, fine on your reply #189 above.
Would like to draw your (and ayeaye) attention to some patent applications in which "capacitive" windings are involved but not only with distributed capacitance but with normal capacitors connected between the two start and two end wires of the windings, see here an application for the latter, for instance:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=WO&NR=2010003394A2&KC=A2&FT=D# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=WO&NR=2010003394A2&KC=A2&FT=D#)
It is like your circuit on the left hand side in your post #179 but in the patent application the Cs capacitors are not shown, only the Cp ones, i.e. they are lumped element capacitors. The inventor refers to applications in which capacitive i.e. reactive current is utilized, he says magnetic field from such current can also do work in the same way as real current, and to the outside circuit such coil assembly shows capacitive behaviour at the low frequencies and power factor is (quasi) zero.
The German text of the application can be on-line translated freely if you click on the Description icon in the left hand side vertical Menu and then choose your preferred language in the small window in the middle.
The same inventor shows an application for induction heating with such coils, see this link which also translates German text to English: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE202014001838U1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/DE202014001838U1/en)
Here is the original German text in which the math formulas can be seen better:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=DE&NR=202014001838U1&KC=U1&FT=D&ND=&date=20140611&DB=&locale=# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=DE&NR=202014001838U1&KC=U1&FT=D&ND=&date=20140611&DB=&locale=#)
Of course, in this link you can also have English text if you click on the Description icon.
My humble opinion to readers here is that only correct measurements can decide whether such capacitive coils with near zero power factor have any advantage in a practical application like say inductive heating or in electric motors etc.
Gyula
more about capacitive winding application by others
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0328390.html (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0328390.html) by John Kissane
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20160929&CC=JP&NR=2016174482A&KC=A (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20160929&CC=JP&NR=2016174482A&KC=A) by Tanaka Saburo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=7&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20161013&CC=DE&NR=112014005978A5&KC=A5 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=7&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20161013&CC=DE&NR=112014005978A5&KC=A5)
which input is needed during the inrush current phase ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saburo capacitive DC/AC inverter as AC source for the Imris capacitive generator ( the generator output to the Imris capacitive friction heater )
the DC energy source for the Saburo cap-inverter ?
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=5&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20100615&CC=ES&NR=2341161A1&KC=A1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=5&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20100615&CC=ES&NR=2341161A1&KC=A1)
the solar cell concept lamps controler,power saving,
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19950202&CC=WO&NR=9503681A1&KC=A1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19950202&CC=WO&NR=9503681A1&KC=A1)
My Inkscape script again, for these who have analog oscilloscopes. So that it will not disappear. In fact the CSV that the digital oscilloscope outputs, is time and voltage, and a separate CSV for both channels? So properly it should generate CSV the way the oscilloscope outputs, and then the calculation script should input that. But i don't know exactly what the format is, so by now it's just a list of voltages. So one may have to use a spreadsheet or an online converter, to convert CSV to list. Someone show me a single example of the CSV that oscilloscope outputs, as i couldn't find a single one, that should be enough to rewrite both scripts to using exactly that CSV. Thanks.
Quote
#Voltage scale in V
YU = 0.2
#Scale is 50 units
YU /= 50
str = ""
f = open("input.txt")
for s in f:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
str = s[begin : end]
f.close()
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = str.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(str)
return int(round(float(str[begin : pos])))
pos = 0
list = []
next(",")
next(" ")
list.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
while (True):
x = list[-1][0] + abs(next(","))
y = list[-1][1] - next(" ")
list[-1][2] = x
list[-1][3] = y
if (pos == len(str)): break
list.append([x, y, 0, 0])
n = 0
for j in range(list[-1][2]):
while (j >= list[n][2]): n += 1
lx = list[n][2] - list[n][0]
ly = list[n][3] - list[n][1]
ratio = float(j - list[n][0]) / lx
v = (list[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio))) * YU
if (j): print(v)
When the signal is sine then phi is enough to see overunity, right. Showing the multiplication of the current and voltage on the coil shows overunity as well. But it may not always be exactly sine, and in all cases calculation is likely necessary to finally calculate and confirm the input and output power.
Zero power factor, i guess it is when the average power is near zero, right? It may look like that zero power is not very important for overunity. But this is exactly what we are after. When average power is zero, then positive and negative powers are equal. The best i think we can dream of is when the negative power is slightly greater than the positive power, and this shows as a near zero average power.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 28, 2018, 11:52:41 AM
My Inkscape script again, for these who have analog oscilloscopes. So that it will not disappear. In fact the CSV that the digital oscilloscope outputs, is time and voltage, and a separate CSV for both channels? So properly it should generate CSV the way the oscilloscope outputs, and then the calculation script should input that. But i don't know exactly what the format is, so by now it's just a list of voltages. So one may have to use a spreadsheet or an online converter, to convert CSV to list. Someone show me a single example of the CSV that oscilloscope outputs, as i couldn't find a single one, that should be enough to rewrite both scripts to using exactly that CSV. Thanks.
When the signal is sine then phi is enough to see overunity, right. Showing the multiplication of the current and voltage on the coil shows overunity as well. But it may not always be exactly sine, and in all cases calculation is likely necessary to finally calculate and confirm the input and output power.
Zero power factor, i guess it is when the average power is near zero, right? It may look like that zero power is not very important for overunity. But this is exactly what we are after. When average power is zero, then positive and negative powers are equal. The best i think we can dream of is when the negative power is slightly greater than the positive power, and this shows as a near zero average power.
Here is a CSV text file generated by a Tek MDO3034. All 4 channels plus the Math calculations are included and may be compared to the attached Excel file that also includes the scope pix.
Pm
Many thanks. The format is even simpler than i thought. Tektronix has a great precision, 1000 units in the time scale, that's huge. I see it can output math channel, which makes the calculation very simple, but not all scopes can do that and i make it generic.
For analog scopes there has to be both channels drawn in Inkscape. The way that the path for channel 1 is drawn first and the path for channel 2 is drawn second. It doesn't matter where these paths are located on the drawing, it only matters that the channel 1 path is first and channel 2 path is second. The x length of both also has to be more or less the same, the shorter of these determines the length of CSV list.
Takes some time to figure out. Nothing complicated at all, but the usual stuff about what is where.
Quote
...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0328390.html (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2013/0328390.html) by John Kissane
...
It is said "The inductance generated by the capacitor in circuit 1 would generate Current in the coil of wire in circuit 2 indirectly". By the virtue of the Holy Spirit?!
There is no magnetic coupling between circuits 1 and 2 because they do not share a magnetic flux (they are transverse). There is a capacitive coupling but no current because once an electron has been attracted to a capacitor plate, there is no longer any reason for it to move, we are in DC. When the electron "e" is capacitively attracted to point "A" (see drawing), another electron from circuit 2, on the other side of the coil, is attracted in opposition to the other end of the coil. The resulting effect for a current is nil.
To induce a current in a coil inside a capacitor, or from the coil to the capacitor, the axis of the coil must be perpendicular to the capacitor plates and the current must be AC. We face a childish crackpot who mixes capacitive and magnetic coupling without understanding either one.
Quote from: partzman on October 28, 2018, 04:15:52 PM
Here is a CSV text file generated by a Tek MDO3034.
Now the output of the Inkscape script and the input of the calculation script are CSV, in the format that digital oscilloscopes, such as Tektronix, output. Inkscape script.
Quote
#Time between samples in ns
XU = 0.4
XU *= 1e-9
#Channels 1 and 2 voltage scales in V
YU1 = 2.0
YU2 = 0.2
#Scale is 50 units
YU1 /= 50
YU2 /= 50
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = path.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(path)
return int(round(float(path[begin : pos])))
def pathtolist(list, YU):
global pos
pos = 0
segments = []
next(",")
next(" ")
segments.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
while (True):
x = segments[-1][0] + abs(next(","))
y = segments[-1][1] - next(" ")
segments[-1][2] = x
segments[-1][3] = y
if (pos == len(path)): break
segments.append([x, y, 0, 0])
n = 0
for j in range(segments[-1][2]):
while (j >= segments[n][2]): n += 1
lx = segments[n][2] - segments[n][0]
ly = segments[n][3] - segments[n][1]
ratio = float(j - segments[n][0]) / lx
v = (segments[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio))) * YU
list.append(v)
pos = 0
path = ""
f = open("input.txt")
for s in f:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
path = s[begin : end]
break
f.close()
list1 = []
pathtolist(list1, YU1)
pos = 0
path = ""
f = open("input.txt")
for s in f:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
path = s[begin : end]
f.close()
list2 = []
pathtolist(list2, YU2)
length = min(len(list1), len(list2))
for j in range(1, length):
s = "%1.3E" % (j * XU) + "," + str(list1[j]) + "," + str(list2[j])
print(s)
Trinket.
https://trinket.io/python/e18f3511dd (https://trinket.io/python/e18f3511dd)
Power calculation script.
Quote
#Resistor resistance in ohms
R = 47.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 1000.0
#Voltages are in mV, time is in ms
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = csv.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(csv)
return float(csv[begin : pos])
csv = ""
pos = n = 0
xu = ei = eo = 0.0
f = open("input.txt")
while (True):
s = f.readline()
if (len(s) < 1): break
csv = s.strip()
if (len(csv) == 0): continue
if (csv[0] != "-" and not csv[0].isdigit()): continue
pos = -1
t = next(",") * 1000000
if (n == 0): xu = t
if (n == 1): xu = t - xu
n += 1
vs = next(",") * 1000
vr = next(",") * 1000
vl = vs - vr
pl = vl * vr / R / 1000
if (pl >= 0): ei += pl
if (pl < 0): eo += pl
f.close()
ei *= xu
print("Input power was %.4f uW" % (F * ei))
eo *= -1 * xu
print("Output power was %.4f uW" % (F * eo))
Trinket.
https://trinket.io/python/15c05ead0c (https://trinket.io/python/15c05ead0c)
Partzman, BTW, your data is about what? It gave the results, input power 5.6 W, output power 23.4 W, looks like overunity, or what is it? I calculated assuming the circuit, coil and resistor in series, and that the resistor was 47 ohms, if it differs, then the results may not have any meaning.
AyeAye
Interesting posts.
Words and numbers are just words and numbers until they induce a thought or idea at which point they become something else. I often wonder why so many have such a limited perspective of electrodynamics... why limit it?. We could just as easily say an Emf is a signal, a current a transmission and any dissipative circuit elements a receiver. We should also note that as many have said in the past, we can take mechanical and electric analogies literally.
That is we know a particle cannot act on another particle directly but only through a field indirectly. Thus every force including an Emf must constitute a transmission of energy by way of a field. Unfortunately many ignore the field or delegate it to some unimportant spooky action at a distance.
In the past I also looked at the notion of electro-magnetic phenomena as a signal transmission which conveys information through fields from a computational perspective. Assigning the equivalent of logic gate functions to all the discrete phenomena we see in electrodynamics. For example Lenz Law is a NOT gate or inverter with respect to an induced magnetic field change. An XNOR logic gate translates to field coupling and whether an external field is present and can act on something or not. So we build truth tables to represent all the electro-magnetic functions and at some point we find the electro-dynamic realities we know can be represented by form of software. All one has to do is look at the humble beginnings of the logic gate and how far we have taken it in computing to see the potential.
When we start looking at the big picture from many other alternate perspectives we can often learn many new things. Who could have predicted that a simple logic function in punch cards could have created the automated world we know today let alone Artificial Intelligence. It is very strange isn't it?. It begs the question... if AI which may soon surpass our understanding of things was born from the simple relationship between patterns of "1's" and a "0's" then how far can we take electro-dynamics?.
The trick, I have found, is not to get too bogged down by underachievers or those with business interests. Do your own thing, have some fun with it, imagine the possibilities. Our goal was never to lower ourselves to that level but to rise above it and we cannot take them with us. limited seating capacity...
Onepower, what is a field? Space is a grid, in the grid, the nodes cannot interact directly. The way to do it, is to send quanta, that way one particle "finds" another. You may call it digital, it's not a computer though, the matter is that it's a grid. But it's certainly discrete.
What is the Lenz law, it's that everything causes an opposite reaction. And it's because everything protects its integrity. Like you step on the rake, it hits you, it's because rake maintains its integrity.
Better? Inkscape script for analog oscilloscopes that outputs waveform data in the same CSV format as Tektronix and other digital scopes.
Quote
#Time between samples in ns
XU = 0.4
XU *= 1e-9
#Channels 1 and 2 voltage scales in V
YU1 = 2.0
YU2 = 0.2
#Scale is 50 units
YU1 /= 50
YU2 /= 50
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = path.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(path)
return int(round(float(path[begin : pos])))
def pathtolist(list, YU):
global pos
pos = 0
segments = []
next(",")
next(" ")
segments.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
while (True):
x = segments[-1][0] + abs(next(","))
y = segments[-1][1] - next(" ")
segments[-1][2] = x
segments[-1][3] = y
if (pos == len(path)): break
segments.append([x, y, 0, 0])
n = 0
for j in range(segments[-1][2]):
while (j >= segments[n][2]): n += 1
lx = segments[n][2] - segments[n][0]
ly = segments[n][3] - segments[n][1]
ratio = float(j - segments[n][0]) / lx
v = segments[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio))
list.append(v * YU)
pos = 0
path = ""
f = open("input.txt")
for s in f:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
path = s[begin : end]
break
f.close()
list1 = []
pathtolist(list1, YU1)
pos = 0
path = ""
f = open("input.txt")
for s in f:
begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (begin == -1): continue
begin = s.find(" ", begin)
end = s.find("\"", begin)
path = s[begin : end]
f.close()
list2 = []
pathtolist(list2, YU2)
length = min(len(list1), len(list2))
for j in range(1, length):
s = "%1.3E" % ((j - 1) * XU) + ","
s += str(list1[j]) + "," + str(list2[j])
print(s)
Trinket.
https://trinket.io/python/31538962f0 (https://trinket.io/python/31538962f0)
Again the first point of both paths determines their x axis and the beginning of the x axis for both paths. And it doesn't matter at all where these paths are drawn or what is their location relative to each other. It only matters that channel 1 path is drawn first and channel 2 path is drawn second.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 29, 2018, 02:31:21 PM
Now the output of the Inkscape script and the input of the calculation script are CSV, in the format that digital oscilloscopes, such as Tektronix, output. Inkscape script.
Trinket.
https://trinket.io/python/e18f3511dd (https://trinket.io/python/e18f3511dd)
Power calculation script.
Trinket.
https://trinket.io/python/15c05ead0c (https://trinket.io/python/15c05ead0c)
Partzman, BTW, your data is about what? It gave the results, input power 5.6 W, output power 23.4 W, looks like overunity, or what is it? I calculated assuming the circuit, coil and resistor in series, and that the resistor was 47 ohms, if it differs, then the results may not have any meaning.
Those test results were taken from a voltage driven T225-26B powdered iron toroid with a bifilar litz winding. The Math channel indicated the energy in one of the windings over time and the "Inductance" was calculated in Excel. The second bilfilar winding had one end connected to ground with the correct dot polarity that allowed the first winding to discharge it's energy thru the distributed capacitance between said windings producing the voltage waveform in CH2(blu). There was no additional resistance other than the wiring, mosfet switching loss, and coil resistance of 1.15 ohms.
Pm
One thing, time has to be in ms. The power calculation script.
Quote
#Resistor resistance in ohms
R = 47.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 1000.0
#Voltages are in mV, time is in ms
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = csv.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(csv)
if (csv[begin : pos] == ""): return 0.0
return float(csv[begin : pos])
csv = ""
pos = n = 0
xu = ei = eo = 0.0
f = open("input.txt")
while (True):
s = f.readline()
if (len(s) < 1): break
csv = s.strip()
if (len(csv) == 0): continue
if (csv[0] != "-" and not csv[0].isdigit()): continue
pos = -1
t = next(",") * 1000
if (n == 0): xu = t
if (n == 1): xu = t - xu
n += 1
vs = next(",") * 1000
vr = next(",") * 1000
vl = vs - vr
pl = vl * vr / R / 1000
if (pl >= 0): ei += pl
if (pl < 0): eo += pl
f.close()
ei *= xu
print("Input power was %.4f uW" % (F * ei))
eo *= -1 * xu
print("Output power was %.4f uW" % (F * eo))
Trinket.
https://trinket.io/python/2ee90868b9 (https://trinket.io/python/2ee90868b9)
Other thing, next() now returns 0 when there was no number. This enables to get all values, like the following calculates your energy per cycle. It's in J if your instantaneous power was in W. I don't know the frequency to calculate power. Your instantaneous power was always positive, why?
Quote
def next(separator):
global pos
begin = pos + 1
pos = csv.find(separator, begin)
if (pos == -1): pos = len(csv)
if (csv[begin : pos] == ""): return 0.0
return float(csv[begin : pos])
csv = ""
pos = n = 0
xu = ei = eo = 0.0
f = open("input.txt")
while (True):
s = f.readline()
if (len(s) < 1): break
csv = s.strip()
if (len(csv) == 0): continue
if (csv[0] != "-" and not csv[0].isdigit()): continue
pos = -1
for j in range(6): next(",")
t = next(",")
if (n == 0): xu = t
if (n == 1): xu = t - xu
n += 1
ei += next(",")
f.close()
print("Energy per cycle " + str(ei * xu))
Trinket.
https://trinket.io/python/66a825269d (https://trinket.io/python/66a825269d)
MDO3034 ::)
It may look strange, but it's the right way to overcome what is missing in Python, and make it straightforward. Using list with an element string Instead of string, makes it modifiable by function. Inkscape script and its trinket.
Quote
#Scales in s and V, scale is 50 units
XU = 20 * 1e-9 / 50
YU1 = 2.0 / 50
YU2 = 0.2 / 50
def nextt(sl, separator):
endp = sl[0].find(separator)
if (endp == -1): endp = len(sl[0])
tok = sl[0][ : endp]
sl[0] = sl[0][endp + 1 : ]
return int(round(float(tok)))
def tolist(path, yu):
n = 0
list = []
segments = [[0, 0, 0, 0]]
nextt(path, ",")
nextt(path, " ")
while (True):
x = segments[-1][0] + abs(nextt(path, ","))
y = segments[-1][1] - nextt(path, " ")
segments[-1][2] = x
segments[-1][3] = y
if (path[0] == ""): break
segments.append([x, y, 0, 0])
for j in range(segments[-1][2]):
while (j >= segments[n][2]): n += 1
lx = segments[n][2] - segments[n][0]
ly = segments[n][3] - segments[n][1]
ratio = float(j - segments[n][0]) / lx
v = segments[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio))
list.append(v * yu)
return list
path1 = [""]
path2 = [""]
f = open("input.txt")
for s in f:
startp = s.find("d=\"m ")
if (startp == -1): continue
startp = s.find(" ", startp)
endp = s.find("\"", startp)
if (path1[0] == ""): path1[0] = s[startp : endp]
path2[0] = s[startp : endp]
f.close()
list1 = tolist(path1, YU1)
list2 = tolist(path2, YU2)
length = min(len(list1), len(list2))
for j in range(length):
s = "%1.3E" % (j * XU) + ","
s += str(list1[j]) + "," + str(list2[j])
print(s)
https://trinket.io/python/eeffa85b19 (https://trinket.io/python/eeffa85b19)
Calculation script and its trinket.
Quote
# Resistor resistance in ohms
R = 47.0
#Frequency in Hz
F = 1000.0
#Voltages are in mV, time is in ms
def nextt(sl, separator):
endp = sl[0].find(separator)
if (endp == -1): endp = len(sl[0])
tok = sl[0][: endp]
sl[0] = sl[0][endp + 1 : ]
if (tok == ""): return 0.0
return float(tok)
n = 0
csv = [""]
xu = ei = eo = 0.0
f = open("input.txt")
while (True):
s = f.readline()
if (len(s) < 1): break
csv[0] = s.strip()
if (len(csv[0]) == 0): continue
if (csv[0][0] != "-" and not csv[0][0].isdigit()):
continue
t = nextt(csv, ",") * 1000
n += 1
if (n == 1): xu = t
if (n == 2): xu = t - xu
vs = nextt(csv, ",") * 1000
vr = nextt(csv, ",") * 1000
vl = vs - vr
pl = vl * vr / R / 1000
if (pl >= 0): ei += pl
if (pl < 0): eo += pl
f.close()
ei *= xu
print("Input power was %.4f uW" % (F * ei))
eo *= -1 * xu
print("Output power was %.4f uW" % (F * eo))
https://trinket.io/python/839fcae20d (https://trinket.io/python/839fcae20d)
Calculation of power of the Tektronix sample data above, and its trinket.
Quote
def nextt(sl, separator):
endp = sl[0].find(separator)
if (endp == -1): endp = len(sl[0])
tok = sl[0][: endp]
sl[0] = sl[0][endp + 1 : ]
if (tok == ""): return 0.0
return float(tok)
n = 0
csv = [""]
xu = ei = eo = 0.0
f = open("input.txt")
while (True):
s = f.readline()
if (len(s) < 1): break
csv[0] = s.strip()
if (len(csv[0]) == 0): continue
if (csv[0][0] != "-" and not csv[0][0].isdigit()):
continue
for j in range(6): nextt(csv, ",")
t = nextt(csv, ",")
n += 1
if (n == 1): xu = t
if (n == 2): xu = t - xu
ei += nextt(csv, ",")
f.close()
print("Energy per cycle " + str(ei * xu))
https://trinket.io/python/126f63131a (https://trinket.io/python/126f63131a)
Not really the topic here, but there are ways in Inkscape to convert oscilloscope traces to path, by not copying the path from the image completely by hand. I'm no expert in Inkscape, so the Inkscape experts forgive me, i can only tell the little that i know, please share your knowledge if you know some great things.
As much as i know, there is no way to convert a trace into a single line path automatically. If one knows any way to do that, please say, maybe there are some tools other than Inkscape that can do that.
In the Inkscape Path menu there is an item "Trace Bitmap". This and the "Stroke to Path" from the same menu, enable to convert traces into a circular paths. These will not be lines, they have some thickness.
At the right edge of the Inkscape screen there are buttons to select different modes of snapping. One is "Snap to paths". One can draw a zigzag path inside the circular path of the trace, so that the ends of the segments will be on that circular path. The other snap mode is "Snap from and to midpoints of line segments". This enables to draw path through the midpoints of the segments of that zigzag path.
This path will be a calculated approximation of the trace by a single path. This is not hand copied, but transformed from the original image. It may be too complicated though. There still has to be snapping to grid, and also considering all kind of imperfections of the image, a path copied by hand may much better match the trace than this semi-automatic transformation. But just to let everyone know, that there is such option.
A line from the beginning of the x axis may be drawn later. At the left side click on "Edit paths by nodes". Holding down the shift key, select the paths and the line segments to be joined. Then "Join selected nodes" at the upper edge of the screen, joins the paths into a single path.
Btw, what one thinks about the circuit on the figure below? What happens there, when the pulse is on, and after the pulse ends? Can one simulate it in any way? The caveat there is that these are not two separate coils, the two parallel lines indicate that these two coils are on the same core, so they cannot be simulated as two separate coils. That is to understand, what the capacitance between the windings really does.
This can be simulated with python, or c if one likes, if there is no existing simulator that can simulate this. Something like, solenoid phi = mu0 * mur * n * i * a / l , what about toroid? The current is split, part goes to the left coil and part to the capacitor, magnetic flux is however the sum of the magnetic flux that both coil segments generate. Faraday's law of induction e = - dphi / dt , which is voltage on the coil segment. Capacitor i = c * dv / dt . One should start from induction, because this is the engine of change.
No, unity is not written into these equations, if there is unity or overunity, then it supposed to come from applying these equations.
Interesting? This question usually means, who will now do the dirty work. Why should i do?
No there is no luck to get overunity. I played with the circuit below rather randomly, using ngspice, maybe you get some idea what such thing does. These two coils are coupled, like on the same core. Netlist was the following.
Quote
* Spice netlister for gnetlist
K1 L1 L2 0.999
L2 n1 0 200u
L1 n0 n1 200u
R1 n2 n0 100
C1 0 n1 50n
V1 n2 0 dc 0 pulse 0 5 0 5n 5n 3u 100u
.END
The image below is plot n0-0 , after tran 10n 30u . I printed (n0-0) * (n2-n0) . The output of that is some tsv, but my python script worked with it pretty well. The output was the following.
Quote
Input 1501.44444818
Output 1474.84738893
This is the Python script that i used, i redirected the output of the ngspice print command to input.txt. I did it in the ngspice shell, print (n2-n0) * (n0 - 0) > input.txt . I don't know how this can be done with LTspice, but there sure has to be something similar. LTspice can use netlists made for ngspice, these are both spice, though LTspice may use somewhat different models.
Quote
def nextf(sl, separator):
endp = sl[0].find(separator)
if (endp == -1): endp = len(sl[0])
tok = sl[0][: endp]
sl[0] = sl[0][endp + 1 : ]
if (tok == ""): return 0.0
return float(tok)
line = [""]
ei = eo = 0.0
f = open("input.txt")
while (True):
line[0] = f.readline()
if (len(line[0]) == 0): break
line[0] = line[0].strip()
if (len(line[0]) == 0): continue
if (not line[0][0].isdigit()): continue
nextf(line, "\t")
nextf(line, "\t")
p = nextf(line, "\t")
if (p >= 0): ei += p
if (p < 0): eo += p
f.close()
print("Input " + str(ei))
print("Output " + str(-eo))
https://trinket.io/python/0264fc62fc (https://trinket.io/python/0264fc62fc)
This above couldn't be done with spreadsheet. The output of the print command is tsv, but one cannot read it into a spreadsheet, as it has things written at the beginning and in between the pages, also lines like --------------------------------------- .
Python eats all things well though. One may think, nextf() is the next float value. Its arguments are line in the list form, and separator, which is "," for csv, and in this case tab. It goes to the next iteration when the first character is not digit, which omits all lines that are not tsv. The first value may be negative, so "-" should be allowed also, which couldn't be allowed in this case.
Then, all positive values were added as input, and all negative values were added as output.
In fact what i think there may be, maybe that is, i don't say that there is. That the current induced, is not determined by the speed of change of the magnetic field, but is greater, when a part of the current goes somewhere else, moving only a short distance, like to a capacitor.
The simulation thus cannot show it, as it assumes that the current is always proportional to the speed of change of the magnetic field (Faraday's law).
The simulation seems to show that this is how simulation works, as by that like in the beginning, the capacitor decreases the increase of the voltage, thus decreasing the change of the magnetic field. A part of the energy that otherwise goes to increasing the magnetic field, then went to charging the capacitor. And then it seems to show that after the pulse ends, the energy stored in the capacitor goes back to the coil, to delay the current reaching zero, thus increasing the generated energy. But this comes from the energy by which the magnetic field was increased less. Thus simulation might not show the possible overunity even if it were there.
We cannot eliminate the Lenz law, because induction is the Lenz law. We may only increase it and redirect it. Like in this case, it supposed to be redirected to charging the capacitance. Certain work has to be done to increase the magnetic field, which means working against the charges in the atoms of the core, which means resistance to the current, it cannot be otherwise. The only question is whether the effect of induction can create the opposite current more than that.
About this picture below, why i showed that. I'm not of any religion, don't misunderstand. It shows fire wheels, and why i showed these.
Because atoms are the fire wheels that move the universe.
There is a saying that "comparison is not reason".
Metaphors and comparisons are processes of religious writing designed to convince without thinking. These are the best traps for not understanding science questions.
Quote from: F6FLT on November 10, 2018, 10:49:00 AM
There is a saying that "comparison is not reason".
Metaphors and comparisons are processes of religious writing designed to convince without thinking. These are the best traps for not understanding science questions.
No you are completely wrong. That is, there are many ways how one can go wrong, with an ordinary deductive thinking one can go wrong as well, when doing it wrongly. But metaphors are indispensable in analytical thinking. Which they today don't teach in schools, before they did, they may not want that people can think. Analytical thinking is all about modeling, to understand something, one has to build a model of it. And metaphors are good for building such models in ones mind. Comparison is not reason, but comparison is necessary for reason.
And then one does experiments, still no overunity, still no overunity, still no overunity. It's because we are trapped by induction, which is so symmetric thing. Its symmetry is just amazing, whatever we do, we cannot break it, that's really phenomenal.
F6FLT
QuoteThere is a saying that "comparison is not reason".
Reason: is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.
How exactly can we make sense of "things" if not by comparing one thing to other things. In fact all science, a method of testing explanations, is based on standards which is a direct comparison isn't it?.
QuoteMetaphors and comparisons are processes of religious writing designed to convince without thinking. These are the best traps for not understanding science questions.
What I think you are doing relates to another area of science called psychology. This is where people make blanket statements with no justification in an attempt to project and reinforce their own beliefs. They also "gaslight" other people rather than use logic, reason and facts to justify a point.
Like this..."Metaphors and comparisons are processes of religious writing designed to convince without thinking. These are the best traps for not understanding science questions". We have... projection, triangulation, baiting, a lack of justification, false comparisons and generally degrading behavior. It's a check list for classic narcissistic abusive personality disorders in my opinion.
If we are going to speak of science then at the very least we should try to follow the method. We should state our claim or objection to a claim then explain our justification in a reasonable and logical manner.
I called atoms fire wheels. Atoms resemble wheels, because the electrons orbit the nucleus, they don't exactly orbit, but one may see it like that, as it is what orbiting means in the quantum world.
Fire is somewhat similar to a jet stream, that can affect things remotely.
Why, because like during induction, the atoms in the core (dipoles) induce current when they are more or less side wise towards the wire. Side means side like the side of the wheel. Then the rotation of the electron around the nucleus moves the electrons in the wire forward, just like a wheel. Because such rotation creates a rotating electric field.
During that the atom has to rotate or move more towards or away from the wire, this is why i showed the analogy of the leaf blower. In that increase or decrease of the blow relative to the leaf makes it to move in a certain direction, while constant blow in one direction may only scatter leaves in all directions. This is not a direct analogy, but just to give an idea why increase or decrease of the force matters, while rotational movement alone may not be enough to force things to move in one direction.
And what is the most amazing in that, is that during that process the electrons in the atom do work, forcing the electrons in the wire to move. And in spite of that, they don't lose energy and don't fall to the nucleus, so where does the energy that keeps them orbiting come from? How they usually answer to that question, is that it is not exactly orbiting, it is different. But this is in essence just talking about something else to avoid the need to answer. They are also talking about magnetic and electric field, avoiding the explanation how one comes from the other.
This electrons orbiting nucleus also create something with amazing properties, which they call magnetic field. Which is not exactly field but rather a result of a dynamic process. What this orbiting causes, is a field that is not symmetric, that is not spherical, parallel or in any other way symmetric, in that it has two poles. Why is that special, is that an asymmetric field can theoretically do continues work. Again where the energy there comes from. This looks like the same question as where the energy comes from that keeps the electrons orbiting.
Thus i stated the reason for comparison and explained it in a logical manner.
Ayeaye
QuoteI called atoms fire wheels. Atoms resemble wheels, because the electrons orbit the nucleus, they don't exactly orbit, but one may see it like that, as it is what orbiting means in the quantum world.
Fire is somewhat similar to a jet stream, that can affect things remotely.
Why, because like during induction, the atoms in the core (dipoles) induce current when they are more or less side wise towards the wire. Side means side like the side of the wheel. Then the rotation of the electron around the nucleus moves the electrons in the wire forward, just like a wheel. Because such rotation creates a rotating electric field.
I thought it was a good analogy and fire being a form of excitation/ionization could represent the fields of orbiting electrons. It is interesting stuff, the electron spin produces a magnetic dipole however the electron orbit does as well not unlike a current loop. I would say the electron orbit does qualify as a current loop not unlike a 1 turn coil in itself because a current is simply described as a moving particle/field.
QuoteAnd what is the most amazing in that, is that during that process the electrons in the atom do work, forcing the electrons in the wire to move. And in spite of that, they don't lose energy and don't fall to the nucleus, so where does the energy that keeps them orbiting come from? How they usually answer to that question, is that it is not exactly orbiting, it is different. But this is in essence just talking about something else to avoid the need to answer. They are also talking about magnetic and electric field, avoiding the explanation how one comes from the other.
It is strange that so many say perpetual motion is impossible yet in every science textbook we are told the electrons must orbit the nucleus perpetually... . In fact nobody can give even one example of something not in perpetual motion thus it is the norm and not an exception to any rule. Perpetual motion is universal and motion is energy thus everything everywhere represents energy. Our goal here is to figure out a way to extract some of this energy.
Good post and we need more of this kind of intelligent debate in my opinion. To follow the method of science in our conversations. As if to say here is my explanation or perspective of how I see things and here is my justification for it. All too often we see people tossing out a word salad with no justification which is meaningless in my opinion.
Quote from: onepower on November 16, 2018, 10:57:03 AM
Good post and we need more of this kind of intelligent debate in my opinion. To follow the method of science in our conversations. As if to say here is my explanation or perspective of how I see things and here is my justification for it.
Thank you Onepower!
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 19, 2018, 04:39:07 AM
I could go on like this for a while yet, just as you go on and on about your programming. But what's the point? If you want to see some high COP measurements from a bifilar coil setup, look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c
Now i come back to this, no i didn't forget. I went on and on with programming yes, but finally i think i wrote a good script. Useful for some, as not all have so good oscilloscope as you have, that is capable of doing these calculations. But more importantly it appeared that it was important to explain things, how many times i had to say that instantaneous power is P = V * I. And that the actual input or output power we can calculate by adding all positive or negative instantaneous powers during a cycle, multiplying it by a time period, and then multiplying that by the frequency. Like you asked where the input and output of the circuit is, we don't need the input and output in the circuit to calculate input and output power, the average positive instantaneous power is the input, and the average negative instantaneous power is the output. And that this then is the same as measuring the amplitudes of the voltage, current and phase angle between them, and calculating from these, in case if both signals are sines. And that input and output powers can be measured separately on the coil, or some other part of the circuit. Ok, that's about that.
Excellently done experiment, TinselKoala! The correct way to calculate average power is to calculate the average of the instantaneous powers, considering both positive and negative values. So that when the positive and negative parts of the trace are equal, then the result is zero. I assume that your oscilloscope does it in that way, that you got a similar result by calculating from amplitudes and a phase angle between them, confirms that. The average power calculated by oscilloscope is correct in that case though, as the signals are not exactly sines.
Assuming that all was correctly done, which looks like that it was, this is a significant result, with overunity 2.9 times. Good work TinselKoala and Partzman! I also agree with Partzman that the other path through the air is insignificant, and can be disregarded. I also think that when the oscilloscope and its probes were well calibrated, then its measurements can be relied on.
One terminal of the input winding of the bifilar coil is not connected, thus with the second winding it forms like a capacitor. In this circuit too i think part of the induction goes to charge the capacitance, and this is where i think the overunity comes from as i said. This may mean generating more current than provided by the Faraday's law, that goes to charge the capacitance, and is not entirely affected by the Lenz effect, as not all that current goes through all the coil. I think that this experiment confirms that. To see that this is what happens, the voltages on the coils and the currents through them may have to be measured, to see whether the induced current, including that necessary for charging the capacitance, is indeed greater than the current provided by the Faraday's law.
Below is the Partzman's circuit that TinselKoala used in his experiment, that i took from the TinselKoala's video, i assume that i can provide a screenshot of it here, TinselKoala please say if you have any objections.
Now just continue from that!
Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c
It was the video that triggered my coming here, because I had noticed that Tinselkoala is a reliable experimenter.
There is an intriguing comment from him on the investigation of the COP, he seems to suspect a measurement issue:
"I just haven't yet posted the video of that further investigation yet. Hint: How would you test to see
if the PBT itself is actually causing the OU readings?"
What is PBT, Polybutylene terephthalate? Very unlikely, or i don't know what he meant.
PBT//Partzmans Bifilar transformer
F6FLT ...I understand the frustration from The author of the Video , he tries to explain to persons herethat even measurements must be scrutinized to the finest degree [his hidden message in this vid] ,soooo many times there is a surprise at the end of the scrutiny
and here in this forum persons who dare to measure get threats and attacks ,..that is why you don't see them here too much ,and you do see persons flaunting failures as fact ?
I am not versed in the error which manifest to produce this particular measurement error.and I must also add Partzman still works with Smudge and others to find all these errors//...after all it is the only way to advance and not be fooled [the Feynman tag at the bottom of the Tinsels posts.//
Brutal honesty is the only way forward ,if the scientific method is abandoned ....there is no way to Progress ,this just becomes a place for secret book writers ,fraudsters and scammers
I will ask Partzman to explain this error [to be sure I have this correct ]but he may not answer here as certain persons are attacking the scientific method here at this time.[not referencing any members here in this thread]
..if he does not respond personally ,I will be sure to post the reply.
respectfully..Chet//
Ps to add // I see these errors as sharpening the spear [and so does the Partzman]the hunt will never stop
Okay, Chet, this is the right way.
I have often been caught by measurement errors, some of my fault, others related to the measurement equipment (e. g. my FG Siglent generates a few mV in DC superimposed on the sine signal!).
That is why this Tinselkoala's video is so exemplary. He simply shows the measurements and how he does them, without any definitive conclusion because I suspect he doubts and wants to check, which is to his credit.
IMO...If this forum were a place which supported members like this who actually build and share honest measurement protocols for scrutiny and discussion.
we would be a million miles closer to where we need to be .
he was an asset which will be very hard to replace
Maybe we can fix that here ??real science is hard to resist .......... ;)
Quote from: ramset on December 15, 2018, 07:33:42 AM
PBT//Partzmans Bifilar transformer
F6FLT ...I understand the frustration from The author of the Video , he tries to explain to persons herethat even measurements must be scrutinized to the finest degree [his hidden message in this vid] ,soooo many times there is a surprise at the end of the scrutiny
and here in this forum persons who dare to measure get threats and attacks ,..that is why you don't see them here too much ,and you do see persons flaunting failures as fact ?
I am not versed in the error which manifest to produce this particular measurement error.and I must also add Partzman still works with Smudge and others to find all these errors//...after all it is the only way to advance and not be fooled [the Feynman tag at the bottom of the Tinsels posts.//
Brutal honesty is the only way forward ,if the scientific method is abandoned ....there is no way to Progress ,this just becomes a place for secret book writers ,fraudsters and scammers
I will ask Partzman to explain this error [to be sure I have this correct ]but he may not answer here as certain persons are attacking the scientific method here at this time.[not referencing any members here in this thread]
..if he does not respond personally ,I will be sure to post the reply.
respectfully..Chet//
Ps to add // I see these errors as sharpening the spear [and so does the Partzman]the hunt will never stop
Since this is my circuit being discussed I will answer the question regarding measurement error with this specific configuration by saying "is there any error"? TK may have been tongue-in-cheek but was he?
The potential measurement error with this type of circuit (a reactive to real power converter) comes from two sources. First, the high ratio of reactive to real power and second, the requirement of the scope used to discern "minutes" of phase angle measurements. This requires extreme care when deskewing the probes used (particularly the current measurement) plus probe connections and layout.
Are these converters capable of producing more energy out than in, yes they are but with a caveat in determining if they are or not. The input sinewave is the point of reference for the input power. However, in the test TK shows and in nearly all others I've done, this sinewave was generated by some outside means such as a signal generator for low levels or a pulse generator driving a resonant L/C circuit. The former is usually produced by Direct Digital Synthesis which may or may not require more energy than is produced at the output, but the later always requires more energy.
Herein lies the problem to be solved IMO!
Pm
Quote from: partzman on December 15, 2018, 11:11:05 AM
this sinewave was generated by some outside means such as a signal generator for low levels or a pulse generator driving a resonant L/C circuit. The former is usually produced by Direct Digital Synthesis which may or may not require more energy than is produced at the output, but the later always requires more energy.
This doesn't matter. Or, it does matter. If we need to really generate energy for any practical purpose. But this work is theoretical, at the beginning it is always theoretical. Thus, it only matters whether there is overunity in the circuit. Or whether there is overunity in any part of the circuit, or whether there is overunity anywhere. How much energy generating the input really takes, doesn't matter, this is not a theoretical issue.
@partzman
I think we are only at the proof of concept phase and not yet at the realization of a real stand-alone device, what matters right now is to know the power of the signal provided by the generator (no matter how much it consumes), and to compare it to the output power. While there is a doubt on the result, we cant take OU for sure.
In addition to the two potential measurement errors you noticed, a third and strong possible flaw is an induced current in the measurement loop. The PBTs are rather poorly designed, with their ground wire that can make a wide loop through which leaks of variable magnetic flux can induce currents that completely distort the result (I had the problem).
I look forward to TK's conclusion.
OK, you find your measurement errors. There are certainly measurement errors, though i don't see that there can be any significant errors. But the privilege of having errors is all yours :) I hope that i could help anyone anyhow. Though F6FLT doesn't think that i have any value. Now there is nothing in this world that i can do.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 16, 2018, 10:02:04 AM
@partzman
I think we are only at the proof of concept phase and not yet at the realization of a real stand-alone device, what matters right now is to know the power of the signal provided by the generator (no matter how much it consumes), and to compare it to the output power. While there is a doubt on the result, we cant take OU for sure.
In addition to the two potential measurement errors you noticed, a third and strong possible flaw is an induced current in the measurement loop. The PBTs are rather poorly designed, with their ground wire that can make a wide loop through which leaks of variable magnetic flux can induce currents that completely distort the result (I had the problem).
I look forward to TK's conclusion.
Edit
Tinman, i think you by mistake posted in wrong thread. This thread is not about Chris device, partnered output coils or anything like that, it is about experiments with bifilar pancake coils.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 16, 2018, 09:52:33 PM
... i don't see that there can be any significant errors...
What are your technical arguments that they would be insignificant?!
It's not a question of seeing or not seeing. If you do not see but know possible causes of measurement bias, you must eliminate them (assuming you want to make a real machine that works, and not just indulge in a belief that it could work).
Quote from: ayeaye on December 17, 2018, 12:46:50 AM
Tinman, i think you by mistake posted in wrong thread. This thread is not about Chris device, partnered output coils or anything like that, it is about experiments with bifilar pancake coils.
Yes,i just seen that.
I have no idea how it jumped onto this thread,as i havnt been on this thread,and was replying to a post on Chris's thread.
Odd.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 15, 2018, 06:16:24 AM
It was the video that triggered my coming here, because I had noticed that Tinselkoala is a reliable experimenter.
There is an intriguing comment from him on the investigation of the COP, he seems to suspect a measurement issue:
"I just haven't yet posted the video of that further investigation yet. Hint: How would you test to see if the PBT itself is actually causing the OU readings?"
TK has the same scope as myself,and the grounds are common.
This is cause for concern ,as it links all ground points together,and so the isolation transformer is no longer isolated.
Then at these high frequencies,capacitive coupling can play a large part in measurement error.
I would remove the BPC,and replace it with the single wound coil he was using to drive the LED,and see if the OU results can still be had--i suspect so,having also experimented with this circuit.
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on December 17, 2018, 04:23:56 AM
What are your technical arguments that they would be insignificant?!
That it all seems to boil into oscilloscope working properly. 1.4 MHz, or what it was, is not so great frequency, so with a good oscilloscope that is well calibrated and properly connected, there should not be any significant errors. That said, there always are errors of course, as i said.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 17, 2018, 04:48:55 AM
That it all seems to boil into oscilloscope working properly. 1.4 MHz, or what it was, is not so great frequency, so with a good oscilloscope that is well calibrated and properly connected, there should not be any significant errors. That said, there always are errors of course, as i said.
"seems to boil"... "not so great"?!...
I asked for technical arguments, i.e. quantified at least in terms of order of magnitude, not impressions. Even signals of less than 100 KHz can induce significant currents in a probe loop.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 17, 2018, 05:03:43 AM
"seems to boil"... "not so great"?!...
Yes i always don't talk by numbers, may be too bad but, sorry.
Also TinselKoala and Partzman have exclusive right to errors, no one can take it from them.
Errors can only be made by people who study, try and experiment because they do not know, know that they do not know, and want to understand. Making errors is a step towards the truth.
People who know everything and find ad hoc explanations for everything cannot be wrong. They are omniscient. It is these useless people who reinterpret scientific theories in any way, who tell us that scientists are idiots because academic formatted and that an incoherent diagram, but well drawn in a pretty image that appeals to children, will work, even before they build it, measure it and thus prove it, which they are unable to do.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 18, 2018, 04:03:08 AM
People who know everything and find ad hoc explanations for everything cannot be wrong. They are omniscient. It is these useless people who reinterpret scientific theories in any way, who tell us that scientists are idiots because academic formatted and that an incoherent diagram, but well drawn in a pretty image that appeals to children, will work, even before they build it, measure it and thus prove it, which they are unable to do.
Now how much time did it take for you to write that?
I guess this is a carefully made attempt to discredit me, with a lot of effort put into it. Tells or proves really nothing, but gives an impression. A bit of false added also though, like no one has ever said that scientists are idiots. But impression is not complete without a bit of false, and impression is what matters. No one will anyway care to read what i actually told, because one needs to read previous posts for that. Instead they read the last post that you wrote, and make conclusions from that, which is more convenient.
It is important yes, if you don't know how to explain it, try to explain it to children. And if you can do it so that children understand, then everyone will. If you are able to explain something that way, then you have really something to say.
Please would you instead write something constructive about the topic of the thread? You found that there is some bifilar coil model in LTspice, which you didn't really much study, but ok, thank you for telling us that there is one. Can you perhaps contribute a bit more to the common effort here, which is researching overunity, where can it occur, and how to measure whether there is any. Or perhaps say nothing if there is nothing you can contribute with. No one is interested in this personal argument, it's absolutely unnecessary to write such things, and gives no useful information for no one here. I proposed you to do that in private if you want to argue, but you didn't respond.
Researching overunity requires the rapid elimination of false leads. That's not what we see most of the time. For example, we still see people claiming that the MEG or the Kapanaze machine work when we have not had any evidence for more than 10 years.
What is constructive is to eliminate all this nonsense and move on. Too many people prefer to dwell on their old stories and stay in hope, rather than face the facts and conclude that they have wasted their time.
When we do not learn from errors, we constantly repeat them, there is no hope of being constructive. Difficult in all this mess of hundreds of so-called overunity machines that have never worked, and the noise around, to find new interesting tracks. You cannot build a house on sand. Construction requires the destruction of myths, I take my part in it.
About this thread, bifilar pancake coil experiments didn't show overunity until now, but we have intriguing results with the TK duplication of the "Partzman bifilar transformer". For me TK has enough skills to be able to confirm or invalidate the results. I'll wait for his verdict. I have too many other ideas to test right now.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 18, 2018, 08:14:27 AM
I'll wait for his verdict.
You don't have to wait for anything, you can replicate his experiment. If you say wait, it doesn't really make sense to say that, if you also don't decide for how long. A month, two months, a year, two years, twenty years?
You can also show that MEG or Kapanaze doesn't work. This is more difficult though, as with both there even don't seem to be the description of the central part, it's like a black box or something. If true, such things cannot be proven wrong, but then cannot be accepted at the first place. All i have seen, was that Kapanaze demonstrated his device, having a small box which he didn't say what was inside it, there could been a radioisotope generator inside it.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 18, 2018, 10:15:25 AM
You don't have to wait for anything, you can replicate his experiment. ...
Yes, I can. I am now working on other projects. Take care of your priorities and let me take care of mine.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 18, 2018, 10:59:34 AM
Take care of your priorities and let me take care of mine.
I have never told you what to do. Let me take care of what i do then please, and don't offend me all the time. I'm talking to thousands of people, i'm responsible for every single thing i say, you don't need to worry that it's too good for me. Actually for me it's only bad, there is nothing good for me, including no good hope. I don't know how it is about you, at least you could get some good equipment.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 18, 2018, 10:15:25 AM
You don't have to wait for anything
Quote from: ayeaye on December 18, 2018, 11:24:41 AM
I have never told you what to do.
;D
QuoteActually for me it's only bad, there is nothing good for me, including no good hope. I don't know how it is about you, at least you could get some good equipment.
Do you speak in general or about our field in FE?
If in general, it's sad and I sympathize with you.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 18, 2018, 01:34:43 PM
Do you speak in general or about our field in FE?
If in general, it's sad and I sympathize with you.
Then what do you expect in our time of science and technology? It's death.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 18, 2018, 03:14:52 PM
Then what do you expect in our time of science and technology? It's death.
More specifically, what do you mean?
F6FLT
QuoteAbout this thread, bifilar pancake coil experiments didn't show overunity until now, but we have intriguing results with the TK duplication of the "Partzman bifilar transformer". For me TK has enough skills to be able to confirm or invalidate the results. I'll wait for his verdict. I have too many other ideas to test right now.
Strange isn't it?... everyone has speculated that nothing can change for so long and then apparently it does. I would submit that the problem was never about physics or science or some equations but a mental problem. A problem reconciling the fact that there is infinitely more that we do not understand than we could possibly understand. An admission that we are not gods nor are there gods and we are simply beings not unlike any number of other being with a great deal to learn. There in lies the trick and if we believe we have nothing left to learn then the probability of learning anything new tends towards zero.
My theory is very different than most, I assume I am wrong in some way about almost everything. In a world full of people who may believe they could not possibly be wrong about anything I always assume I am wrong in some way. Do you see how that works?... in my world there is an infinite number of new possibilities, not wrong or right but possibilities. While in many others world what is must be as it is and they will not and cannot learn anything new. New, new thoughts, new theories, new innovations will dictate the future not not some misguided bs based on antiquated beliefs. The greatest minds in our history laid the foundation of science based on this belief and so must we.
I mean if all the greatest minds in our history thought they knew everything then why bother looking for a new discovery?. Obviously, if they thought they knew everything then there would be nothing left to discover and yet there was. Do you see the contradiction in reasoning?, a contradiction, a flaw in reasoning on the most basic level. The fact is that everything will change and we will learn an infinite number of new things as we evolve because we have around 30,000 years of proof which tells us this is in fact the case.
So the fact that you or anyone else has somehow changed there mind or learned something new because of new knowledge should come as no surprise. It should have been obvious that this is normal. What is abnormal is thinking nothing can change knowing that it always does despite all our irrational beliefs.
Yes thanks Onepower, i agree. Faraday believed in god, but in spite that he believed in god, he didn't believe that he knows everything. Thus he wanted to find out how the nature works. And because of that lack of belief, he did new discoveries. Newton believed in god as well, but he didn't believe in the view of nature at the time. Instead he derived a theory based on the general principles in the emerald tablet and in hermeticism, which were considered wrong knowledge by the church at the time. And he made a good theory. This was accepted, but the principles of hermeticism were once again considered wrong knowledge. I told that reality is like a net bag that your grandmother took to the market, this i think how it looks like, but now sure this is rejected as well, as the prevalent view of reality is very different today.
Quote from: onepower on December 18, 2018, 11:27:44 PM
...
I mean if all the greatest minds in our history thought they knew everything then why bother looking for a new discovery?
...
The difference between great minds and ordinary minds is precisely that the former know their limits, they know that they do not know everything, but they also know that they know certain things.
Only ordinary minds think they would face a new discovery simply because they would observe something they didn't know or don't understand.
A theory is only necessary if new facts need to be explained, or if a more general theory can replace specific theories.
But when something seems new, the first thing to do is to check if what you have is really new.
So there are two things to check:
1) Is the fact that we seem to be observing real? And here with TK's experience, it is clear that any measurement bias must be eliminated before asserting it.
2) Is the fact that we are observing new? The less competent you are, and the less you can say it, because you are unable to explain the fact not because the explanation does not exist, but because you ignore it.
If you do not have sufficient scientific skills, you will be unable to make the link with known theories, and if you are also affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect, you will not understand that this missing knowledge can exist; too confident and unaware of your limitations, you will invent absurd theories to explain what is already known (most FE theories are of this type).
A great mind is modest, self-conscious, and cautious, it does not theorize without really very good reasons.
Hi.
I am interested in your theory.
We support.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 19, 2018, 04:38:25 AM
they also know that they know certain things.
Yes they know some things, but most importantly they also can think. Think analytically, model things in their mind, one should learn that as well, the same as one learns other things. Without that thinking ability there really is no hope that one can make new discoveries, all who did most likely had such thinking ability. Some writer once said, it looks like that all think that everyone can write a book, they don't realize that there is a lot to learn to write a book, to do it anyhow well, that is.
No i don't think that i know everything, i know that there is a lot more that i don't know than what i know. Naturally, i cannot think otherwise, because as i see the world around me and think about it, i see how much i don't know. Like you are in nature, every blade of grass has life in it, which we don't really understand. Not to talk insects or birds or animals. Not to talk the immense number of stars above our head. So much unknown, and so much wonderful, far beyond our ability to understand. Makes you feel humble, right?
F6FLT, i have never written a book. The books most difficult to write are said to be children's books. I have never written a children's book. I though translated a book about puppy raising, this was very difficult to do. Then they sold this book in the pet store. This book had many lovely pictures in it.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 19, 2018, 05:49:21 AM
...Like you are in nature, every blade of grass has life in it, which we don't really understand. Not to talk insects or birds or animals. Not to talk the immense number of stars above our head. So much unknown, and so much wonderful, far beyond our ability to understand. Makes you feel humble, right?
For me humility is a feeling that has been instilled in us by millennia of religions as a necessary attitude towards gods: "God you are great, we are pathetic". It is not an attitude that we should have towards Nature (nor with a hypothetical god but it is another story). Nature is blind, it has no intention, we emerged at random from its set of laws, we are aware of it, and now it is we who want to play with it.
I don't feel "humble", modesty is enough. Look at human progress since the time of the caves. I only see the riddles of nature. Understanding or solving them is one of life's interests, for everyone at their own level and also for the best of us when they discover new things and thus increase knowledge for posterity. This does not mean that we would be happier, but that we can be more aware of our condition, more in control of our future.
Moreover, we don't know what we're going to find along the way, which is considerably less annoying than thinking that everything is fixed by divine dogmas, in fact enacted by archaic prophets who have never spoken except in the name of their superstitions.
When I see "the immense number of stars above our head", I regret that we can't access them now, but I tell myself that it's perfectly within the realm of the possible, just a question of time.
Quote from: partzman on December 15, 2018, 11:11:05 AM
Since this is my circuit being discussed I will answer the question regarding measurement error with this specific configuration by saying "is there any error"? TK may have been tongue-in-cheek but was he?
The potential measurement error with this type of circuit (a reactive to real power converter) comes from two sources. First, the high ratio of reactive to real power and second, the requirement of the scope used to discern "minutes" of phase angle measurements. This requires extreme care when deskewing the probes used (particularly the current measurement) plus probe connections and layout.
Are these converters capable of producing more energy out than in, yes they are but with a caveat in determining if they are or not. The input sinewave is the point of reference for the input power. However, in the test TK shows and in nearly all others I've done, this sinewave was generated by some outside means such as a signal generator for low levels or a pulse generator driving a resonant L/C circuit. The former is usually produced by Direct Digital Synthesis which may or may not require more energy than is produced at the output, but the later always requires more energy.
Herein lies the problem to be solved IMO!
Pm
I made a quick replication of Partzman his bifilar transformer (PBT) as being presented by Tinselkoala in his video
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c
Using almost the same setup and the same measurement techniques according to the below diagram.
My values are slightly different, but the measurement points are the same:
R1= 2x10 Ohm 1% inductionfree in series = 20 Ohm
R2= 1 Ohm 1% inductionfree
Frequency= 1.44Mhz sine wave
FG isolated via isolation transformer plus running from a battery
CH1 (yellow) 1.9V Cycrms
CH2 (Blue) 47mA Cycrms
CH3 (purple) 969mV Cycrms
Math (red) CH1 x CH2 = 43mW
Phase difference CH1 => CH2 = 61° (blue = current = leading)
As my scope only can present 4 measurements at a time, see the below 2 screenshots for the 5 important measurements.
Scope Math (red) calulates the input to be 43mW
Manual calculation for input shows Vrms x Irms x Cos (phi) = P ave
1.9 x 0.047 x Cos (-61) = 43mW (same as scope instantaneous calc's)
Pout = U²/R
= 0.969²/21
= 44mW
So my setup and calculations comes to a COP=1
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuGGHpAmdK4
Regards Itsu
Quote from: itsu on December 20, 2018, 05:15:00 AM
I made a quick replication of Partzman his bifilar transformer (PBT)
Thank you, very important.
One thing though, the output power is (ch3 - ch2) ^ 2 / R1 + ch2 ^ 2 / R2 (root mean square average voltages of ch3 and ch2), you calculated ch3 ^ 2 / R1, but this makes output only less and COP less.
Quote from: itsu on December 20, 2018, 05:15:00 AM
...
So my setup and calculations comes to a COP=1
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuGGHpAmdK4
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Thank you for presenting us your experiment, which was obviously carried out with care. I'm not really surprised about the COP.
So now the COP difference is due either to a measurement error on the TK side or perhaps, last chance, to a particular difference between your setups, to be identified.
QuoteThank you, very important.
One thing though, the output power is (ch3 - ch2) ^ 2 / R1 + ch2 ^ 2 / R2 (root mean square average voltages of ch3 and ch2), you calculated ch3 ^ 2 / R1, but this makes output only less and COP less.
well, thats how TK did it (ouput power is across the both resistors (18.8 + 1 = 19.8 Ohm), so thats why i did it too.
By the way, i could not light up a led on a second bifilar (in series) pancake coil (i do not have a monofilar pancake
coil), so could not show the increase in current when led was disconnected.
But when coupling this 2th bifilar coil (in series) with led to the first bifilar coil, i could not see any significant
changes in the values.
Itsu
Ah you calculated ch3 ^ 2 / (R1 + R2), yes that should be right.
COP exactly 1 is very weird though, that a circuit is that efficient. That looks like an anomaly, worth to research more. In COP 2.9 i don't much believe though, i think if overunity would be found, it would be small, the capacitance is small, etc.
I measure the bifilar coil used to have 2.7nF capacity, meaning a reactance of about 40 Ohm at 1.44Mhz.
So i guess that almost all (100%) input is going to be transferred to the load resistors so a COP=1 looks
fine with me.
Itsu
So 2.9 times measurement error, that's unimaginable. My result also went closer to COP 1, though always remained slightly higher than 1, but i think it's highly possible that when making it a bit more precise, it goes below 1, so it's not a significant result, a possible measurement error was finally higher than the possible overunity. But i used Hitachi analog oscilloscope and only started to develop my method of digitizing trace data using Inkscape. But they used top notch digital Tektronix, with all the capabilities.
Imagine an input power of 1mW that supplies a perfect LC circuit with a very high Q factor so that 2MW of reactive power is reached and stored in the system.
Suppose this system generates a useful power of 3mW, do you think you can easily measure a COP of 3?
When large powers are associated with small ones, measurement errors on small ones are not only imaginable but common.
Itsu,
I have several comments regarding your TK replication. First, the phase angle is quite low which would mean the Q of your coil is low and/or you might carefully check the dot polarity of your coil connections.
Second, let's look again at your measurements and calculation. You measure Vin = 1.9v crms, Iin = 47ma crms, Vout = 969mv crms, and the input phase angle as -61.85 degrees. Therefore the Pin is 1.9*47e-3*cos(-61.85) = 42.13mw and Pout is .969^2/21 = 44.71mw for a COP = 44.71/42.13 = 1.061.
Since these voltage and current measurements were taken on a cycle basis, I would be somewhat confident in the result.
However, the Math channel calculation may possibly be inaccurate depending on whether it was measured between the cursors or full screen. You might want to check what cursor setting you had during these measurements.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Partzman,
thanks for the comments.
I hooked up the bifilar coil the same way TK did in his video and double checked the dot polarity of my bifilar pancake coil
to be the same as presented in the diagram which it does.
Thanks for the exact calculations of the data, indeed the COP comes out to be 1.061 and i did saw that, but consider
it to be in the margin of measurement errors.
The Math calculations where done using the full record (gating off) which i think is the most accurate.
When changing the dot polarity on one coil (input), things change of course and brings it somewhat more into the values
TK had, like 87° phase difference and similar voltage and current readings, however, the output drops dramatically
so the COP is 0.03 or so.
See screenshots below and calculations, so i think the first setup used was the proper one.
Scope Math (red) calulates the input to be 5.4mW
Manual calculation for input shows Vrms x Irms x Cos (phi) = P ave
1.923x 0.05658 x Cos (-87.27) = 5.18mW (similar as scope instantaneous calc's)
Pout = U²/R
= 0.05833²/21
= 0.16mW = 160uW
So my setup and calculations then comes to a COP=0.03 or so
Regards Itsu
Itsu,
OK, thanks for re-running your test and I would conclude that for some reason your bifilar coil has a somewhat reduced Q or possibly some other problem that is affecting the overall performance. For comparison I have attached the test results of a pcb based pancake coil. The schematic is identical to that posted by TK and yourself with one exception, a mosfet driver is providing a symmetrical square wave pulse with a 20v peak to a 35uH inductor which resonates with the distributed capacitance between the windings. The resulting 1.7 MHz sine wave seen on CH1(yel) is the reference measurement input waveform.
The load is 20 ohms and the CSR is 1 ohm both non-inductive. The probe used for current sensing is attached directly to the CSR with an RF spring and probe tip.
In the first scope pix below, CH1(yel) is the input waveform, CH2(blu) is the voltage across the total load of 21 ohms and CH4(grn) is the current through the 1ohm CSR. The Math(red) channel is the calculated mean input power as measured between the vertical A&B cursors. Statistics of the measurements are shown and continuously averaged over 16 cycles with a 1Ms sample rate for the horizontal window.
As seen, the mean input power in the Math channel ranges from 411.9mw min to 450.8 max. The statistical average output voltage across the load is 4.94v rms resulting in a Pout = 4.94^2/21 = 1.162 resulting in an apparent COPmin = 1.162/.4508 = 2.58 and a COPmax = 2.82.
The next scope pix shows the data for CH4 to allow comparison between the Math channel and measurement results using the input voltage/current phase angle.
Here we see the CSR current is 234.5ma rms. Therefore, the Pinmin = 98.01*.2345*cos(-88.91) = 437.2mw and Pinmax = 98.01*.2345*cos(-88.28) = 689.8mw. This should illustrate the demanding requirement for phase angle accuracy and how it affects the input calculations. So, we see an apparent COPmin = 1.162/.6898 = 1.68 and a COPmax = 1.162/.4372 = 2.66.
A pix is also attached of the pcb based coil assembly.
Regards,
Pm
Partzman, oh no, no mosfet. This thing leaks like hell. One should avoid using mosfet in any overunity experiments, unless one is ready to calculate the leakage.
Itsu, i see that the calculations are correct. The ch2 and ch3 are in phase, this enables to calculate power from voltage on both of them. Interesting why, as there is the coil in parallel with R1, looks like that the bifilar coil acts only as capacitor there. All calculations have to be done though during the whole cycle of the input voltage. I'm not sure that the range is selected, i don't see it, but then i don't know that oscilloscope.
The current leads the voltage there, should mean that the circuit is capacitive.
Itsu, i believe you did good work. This thing may not work, whatever, important is to measure power.
PM,
thanks for the detailed info, allthough you use 4.94V in your Pout calculations (Pout = 4.94^2/21) while the
screenshot shows a mean of 4.694 in the blue data, the COP still is high and similar as TK reports.
But indeed, a slight deviation of the phase has a big influence on the end result.
I have a second identical bifilar pancake coil which i will use to double check my COP = 1 results.
I cannot think of what the cause is for the low (61°) phase angle in my present coil.
Itsu
Quote from: ayeaye on December 20, 2018, 07:19:46 AM
Thank you, very important.
One thing though, the output power is (ch3 - ch2) ^ 2 / R1 + ch2 ^ 2 / R2 (root mean square average voltages of ch3 and ch2), you calculated ch3 ^ 2 / R1, but this makes output only less and COP less.
You're right, ayeaye.
The measurement method is wrong, not only Pout but also Pin.
The output power is not equal to CH3²/(R1+R2) but is equal to Pout = (CH3-CH2)²/R1 + CH2²/R2 as you stated.
And the input current is not given by CH2 because current from R1 is added so Pin is wrong too.
(As I may be wrong too, please guys explain your method with Pout=CH3²/(R1+R2) while it's not the same current in R1 and R2).
For me, if you want use the voltage at R2 terminals to know the input current and have Pout=CH3²/R1 + CH2²/R2 and Pin=CH1*(CH2/R2) then you have to connect the probes this way:
Quote from: F6FLT on December 21, 2018, 05:42:58 AM
You're right, ayeaye. The measurement method is wrong, not only Pout but also Pin.
The output power is not equal to CH3²/(R1+R2) but is equal to Pout = (CH3-CH2)²/R1 + CH2²/R2 as you stated.
And the input current is not given by CH2 because current from R1 is added so Pin is wrong too.
(As I may be wrong too, please guys explain your method with Pout=CH3²/(R1+R2) while it's not the same current in R1 and R2).
For me, if you want use the voltage at R2 terminals to know the input current and have Pout=CH3²/R1 + CH2²/R2 and Pin=CH1*(CH2/R2) then you have to connect the probes this way:
Power calculations of the circuit attached to your post cannot be calculated using a scope with common grounds,unless the P/in and P/out are calculated separately.
The only way to measure P/in and P/out at the same time,using a scope,is to have a scope with isolated grounds.
P/in should be calculated by voltage across the primary of the isolation transformer,and current through the primary of the isolation transformer,as it is part of the circuit,and where the FG is the source.
Quote from: itsu on December 21, 2018, 05:14:30 AM
I cannot think of what the cause is for the low (61°) phase angle in my present coil.
I don't know, one thing i can think of, is that your coil is too well made. Too regular. When the capacitance between the windings is everywhere the same, then it might well be that there is no current in the coils at all, all moves only by capacitance. No current moving through the coil means no inductance, all the bifilar coil might be in effect just a capacitor. But there need to be both, capacitance and inductance.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 21, 2018, 05:42:58 AM
You're right, ayeaye. The measurement method is wrong, not only Pout but also Pin.
The output power is not equal to CH3²/(R1+R2) but is equal to Pout = (CH3-CH2)²/R1 + CH2²/R2 as you stated.
And the input current is not given by CH2 because current from R1 is added so Pin is wrong too.
(As I may be wrong too, please guys explain your method with Pout=CH3²/(R1+R2) while it's not the same current in R1 and R2).
For me, if you want use the voltage at R2 terminals to know the input current and have Pout=CH3²/R1 + CH2²/R2 and Pin=CH1*(CH2/R2) then you have to connect the probes this way:
As below
I used my 2th similar bifilar pancake coil to check my measurements.
The first used bifi measured 133.8uH and 131.2uH with a Q=50 @ 100Khz (using my Agilent U1733C LCR meter)
The second now used bifi measures 125.5uH and 122.4uH with a Q=50 @ 100Khz.
Still using the TK measurement procedure i get (still @ 1.44MHz):
CH1 (yellow) 1.99V Cycrms
CH2 (Blue) 45.06mA Cycrms
CH3 (purple) 921.7mV Cycrms
Math (red) CH1 x CH2 = 41.88mW
Phase difference CH1 => CH2 = 62.25° (blue = current = leading)
As my scope only can present 4 measurements at a time, see the below 2 screenshots for the 5 important measurements.
Scope Math (red) calulates the input to be 41.88mW
Manual calculation for input shows Vrms x Irms x Cos (phi) = P ave
1.99 x 0.04506 x Cos (-62.25) = 41.75mW (same as scope instantaneous calc's)
Pout = CH3²/(R1+R2)
= 0.921.7²/21
= 40,45mW
COP = 40.45 / 41.75 = 0.968
So results are almost the same using 2 different bifilar pancake coils.
Now doing the measurement the F6FLT way......
Itsu
Quote from: itsu on December 21, 2018, 07:46:59 AM
I used my 2th similar bifilar pancake coil to check my measurements.
The first used bifi measured 133.8uH and 131.2uH with a Q=50 @ 100Khz (using my Agilent U1733C LCR meter)
The second now used bifi measures 125.5uH and 122.4uH with a Q=50 @ 100Khz.
Still using the TK measurement procedure i get (still @ 1.44MHz):
CH1 (yellow) 1.99V Cycrms
CH2 (Blue) 45.06mA Cycrms
CH3 (purple) 921.7mV Cycrms
Math (red) CH1 x CH2 = 41.88mW
Phase difference CH1 => CH2 = 62.25° (blue = current = leading)
As my scope only can present 4 measurements at a time, see the below 2 screenshots for the 5 important measurements.
Scope Math (red) calulates the input to be 41.88mW
Manual calculation for input shows Vrms x Irms x Cos (phi) = P ave
1.99 x 0.04506 x Cos (-62.25) = 41.75mW (same as scope instantaneous calc's)
Pout = CH3²/(R1+R2)
= 0.921.7²/21
= 40,45mW
COP = 40.45 / 41.75 = 0.968
So results are almost the same using 2 different bifilar pancake coils.
Now doing the measurement the F6FLT way......
Itsu
The fact that current leads voltage at these high frequencies,using a BIFI coil,is nothing out of the ordinary. The bifi coil is simply more capacitive than inductive at these high frequencies.
When you lower the frequency,you will see that the voltage will start to lead current.
Brad
The transformer is only used to isolate the FG from the circuit. We only want to measure the circuit so CH1 must be taken on L1.
The statement "The power calculations of the circuit attached to your pole cannot be calculated using a common grounded oscilloscope" is not based on any engineering rules. I confirm that power measurements can be done perfectly well in accordance with what I have indicated:
https://overunity.com/17861/bifilar-pancake-coil-overunity-experiment/dlattach/attach/170845/image//
Quote from: tinman on December 21, 2018, 07:57:26 AM...
When you lower the frequency,you will see that the voltage will start to lead current.
When you lower the frequency, since the L1 output terminal is not connected, the current can only flow through the dielectric of the coils gap. At low frequencies, the circuit becomes only capacitative and therefore the current is reduced, down to zero at zero frequency (dc).
Quote from: F6FLT on December 21, 2018, 07:58:20 AM
The transformer is only used to isolate the FG from the circuit. We only want to measure the circuit so CH1 must be taken on L1.
The statement "The power calculations of the circuit attached to your pole cannot be calculated using a common grounded oscilloscope" is not based on any engineering rules. I confirm that power measurements can be done perfectly well in accordance with what I have indicated:
https://overunity.com/17861/bifilar-pancake-coil-overunity-experiment/dlattach/attach/170845/image//
Sorry F6FLT,but i do not agree with that.
Myself and partzman have been caught out like this before,where capacitive coupled paths exist that bypass the CVR,(more so at these high frequencies)and so accurate power calculations cannot be made the way you indicate.
You will see(and i believe partzman has already shown)that COPs greater than one will start to show up. The error will be the same as it was before--unforseen capacitive coupling bypassing the CVR.
Brad
Using the F6FLT diagram in post #268, i get:
Blue CH2 inverted
CH1 value needs to have CH2 value substracted i think (1.909 - 44.36mV = 1.86V)
CH1 1.909V (- 0.4436 = 1.86V)
CH2 44.36mA (CH2 inverted)
CH3 849.3mV
Phase CH1-CH2 -64.83°
Math 34.84mW
Pin = CH1 * (CH2/R2) (no phase involved??)
Pin = 1.86 * (0.4436 / 1)
Pin = 0.0825W = 82.5mW
When using the phase i get: 1.86 * 0.04436 * Cos (-64.83) = 0.035W = 35mW
Again math function scope and calculated values (including Cos) are very close 34.84mW versus 35mW
Pout = CH3² / R1 + CH2² / R2
pout = 0.8493² / 20 + 0.04436² / 1
Pout = 0.036 + 0.00196
pout = 0.0379W = 37.9mW
COP = 37.9 / 35 = 1.08
Still within the margins of measurement errors i think.
Itsu
Quote from: F6FLT on December 21, 2018, 07:58:20 AM
The statement "The power calculations of the circuit attached to your post cannot be calculated using a common grounded oscilloscope" is not based on any engineering rules. I confirm that power measurements can be done perfectly well in accordance with what I have indicated:
https://overunity.com/17861/bifilar-pancake-coil-overunity-experiment/dlattach/attach/170845/image//
Below i have added a capacitive coupled current loop that has not been taken into consideration.
This is why you cannot accurately calculate power as you have indicated,as R2 will not see all the current that is flowing through L1.
Quoteis not based on any engineering rules
No,it's based on previous experiments,where COPs of 200%+ were being had,and the overlooked capacitive couplings were found. These findings were had from many hours on the bench,by many of the people here--2 of which were partzman and my self.
In some cases it wont account for much,but it is enough to tip the scales against the known laws of physics.
Brad
Let's see, if we assume for a moment there is a source of excess energy in properly configured pancake coil arrangements and we were to master the technology, perhaps it would perform like the device seen in the video at-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4fp9J_7-JQ&t=1s
Or then again, maybe it is a hoax!
Regards,
Pm
I have also spent many hours testing many variations of circuits including along the
general lines of what you are testing here, and trying to draw definite conclusions from
scope measurements of circuits like this can definitely be very tricky sometimes. As an example,
in some cases I have measured phase shifts with my scope between input voltage and current waveforms
that were well over 90 degrees, and if those measurements were taken as 'accurate' without questioning them,
it would indicate significant OU, but the actual average power being delivered to a load does not appear to be
out of the ordinary. Yes, there can be significant capacitive coupling loops in these circuits, depending on the frequency
of operation and the actual circuit config, which can throw off measurements, as well as other factors throwing off measurements,
so the great equalizer here, as always, is what happens when you try to self loop the circuit? This is where the
OU measurements of COP > 1 will typically crumble quickly. Hey, my scope measurements are indicating a COP of 2 !!!
(or whatever), but for some darn reason I can't seem to self-loop the circuit. Sound familiar? Hmm... ;)
Quote from: Void on December 21, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
I have also spent many hours testing many variations of circuits including along the
general lines of what you are testing here, and trying to draw definite conclusions from
scope measurements of circuits like this can definitely be very tricky sometimes. As an example,
in some cases I have measured phase shifts with my scope between input voltage and current waveforms
that were well over 90 degrees, and if those measurements were taken as 'accurate' without questioning them,
it would indicate significant OU, but the actual average power being delivered to a load does not appear to be
out of the ordinary. Yes, there can be significant capacitive coupling loops in these circuits, depending on the frequency
of operation and the actual circuit config, which can throw off measurements, as well as other factors throwing off measurements,
so the great equalizer here, as always, is what happens when you try to self loop the circuit? This is where the
OU measurements of COP > 1 will typically crumble quickly. Hey, my scope measurements are indicating a COP of 2 !!!
(or whatever), but for some darn reason I can't seem to self-loop the circuit. Sound familiar? Hmm... ;)
Let's again assume for a moment that this device is producing excess energy, what specific suggestions would you have for a circuit configuration that would allow looping to prove or disprove the concept?
Anyone?
Pm
Quote from: partzman on December 21, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
Let's again assume for a moment that this device is producing excess energy, what specific
suggestions would you have for a circuit configuration that would allow looping to prove or disprove the concept?
Anyone?
Pm
Hi partzman. If the COP being measured is very close to 1 (such as 1.08) then you
probably aren't going to get very far with trying to self-loop of course, but converting the
output to a DC voltage across an electrolytic capacitor (using high speed (ultra fast) diodes to make
the bridge rectifier, if appropriate) is probably the easiest route to go in general.
P.S. You can get high efficiency step up and step down DC to DC converters on E-Bay that are
quite inexpensive, if you need to shift the output DC voltage up or down to match the input voltage requirement.
Quote from: partzman on December 21, 2018, 11:14:48 AM
Let's see, if we assume for a moment there is a source of excess energy in properly configured pancake coil arrangements and we were to master the technology, perhaps it would perform like the device seen in the video at-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4fp9J_7-JQ&t=1s
Or then again, maybe it is a hoax!
Regards,
Pm
wouldn't you need to cross over one input to the output of the other and then find the frequency of the required phase shift tesla found a special frequency a 90 deg phase shift would produce a much greater output see CIA recently released Tesla papers.
Quote from: Void on December 21, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Hey, my scope measurements are indicating a COP of 2 !!!
(or whatever), but for some darn reason I can't seem to self-loop the circuit. Sound familiar? Hmm... ;)
This doesn't matter, this is altogether a different problem. This experiment is about theory, is there overunity in the coil itself. Certainly the overunity may not be enough for self-looping. But it is after we find a circuit that has overunity, a single circuit, It is a matter then to try to increase COP and find ways how to self loop, but as said. that's an entirely different problem altogether.
So you say that you did experiments where you measured COP > 1? Would you share the data? We need one such circuit that anyone else can replicate, just one, no one so far.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 21, 2018, 05:54:47 PM
This doesn't matter, this is altogether a different problem. This experiment is about theory, is there overunity in the coil itself. Certainly the overunity may not be enough for self-looping. But it is after we find a circuit that has overunity, a single circuit, It is a matter then to try to increase COP and find ways how to self loop, but as said. that's an entirely different problem altogether.
So you say that you did experiments where you measured COP > 1? Would you share the data? We need one such circuit that anyone else can replicate, just one, no one so far.
Hello ayeaye. What I was saying was that if I took the scope measurements at face value
in some of the setups I have tested, it would seem to indicate COP > 1, but examining closer
it is most likely measurement error. Sometimes I can't identify exactly why the scope is measuring
off, but by analyzing the circuit in other ways to double check results, it appears to actually be
measurement error. I have found that making accurate and very trustworthy measurements on these types
of circuits is not always so straightforward at all, so I am always very cautious about trying to draw
conclusions from measurements on these types of circuits. Using DC input as the input power source, and
converting the output to the test load to DC as well can help to simplify input and output power measurements.
Quote from: Void on December 21, 2018, 09:41:01 PM
Using DC input as the input power source, and
converting the output to the test load to DC as well can help to simplify input and output power measurements.
No no, not at all. With that you make circuit more complex, by that adding possible other causes of error. Input and output powers should be measured from circuit as they are, instantaneous values, and then using scope or other means, to calculate power from that data. And what matters is only input and output power of the coil, not input power of the power source, or any converted output power at all.
Some details on the measurement method.
The initial method with the ground connected to the other R2 terminal is not bad in itself. We just have to understand what we're doing. The R2 resistor is not part of the device. Normally R2=0 and the output power Pout is only CH3²/R1. The input power is P=CH1*I where I is the input current.
Now how do you know the input current? This is where R2 is added, between the ground and the rest of the circuit. The voltage measured at the R2 terminals give us the current through the virtue of I=U/R, and this voltage is assumed to be negligible, without affecting operation.
BUT R2 must be very small so as not to disturb the setup. In general 1 Ω is sufficient, but here R2 is not at all negligible either in comparison to R1 (R2 represents 5% of R1), or in comparison to the resistance of the coils. So either we take R2 smaller for example 0.1 Ω, or we measure as I indicated, R2 is then considered as part of the device and not just part of the measurement process, and we also take into account the power dissipated there. Pout = CH3²/R1 + CH2²/R2.
If we keep the initial measurement process, then we can expect a 5% error on the measurement, which perfectly explains the COP of 1.061 measured by Itsu.
However, this does not explain at all the COP of nearly 3 measured by TK, which was well over 5%. If TK applied my correction, it shouldn't change much the result. So there is an error elsewhere in the TK measurement, or it is OU.
Using NO 1 Ohm csr (R2), but my current probe to measure / calculate the input current instead.
I know my current probe is offset somewhat compared to the voltage probes, and the scope deskew cannot compensate enough (±10ns only).
So first screenshot below shows both the csr measurement using a voltage probe (blue) and the current probe (green) in the working situation.
We still see (after max. deskew compensation) a phase difference of about 10° between the blue and green channels.
We cannot change that for the scope math function calculations, but we can add the 10° extra to the manual calculations.
The amplitude values are almost the same.
So removing the 1 Ohm csr and using the current probe in its place we get (see screenshots 2 and 3):
CH1 yellow = 1.92V
CH3 purple = 855.7mV
CH4 green = 43.76mA
phase CH1-CH4 = -55.47°
Math CH1xCH4 = 48.59mW
So, Scope Math (red) calulates the input to be 48.59mW (using uncorrected phase difference)
Manual calculation for input shows Vrms x Irms x Cos (phi) = P ave
1.92 x 0.04376 x Cos (-55.47 + 10) = 34.88mW (here we corrected the phases from -55.47 plus 10 to -65.47°)
Pout = CH3²/R1
= 0.8557²/20
= 36.61mW
COP = 36.61 / 34.88 = 1.049
Regards Itsu
Quote from: ayeaye on December 22, 2018, 02:42:43 AM
No no, not at all. With that you make circuit more complex, by that adding possible other causes of error. Input and output powers should be measured from circuit as they are, instantaneous values, and then using scope or other means, to calculate power from that data. And what matters is only input and output power of the coil, not input power of the power source, or any converted output power at all.
I understand what you are trying to do, but I was talking about a possible way to do practical
reality checks on such measurements in general. A practical way to double check results, which IMO is what
any reasonable person should do if they are getting measured results that appears to indicate COP > 1. :)
This is coming from long experience with these types of circuits, as I have already mentioned.
It all depends on whether a person is interested in trying to understand well what is really going on or not.
People are free to do whatever they like, and believe whatever they like however.
At any rate, what Itsu is measuring is well within the margin of measurement error, so no
reason to think there might be a COP > 1 for Itsu's latest measurements. IMO, his measurement error
could potentially be as high as 10%, if not higher, although not necessarily so, but potentially so.
I have mentioned that there also always may potentially be other factors affecting measurements that someone may
be overlooking in their measurements and calculations, so looking for practical ways to double check measurement results
is always a very good idea IMO. :)
Quote from: itsu on December 22, 2018, 11:03:40 AM
...
So removing the 1 Ohm csr and using the current probe in its place we get (see screenshots 2 and 3):
CH1 yellow = 1.92V
CH3 purple = 855.7mV
CH4 green = 43.76mA
phase CH1-CH4 = -55.47°
Math CH1xCH4 = 48.59mW
So, Scope Math (red) calulates the input to be 48.59mW (using uncorrected phase difference)
Manual calculation for input shows Vrms x Irms x Cos (phi) = P ave
1.92 x 0.04376 x Cos (-55.47 + 10) = 34.88mW (here we corrected the phases from -55.47 plus 10 to -65.47°)
Pout = CH3²/R1
= 0.8557²/20
= 36.61mW
COP = 36.61 / 34.88 = 1.049
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu
You result is still intriguing. You said you have two bifilar coils. One is 133.8uH/131.2uH, the other 125.5uH/122.4uH, with a Q=50 @ 100Khz.
Which coil did you use, and what are their capacities and resistances? May be you already gave them and I missed it. With these values I could make a LTspice model and compare to your traces to see if there is something different.
Coils resistance provides supplementary losses so that your COP could be higher.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 22, 2018, 12:41:12 PM
Coils resistance provides supplementary losses so that your COP could be higher.
Or the COP could potentially be lower than measured as well, due to measurement error. :)
IME, scopes are not super accurate at lower power level measurements like this, and that is to be expected.
Another possible way to double check the measurements on low power level circuits like this
is to scale the input drive up to a higher power level of say at least about 1 Watt or higher, and measure again
in the same way with the scope. That way potential measurement error should become less significant, assuming of course
that the measurement approach is correct and one is not overlooking one or more things.
If you are still seeing interesting results, then you may really be onto something. :)
I have tested with some low power circuit configurations in the past which seemed to show some
potentially interesting results, but I have put them on the back burner until I can get the chance to
test with them again at higher power levels. I have found it can be just too hard to try to draw any sort
of definite and reasonable conclusions when powering at low power levels. If powering at higher power levels,
measurement error should become a lot less of a factor (although over sights are always still potentially there),
and it also should make it somewhat easier to try to self-loop a circuit as well.
My previous post #265 utilized a pcb bifilar coil arrangement in which each coil was separated by the .062" thickness of the FR4 G10 glass substrate. This substrate also served as the dielectric between the two coils which overall does not provide the most efficient results due to the lower distributed capacitance. This post is of the same basic circuitry but uses two of the pcbs sandwiched together with two layers of soldermask providing the dielectric resulting in a higher distributed capacitance.
Two pix are again shown with the first showing the waveforms and measurements and the second showing the data for CH1(yel) or the input signal as 104.9v rms.
The following calculations from the measurements will take into account the separate power levels in the 1 ohm CSR and the 20 ohm load. Again statistics for the measurements over time are shown plus the horizontal resolution is now increased to 5 million points. The vertical resolution is 8 bits and the level of each measurement has been adjusted for near full vertical deflection so we can assume the vertical error to be ~1/256 = .4%.
So, for Pin we see the Math channel measures a min = 98.98mw avg and max = 129.5mw avg.
We see the current across the CSR = 315.4ma rms and the voltage across both the CSR + Rload = 6.5v rms. Since the output current and voltage are in phase, we can calculate the power across the CSR as .3154^2*1 = 99.5mw rms. The voltage drop across the CSR = .3154*1 = 315.4mv rms.
We can now calculate the power across the load resistor as (6.5-.3154)^2/20 = 1.91w rms resulting a total Pout = 1.91+.0995 = 2.01w rms.
Using the Math channel Pin results for the range of COP we have COPmin = 2.01/.1295 = 15.52 and COPmax = 2.01/.099 = 20.3.
Using the input VAR and phase angle measurements we have a PINmin = 109.4*.3154*cos(-89.22) = 469.7mw rms and PINmax = 109.4*.3154*cos(-88.88) = 674.4mw rms. This results in a COPmin = 2.01/.6744 = 2.98 and COPmax = 2.01/.4697 = 4.28.
The VAR = 34.5va so the reactive to real ratio is 34.5/2.01 = 17.16:1.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: F6FLT on December 22, 2018, 12:41:12 PM
Hi Itsu
You result is still intriguing. You said you have two bifilar coils. One is 133.8uH/131.2uH, the other 125.5uH/122.4uH, with a Q=50 @ 100Khz.
Which coil did you use, and what are their capacities and resistances? May be you already gave them and I missed it. With these values I could make a LTspice model and compare to your traces to see if there is something different.
Coils resistance provides supplementary losses so that your COP could be higher.
F6FLT,
still using the 2th coil which measured:
125.5uH/122.4uH, with a Q=50 @ 100Khz
both 1.5 Ohm and 2.5nF capacitance between them.
Itsu
Hi Partzman. I don't know exactly what your circuit arrangement was when doing your measurements,
but, if I understand you correctly, measuring a COP of about 20+ one way and measure a COP
of about 2+ another way seems to indicate that something is quite wrong there somewhere.
Quote from: Void on December 22, 2018, 01:44:04 PM
Hi Partzman. I don't know exactly what your circuit arrangement was when doing your measurements,
but, if I understand you correctly, measuring a COP of about 20+ one way and measure a COP
of about 2+ another way seems to indicate that something is quite wrong there somewhere.
Hi Void,
What do you propose is the source of the large differential in COP? Which one is more accurate?
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on December 22, 2018, 02:23:29 PM
Hi Void,
What do you propose is the source of the large differential in COP? Which one is more accurate?
Regards,
Pm
Hi partzman. I am not sure, as I am not sure how you did your measurements.
Was your measurement method the same as what Itsu was doing in his last couple
of measurement tests? Did you have the isolation transformer at the input as well?
Quote from: Void on December 22, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
Hi partzman. I am not sure, as I am not sure how you did your measurements.
Was your measurement method the same as what Itsu was doing in his last couple
of measurement tests? Did you have the isolation transformer at the input as well?
Same basic schematic as TK but no isolation transformer.
Pm
Quote from: partzman on December 22, 2018, 03:51:43 PM
Same basic schematic as TK but no isolation transformer.
Pm
I see. I think you may well need the transformer at the input like Itsu is doing since the transmit pancake coil is
open circuit at one end, so very hard to measure the input power to it otherwise. That may be where you
are having a measurement issue.
OK,how easy is OU to achieve ?
Easy
First take your bifi coil.
Set up as circuit below--secondary open.
Crank FG up until more power is being returned to the FG by the bifi coil,than the FG is delivering. :D
First scope shot at 1Mhz
Second at 9Mhz-->OU ::). I mean,the calculated power has gone negative :D
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 22, 2018, 10:49:57 PM
OK,how easy is OU to achieve ?
Easy
First take your bifi coil.
Set up as circuit below--secondary open.
Crank FG up until more power is being returned to the FG by the bifi coil,than the FG is delivering. :D
First scope shot at 1Mhz
Second at 9Mhz-->OU ::). I mean,the calculated power has gone negative :D
Brad
:) Hi Brad. As I mentioned earlier, I have also seen conditions where my scope measures phase shifts > 90 degrees
between the input voltage and the input current, but chances are very high of course that the scope is not telling the truth. ;D
Phase measurements with this type of circuit at higher frequencies like that can be not very reliable at all. One way to check for
this is if you move the leads for the scope probes all around does the phase measurements shift around? If so, then your scope
is not making reliable measurements. :) Either way, I think the chances are very high your scope is not reading at all correctly. :)
Quote from: Void on December 22, 2018, 11:11:55 PM
:) Hi Brad. As I mentioned earlier, I have also seen conditions where my scope measures phase shifts > 90 degrees
between the input voltage and the input current, but chances are very high of course that the scope is not telling the truth. ;D
Phase measurements with this type of circuit at higher frequencies like that can be not very reliable at all. One way to check for
this is if you move the leads for the scope probes all around does the phase measurements shift around? If so, then your scope
is not making reliable measurements. :) Either way, I think the chances are very high your scope is not reading at all correctly. :)
The very reason i carried out the test ;)
To show that in some cases,the scope will not show you what is actually going on.
As you can see in the scope shots i posted,any degree of phase shift is quite easy to achieve.
You will also note the voltage and current waveforms show very little offset,and are quite clean and stable,but the math trace is completely negative at 9MHZ.
Between 3 and 9MHZ,the circuit has a negative impedance value.
In the theoretical world,this would mean that the coil/inductor has become the source,and the FG has become the synk.
But in the real world,we are taught that this cannot be,and so there is an error some where.
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on December 22, 2018, 05:14:52 AM
Some details on the measurement method.
The initial method with the ground connected to the other R2 terminal is not bad in itself. We just have to understand what we're doing. The R2 resistor is not part of the device. Normally R2=0 and the output power Pout is only CH3²/R1. The input power is P=CH1*I where I is the input current.
Now how do you know the input current? This is where R2 is added, between the ground and the rest of the circuit. The voltage measured at the R2 terminals give us the current through the virtue of I=U/R, and this voltage is assumed to be negligible, without affecting operation.
BUT R2 must be very small so as not to disturb the setup. In general 1 Ω is sufficient, but here R2 is not at all negligible either in comparison to R1 (R2 represents 5% of R1), or in comparison to the resistance of the coils. So either we take R2 smaller for example 0.1 Ω, or we measure as I indicated, R2 is then considered as part of the device and not just part of the measurement process, and we also take into account the power dissipated there. Pout = CH3²/R1 + CH2²/R2.
If we keep the initial measurement process, then we can expect a 5% error on the measurement, which perfectly explains the COP of 1.061 measured by Itsu.
However, this does not explain at all the COP of nearly 3 measured by TK, which was well over 5%. If TK applied my correction, it shouldn't change much the result. So there is an error elsewhere in the TK measurement, or it is OU.
F6FLT
This still will not work if the FG and scope the guys are using share a common ground--which i believe they do.
You no longer have an isolated transformer,and will not obtain accurate power measurements the way you have depicted,as R2s voltage will not represent the true value of current flow,due to one end being coupled to the primary of the isolation transformer,and the other end coupled to !what is! the ground of the secondary of the isolation transformer.
Please see below diagram with FG and scope common ground added.
Brad
I don't see the scope doing anything wrong at 9 MHz, the waveforms are as they should for power to be negative. And when the power is negative, then indeed the coil generates power. This is nothing extraordinary, coil always generates power at back-emf, and the power trace has a negative part. Only in that case almost all of it is negative.
Can someone replicate? Itsu?
When the power is like 90% negative at 9 MHz, then it sure becomes negative at much lower frequency. The scopes should be well capable of it.
This last circuit proposed by Tinman, on the figure below, is the best i think, because it is the simplest, and easiest to measure. Thus the least measuring errors.
Maybe can be tried with different bifilar coils, coaxial? Not sure, these bifilar pancake coils made of thin magnet wire between cd-s or what, seem to work the best
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2018, 12:52:49 AM
F6FLT
This still will not work if the FG and scope the guys are using share a common ground--which i believe they do.
You no longer have an isolated transformer,and will not obtain accurate power measurements the way you have depicted,as R2s voltage will not represent the true value of current flow,due to one end being coupled to the primary of the isolation transformer,and the other end coupled to !what is! the ground of the secondary of the isolation transformer.
Please see below diagram with FG and scope common ground added.
Brad
I agree with you Brad. There is a ground problem if the scope and FG are not floating and share a common ground, which is likely.
Another problem is the transformer itself. If it is made with two wires wound together, there is a strong capacitive coupling and the so-called "isolation transformer" is in fact a near all-pass circuit.
Even if it is made of two well separated coils, for instance coils diametrically separated on opposite sides of a tore core, the primary/secondary capacity is still on the order of pF to tens of pF, which is too much at Mhz frequencies.
Moreover the transformer adds possible concerns, for example making the FG appearing with a complex impedance.
I therefore propose the following simplified version, see picture.
No isolation transformer.
Only one ground.
The output power is easy and direct to obtain.
The input power is a little more difficult because the input current measurement is now made on the hot side of the coil. Nevertheless, I think there will be far less experimental bias than before.
If a COP>1 is always obtained, then it becomes very interesting. I hope Parzman and Itsu will try again with this new configuration.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 23, 2018, 05:42:55 AM
I agree with you Brad. There is a ground problem if the scope and FG are not floating and share a common ground, which is likely.
Another problem is the transformer itself. If it is made with two wires wound together, there is a strong capacitive coupling and the so-called "isolation transformer" is in fact a near all-pass circuit.
Even if it is made of two well separated coils, for instance coils diametrically separated on opposite sides of a tore core, the primary/secondary capacity is still on the order of pF to tens of pF, which is too much at Mhz frequencies.
Moreover the transformer adds possible concerns, for example making the FG appearing with a complex impedance.
I therefore propose the following simplified version, see picture.
No isolation transformer.
Only one ground.
The output power is easy and direct to obtain.
The input power is a little more difficult because the input current measurement is now made on the hot side of the coil. Nevertheless, I think there will be far less experimental bias than before.
If a COP>1 is always obtained, then it becomes very interesting. I hope Parzman and Itsu will try again with this new configuration.
Yes,that test circuit will give you accurate results.
I did miss the capacitive coupling problem on the isolation transformer though--good pickup there.
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on December 23, 2018, 05:42:55 AM
I therefore propose the following simplified version, see picture.
No isolation transformer.
Hi F6FLT. Trying to measure current accurately across a CSR when one end of the transmit coil is
not connected to anything I have found from experience has questionable reliability as well. You need the isolation transformer
to improve measurements, IMO, but significant capacitive coupling between coil windings on all transformers is always
there at higher frequencies, so that always impacts measurements. The two pancake coils are coupling a fair bit
by capacitive coupling in this arrangement as well, IMO.
This is why I have been pointing out that I think it is a very good idea to look for ways to double check measurements
on these types of circuits (should do this on all measurements in 'OU' circuit testing really), and I don't really ever trust in
the accuracy of these type of measurements especially when COP > 1 is being indicated. Chances are measurements are not telling the truth. :)
At any rate, Brad has emphasized what I had pointed out as well, that the phase measurements on scopes on
these type of circuits at higher frequencies can be unreliable. I would suggest people try moving their scope probe leads
all around after connecting up their scope probes when the circuit is being driven/powered, and if you see the phase shift
amount on the scope between waveforms changing, then you obviously can't trust the phase shift you are measuring.
Brad, did you try moving the scope probe leads around when you were measuring the phase shift > 90 degrees?
If someone thinks they are measuring a COP of about 2 or higher, then they should have enough 'excess energy' in the circuit to
self loop. If it fails miserably when you try to self loop the circuit, then you are probably looking at measurement error. ;D
Self looping is the great equalizer. An OU experimenter's essential reality check. Omit this at your own peril. :D
Quote from: Void on December 23, 2018, 07:26:13 AM
Trying to measure current accurately across a CSR when one end of the transmit coil is not connected to anything I have found from experience has questionable reliability as well.
No, one end of the input winding not connected does not decrease reliability. Coil is what we measure. It sure has a strong capacitive coupling. When it is all capacitive, then there is no voltage on R1 at all, all the bifilar coil acts just as a capacitor. Sure no overunity in that case. This is why it is interesting and important to measure voltage separately on R1. When some current goes through the output winding, then the current in the circuit is caused both by the capacitive coupling and that current.
"You need the isolation transformer to improve measurements,"
No, isolation transformer has nothing to do with the capacitive coupling in the bifilar coil. As F6FLT pointed out, when both the oscilloscope and the function generator have a common ground, there is no need for isolation transformer, and removing that transformer greatly improves the measurement accuracy, as one more part of the circuit is removed that can be a source of errors.
Now the possible cause of overunity, the way i guess. The current induced in the secondary winding fills the capacitance, the current doesn't all go through all the winding, thus might not have a full Lenz effect, thus more current can be induced that fills the capacitance, than provided by the Faraday's law.
"Self looping is the great equalizer. An OU experimenter's essential reality check. Omit this at your own peril."
No, not at all, quite the opposite. This self-looping will be just adding more components to the circuit that all are possible causes of errors. And self-looping doesn't really prove overunity, self-looping can occur also for other reasons than overunity. Self-looping may not last long, for how long should it last to show overunity? This just makes the experiment ambiguous instead of doing what should be done, measuring overunity, that is the input and output power of the part of the circuit that is considered to possibly have overunity. Self-looping is a very different task, it is engineering and not research. It can be done after the research shows a result of overunity that may be enough for self-running. But it's engineering not research.
I don't see no reason why the input and output power of that circuit cannot be accurately measured, having a good and well calibrated oscilloscope. The probes may give more error with higher frequency yes, thus swapping probes may slightly change the results and it may be done to estimate error. But some 1.5 MHz is not that great frequency for a good oscilloscope, including its probes, and it can be measured with sufficient accuracy.
That the measurements are complicated and must be carefully made, there is no doubt though.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 23, 2018, 08:04:17 AM
I don't see no reason why the input and output power of that circuit cannot be accurately measured, having a good and well calibrated oscilloscope.
I have mentioned some reasons why measurements on these types of circuits can be very tricky,
and can easily mislead a person if they are not very careful. Taking the attitude of being willing to question and
closely examine all measurements, especially when something out of the ordinary is measured, and in such a case try
to find ways to double check measurement results, is a very good idea IMO. This is my point of view based on lots of
experience doing measurements in these types of circuits. Good luck to all with your measurements. May you be fooled
no more than half of the time. :)
I was using a battery operated (so ground isolated) FG all the time as mentioned before.
I used also an isolation transformer to be compatible with TK his setup.
Anyway, latest setup from F6FLT:
Still using the 2th bifilar coil.
Math function cannot be used in this setup (1 math function at a time only for my scope).
Screenshot 1 shows the values:
CH1 = 1.786V
CH2 = 1.750V
CH3 = 868.8mV
CH4 = 44.4mA (i added the current probe value (right before R2 in the diagram) to show the difficulty to correctly
measure the voltage (current) across R2 (CH1 - CH2) in this setup)
Difference between CH1 and CH2 is 36mV, but this is very debatable, see lateron.
Calculating:
Pin = CH1 * (CH1-CH2)/R2
Pin = 1.786 * (1.786-1.75)/1
Pin = 64.29mW
Pout = CH3²/R1
Pout = 0.8688²/20
Pout = 37.74mW
COP = 37.74/64.29 = 0.58
Using the current probe value of 44.4mA, then we get:
Pin = 79.2mW
Pout = 37.74mW
COP = 0.47
But.......
note the phase difference between CH1 yellow and CH2 blue, its 0, meaning pure resistive.
note the phase difference between CH4 green and CH2 blue, its -52° (plus 10 = -62°) which should be 0 as both are measuring the same current!!
So something is not right in this setup.
If i remove all probes (grounds) and only measure across R2 together with the current probe i DO get both signals
to be of the same value (45mA) plus of the same phase see screenshot 2.
thoughts?
Like if i besides using the current probe value (44.4mA), i also use its phase offset (-62° again), i get as input:
Pin = 1.786 * 0.0444 * Cos -62°
Pin = 37.2mW
Which makes a COP of 0.98 hmm...
Itsu
Quote from: itsu on December 23, 2018, 08:54:50 AM
I was using a battery operated (so ground isolated) FG all the time as mentioned before.
I used also an isolation transformer to be compatible with TK his setup.
Anyway, latest setup from F6FLT:
Still using the 2th bifilar coil.
Math function cannot be used in this setup (1 math function at a time only for my scope).
Screenshot 1 shows the values:
CH1 = 1.786V
CH2 = 1.750V
CH3 = 868.8mV
CH4 = 44.4mA (i added the current probe value (right before R2 in the diagram) to show the difficulty to correctly
measure the voltage (current) across R2 (CH1 - CH2) in this setup)
Difference between CH1 and CH2 is 36mV, but this is very debatable, see lateron.
Calculating:
Pin = CH1 * (CH1-CH2)/R2
Pin = 1.782 * (1.782-1.75)/1
Pin = 64.29mW
Pout = CH3²/R1
Pout = 0.8688²/20
Pout = 37.74mW
COP = 37.74/64.29 = 0.58
Using the current probe value of 44.4mA, then we get:
Pin = 79.2mW
Pout = 37.74mW
COP = 0.47
But.......
note the phase difference between CH1 yellow and CH2 blue, its 0, meaning pure resistive.
note the phase difference between CH4 green and CH2 blue, its -52° (plus 10 = -62°) which should be 0 as both are measuring the same current!!
So something is not right in this setup.
If i remove all probes (grounds) and only measure across R2 together with the current probe i DO get both signals
to be of the same value (45mA) plus of the same phase see screenshot 2.
thoughts?
Itsu
Itsu
I would do with your current probe as i did with mine-->file it on the top shelf ,and forget about it.
Your current probe is doing exactly what mine did in the higher frequencies--lagged behind actual current. This tells me that the probe is some what capacitive at the higher frequencies.
I have never liked current probes being used at these low power ratings.
Your yellow and blue trace are correct,which means your current probe (green chanel) is reading incorrectly. Maybe it is to close to one of the coils,and picking up external magnetic fields?.
Brad
Quote from: Void on December 23, 2018, 08:19:59 AM
I have mentioned some reasons why measurements on these types of circuits can be very tricky,
Only the drawing is tricky. L1 is connected to L2 with a capacitor. Draw the capacitor and the mystery disappears. That what I did for my LTspice model, and it reproduces perfectly my bifilar coils.
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2018, 09:17:41 AM
Itsu
I would do with your current probe as i did with mine-->file it on the top shelf ,and forget about it.
Your current probe is doing exactly what mine did in the higher frequencies--lagged behind actual current. This tells me that the probe is some what capacitive at the higher frequencies.
I have never liked current probes being used at these low power ratings.
Your yellow and blue trace are correct,which means your current probe (green chanel) is reading incorrectly. Maybe it is to close to one of the coils,and picking up external magnetic fields?.
Brad
Brad,
i don't think so, when using ONLY the current probe and ONE voltage probe across the csr, the both show the
SAME amplitude AND phase, no lagging behind, see 2th screenshot above.
I rather think that in the multiple probe setup (1st screenshot), the blue CH2 is somehow "forced" to join up
with the phase of CH1 yellow due to the same ground points.
I would rather "believe" the current probe here then the voltage probe.
Itsu
I have mentioned that once the scope probes are connected to the circuit and the circuit is running,
you should try moving the scope probe leads around and watch the scope display to see if the phase
difference shown between waveforms is changing when you do this. Has anyone tried this?
My guess is the electromagnetic field around coils may sometimes couple into the
scope probe leads directly which can throw phase measurements off. I have found that how
much of an issue this is depends on the exact circuit configuration and frequency of operation.
Obviously if the phase difference shown on the scope is shifting around as you move the scope probe
leads around (while the scope probes are connected to the circuit) then you can't trust the phase measurements at all.
Experienced engineers/technicians who build and test circuits like this at higher frequencies will build the circuit on a ground
plane to make the circuit more stable against stray capacitance, and keep all lead wires as short as possible, etc., and do other
things like keeping scope probe leads at right angles to coils and that sort of thing as well. Even then the measurements can be
quite difficult to do accurately. Taking accurate measurements on setups like this is an art in itself.
The bottom line is experienced OU experimenters know the importance of trying to self-loop any circuit setup that
you think might be showing OU. There is just too much room for being mislead in one way or another otherwise. :)
Quote from: itsu on December 23, 2018, 08:54:50 AM...
Difference between CH1 and CH2 is 36mV, but this is very debatable, see lateron.
...
I had anticipated this difficulty. To remove it, a differential measurement could be the solution. On my old Tektronix I could choose to display channel A-B. I don't know if it's still possible with modern scopes as yours (or my Siglent, not yet searched for that).
Quote from: Void on December 23, 2018, 09:58:55 AM...
The bottom line is experienced OU experimenters know the importance of trying a self-loop any circuit setup that
you think might be showing OU.
...
I agree. It's the only way to prove OU and generally it is where we understand our previous mistakes :D.
The measurements are just a means to know if our matter is enough convincing to lead us to build a possible "self-runner".
Quote from: F6FLT on December 23, 2018, 10:09:20 AM
I agree. It's the only way to prove OU and generally it is where we understand our previous mistakes :D.
The measurements are just a means to know if our matter is enough convincing to lead us to build a possible "self-runner".
Agreed. :)
Quote from: F6FLT on December 23, 2018, 10:02:18 AM
I had anticipated this difficulty. To remove it, a differential measurement could be the solution. On my old Tektronix I could choose to display channel A-B. I don't know if it's still possible with modern scopes as yours (or my Siglent, not yet searched for that).
If i do a differential measurement across R2 using CH2 blue and CH4 green, and use the Math to substract them, i get the below screenshot.
It shows that CH1 yellow, CH2 blue and CH4 green are all of the same phase and the Math calculates the difference to be 45mA (like the current probe before).
But i have still my doubts about the phase compared to CH1 yellow, i still think it should be offset about 62° like seen before.
Itsu
Quote from: F6FLT on December 23, 2018, 10:09:20 AM
I agree. It's the only way to prove OU and generally it is where we understand our previous mistakes :D.
The measurements are just a means to know if our matter is enough convincing to lead us to build a possible "self-runner".
I strongly disagree,
self-looping is not a way to prove OU at all.
All the discussion of the immense difficulties of measurement seems to be to arrive to that conclusion, a panacea to avoid all difficulties and get all easily.
All just about measuring a circuit that is quite simple and even not that difficult to measure.
No, there are no miracle solutions, there are not. One cannot escape accurate and careful measurements for doing research, cannot replace them with anything. There is no way,
who say there are, want to avoid research.Replace it with talk maybe, it is easy to talk when there is no research and no data to base the talk on, all is just conjectures. Who want to write books, sure love self-looping. Like one can talk endlessly whether the looping goes on clockwise, or counter-clockwise ;)
I don't expect one to agree, because as i already showed, not strong in analytical thinking. If not learned meanwhile.
Time is difficult to find at the moment due to the holidays but here is some input in regards to the many comments I see. I have worked with these types of bifilar circuits for the past 4 years and in fact not just bifilar (simplest form) but also trifilar, quadfiliar, and pentafilar. Each one has it's own unique characteristics and many are counter-intuitive.
Regarding my post #292 and the varying COPs, please look at the aberrations in the CSR voltage waveform on CH4(grn) that cross the zero line. Now calculate the sensitivity of the phase measurement based on 5M points across the 2us screen window and compute the resolution of the measurement over 360 degrees of the 685ns cycle period. If one were to look at a CSV file of the phase measurement, these numbers would be all over the place due to these aberrations. However, the integration of the samples taken with the same sample rate on CH1 and CH4 by the Math channel function are more absolute and more accurate IMO due to averaging.
Regarding the method of ground connections, please see the attached schematic that show the ground method I use on all these tests with or without any isolation transformer. There is only one probe ground shield connected to this point (CH4) with all other higher voltage probes left with no ground lead connection. This prevents ground looping into the more sensitive CH4 measurement by induction via the outer shields. One must also have an understanding of the inner grounding scheme in the particular brand of scope being used. They are not as you might assume as I found out from Tektronix on my MDO.
Looping! No offense, but I really have to sometimes chuckle at the comments I see. Oh I agree that looping is the ultimate proof of OU in any device, but if anyone reading this thread can provide or come up with a scheme to loop this particular device, we'll partner in the final product to serve mankind. Certain types of circuit typologies are difficult to loop and this is one of them IMO so be my guest!
Sometimes looping isn't required for proof however. An example is negative input power measurement. If this is encountered then the device should self oscillate under the proper conditions.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: ayeaye on December 23, 2018, 10:27:30 AM
I strongly disagree, self-looping is not a way to prove OU at all.
...
Self-looping is not sufficient but it's necessary. This is
my minimum requirement when people talk to me about OU. But you do what you want.
Quote from: itsu on December 23, 2018, 09:56:24 AM
Brad,
i don't think so, when using ONLY the current probe and ONE voltage probe across the csr, the both show the
SAME amplitude AND phase, no lagging behind, see 2th screenshot above.
I rather think that in the multiple probe setup (1st screenshot), the blue CH2 is somehow "forced" to join up
with the phase of CH1 yellow due to the same ground points.
I would rather "believe" the current probe here then the voltage probe.
Itsu
As CH1 and CH2 remain in phase with or without the current probe,and the fact that you are measuring across a pure resistance (your CSR),then i would say that CH2 is reading correctly,and not being forced to lign up with CH1s phase.
This is also proven when you use just CH1 and the current probe,and once again the phases line up.
So yes,the phase angle across the CSR should be 0,but your current probe shows otherwise when used in conjunction with both CH1 and CH2,but shows correctly when CH2 is removed--is that correct?.
Brad
Quote from: itsu on December 23, 2018, 10:23:52 AM
If i do a differential measurement across R2 using CH2 blue and CH4 green, and use the Math to substract them, i get the below screenshot.
It shows that CH1 yellow, CH2 blue and CH4 green are all of the same phase and the Math calculates the difference to be 45mA (like the current probe before).
But i have still my doubts about the phase compared to CH1 yellow, i still think it should be offset about 62° like seen before.
Itsu
Regardless of anything that is happening either side of the CSR,the waveforms on either side of the CSR should always be in phase,as you are measuring a voltage drop across a pure resistance.
So what ever you see on one side of the CSR,you will see on the other side,but where the amplitude is either higher or lower.
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on December 23, 2018, 05:08:03 PM
This is my minimum requirement when people talk to me about OU. But you do what you want.
Of course i have my own requirements, and i don't care what you say.
It's like several people here who want to replace the problem with something else, to make sure that the result will be zero.
Teaching you analytical thinking. People in Japan believed that there lived mystical creatures, who had bowl on their head. This bowl was necessary for them, because it gathered water, and water gave them power. So people told, when you meet such creatures, bow deeply to them. Then the creatures will also bow to you, the water from their bowls will flow away, and they have no power any more.
I am in trouble in that, i cannot really explain how these alternative uses of the bifilar pancake coil might provide overunity, other than the original Tesla design. The only thing was that TinselKoala experiment that claimed 2.9 overunity. Now when that appears nothing, i don't see why to even consider it any more. Go back to where we began, the Tesla's original design, as the claim that something else may provide better results, appeared to be false.
Quote from: tinman on December 23, 2018, 05:57:47 PM
As CH1 and CH2 remain in phase with or without the current probe,and the fact that you are measuring across a pure resistance (your CSR),then i would say that CH2 is reading correctly,and not being forced to lign up with CH1s phase.
This is also proven when you use just CH1 and the current probe,and once again the phases line up.
...
I agree 100%.
A measurement problem with CH1-CH2 would only occur when the difference is small compared to each value. It is easy to measure 1mV ac, but it is not easy to measure 1mV when it is the difference between 1KV and 1.000001 KV :). That's why I suggested a differential measure, but I'm not really sure it's necessary here.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 24, 2018, 03:08:44 AM
I am in trouble in that, i cannot really explain how these alternative uses of the bifilar pancake coil might provide overunity, other than the original Tesla design.
The original Tesla design didn't provide OU.
Quote
The only thing was that TinselKoala experiment that claimed 2.9 overunity.
Only the measurement showed an overunity of 2.9 but TK never claimed OU, the measurement has to be verified. If confirmed, OU must be checked by looping the device (which would be quite easy).
Hi Brad,
QuoteAs CH1 and CH2 remain in phase with or without the current probe,and the fact that you are measuring across a
pure resistance (your CSR),then i would say that CH2 is reading correctly,and not being forced to lign up with
CH1s phase.
Well, yes, i agree, when looking from he ground point of view , and being measuring a resistor, the phases (CH1
voltage, CH2 current) should line up, but the current probe is not grounded, so has no reference point to measure from that ground point.
I think it measures the (true) phase as seen in the whole primary circuit, not only across the csr like CH2.
I struggle for words here to explain :o
QuoteThis is also proven when you use just CH1 and the current probe,and once again the phases line up.
I use CH2 (current) only with the current probe, then the both current phases line up.
QuoteSo yes,the phase angle across the CSR should be 0,but your current probe shows otherwise when used in conjunction
with both CH1 and CH2,but shows correctly when CH2 is removed--is that correct?.
Almost, "it shows correctly when CH1 and CH3 (only CH2 present ACROSS CSR) is removed".
Itsu
Quote from: F6FLT on December 24, 2018, 04:59:08 AM
The original Tesla design didn't provide OU.
You are telling without knowing. That's not saying that anything provides OU.
I did point out that measuring without the input transformer has its own problems as well. :)
Also, are you guys trying the test I mentioned to move the scope probe leads around when
doing your measurements to see if the phase difference shown on the scope shifts around when
the scope probe leads are moved to different positions? Ignore this check at your own peril. ;)
Itsu, when you measure the input current with your current probe, if the current probe is attached
to the same scope that you are measuring the input voltage waveform with, then the scope
ground provides the common point of reference between channels for doing the phase measurement.
Would you agree? You wouldn't be able to do phase measurements if that were not the case.
QuoteI did point out that measuring without the input transformer has its own problems as well. (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fsmiley.gif&hash=988f235d2137dcd6eeb7b9ed4d2dce57a9298b3c)
Also, are you guys trying the test I mentioned to move the scope probe leads around when
doing your measurements to see if the phase difference shown on the scope shifts around when
the scope probe leads are moved to different positions? Ignore this check at your own peril. (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fwink.gif&hash=5924c420ee299b1b41a00984adb1bbfd8233cfae)
Itsu, when you measure the input current with your current probe, if the current probe is attached
to the same scope that you are measuring the input voltage waveform with, then the scope
ground provides the common point of reference between channels for doing the phase measurement.
Would you agree? You wouldn't be able to do phase measurements if that were not the case.
Hi Void,
yes, the current probe is attached to its current controller which is attached to (in my case) CH4.
So yes , all probes have a common ground.
But the voltage probe with its ground lead forces that probe to "look" only to the signals (and phase)
between the probe tip and its ground (CH2 to ground = R2 + FG), while the current probe looks at the whole branch
it is in, so L1, R2 and FG (current probe placed between FG + and R2).
Below screenshot shows the difference in phase when i remove the CH2 ground from reference ground (white trace)
to just before R2 (blue trace), both compared to the current probe trace (green) where i trigger on.
It flips from -52° phase difference to (almost) 0°.
Itsu
Quote from: itsu on December 24, 2018, 10:54:15 AM
But the voltage probe with its ground lead forces that probe to "look" only to the signals (and phase)
between the probe tip and its ground (CH2 to ground = R2 + FG), while the current probe looks at the whole branch
it is in, so L1, R2 and FG (current probe placed between FG + and R2).
Below screenshot shows the difference in phase when i remove the CH2 ground from reference ground (white trace)
to just before R2 (blue trace), both compared to the current probe trace (green) where i trigger on.
It flips from -52° phase difference to (almost) 0°.
Itsu
Hi Itsu. Sorry, I am not following you. You should not move the Ch2 ground from the common ground reference point for
all the probes to just before R2, as all probes must have the same ground reference point, so, I am not following what
you are trying to do/demonstrate there by moving the Ch2 ground. You would have a ground loop if you did that. Maybe
I am misunderstanding you.
I would be inclined to go with the current probe measurement and not use the CSR at the input (in this particular measurement arrangement),
but do try moving the scope probe leads around (both current and voltage probe leads) when doing these measurements to see if that impacts
the phase angle measurements. If it does, then the phase angle measurements for certain can't be trusted if you see that happening.
Void,
yes, as i said earlier, i am struggling for words to explain.
as long as i use only 1 probe (blue in this case), i can put its ground lead where ever i want.
I just want to show that by moving the ground lead of the CH2 blue probe, its phase flips from -52°
out of phase with the current probe (green) signal to IN phase with the current probe signal.
I otherwise cannot explain why by using a different measurement setup, my circuit COP halfs from COP=1
to COP=0.5
Itsu
Quote from: ayeaye on December 24, 2018, 05:50:58 AM
You are telling without knowing. That's not saying that anything provides OU.
I haven't not to know that.
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".
Euclid
This statement from a great thinker saves us from wasting time with those who talk nonsense while they have the burden of proof. Thanks a lot, Euclid! ;D
Quote from: itsu on December 24, 2018, 11:29:22 AM
Void,
yes, as i said earlier, i am struggling for words to explain.
as long as i use only 1 probe (blue in this case), i can put its ground lead where ever i want.
I just want to show that by moving the ground lead of the CH2 blue probe, its phase flips from -52°
out of phase with the current probe (green) signal to IN phase with the current probe signal.
I otherwise cannot explain why by using a different measurement setup, my circuit COP halfs from COP=1
to COP=0.5
Itsu
Hi Itsu. I think I understand what you mean now. You are changing the ground reference point
for the scope measurement across the CSR when you do that, so not surprising that the measured phase
angle shifts relative to the current probe.
At any rate, I would be inclined to go with using your current probe and not use the CSR at the input in
that particular test arrangement. Have you tried my suggested check to move the scope probe leads around
when doing these measurements to see if moving the scope probe leads (both current and voltage probe leads)
has any effect on your phase angle measurements? I have found this can sometimes be a major problem in this
type of setup with big coils at higher frequencies.
One way to possibly make the measurements more reliable in this type of setup is to place the test circuit with
coils inside a full metal enclosure (all sides enclosed), and just have connectors on the metal enclosure for connecting
the scope probes. The metal enclosure should be grounded to the common ground point for the whole test circuit.
This will help to stabilize the circuit against stray capacitances, and will help to contain the EM fields around the coils inside
the enclosure, but that is a lot of extra work. It might be necessary for testing with this circuit arrangement however, to get more
reliable results. There may be other factors affecting the measurements as well however, such as unaccounted for
capacitive coupling that is bypassing measurement points to some extent.
P.S. There is another aspect to this that can significantly affect the efficiency measurement results.
The input transformer can act as a impedance changing transformer, depending on its winding ratio,
and changing the impedance differences between sections of the circuit can have a significant impact
on overall circuit efficiency. Whether impedances match closely or not between different sections of the circuit
can change the circuit efficiency considerably.
Void,
well, my whole point was to show that the current probe data is stable and not moving while the blue voltage
probe data (phase) changes when changing the ground reference.
So to me this means that in this case/setup, the current probe is the most reliable.
Also backed up by the fact that when calculating Pin using this current probe data (amplitude AND phase)
the results are the same as with my earlier setup and data (COP=1)
Using the voltage probe data and especially the phase (0) data instead shows a halving of the COP to 0.5
which i find unbelievable.
Changing the positions of my probe leads does not influence the the amplitude nor the phase of the signals.
But i know what you mean as i have seen that before too.
The probes become part of the circuit and can have a dramatic effect on the presented data.
Itsu
Hi Itsu. Yes, sounds within reason to me that the efficiency in such a circuit if
tuned to the right frequency range could give a high efficiency of close to 100%.
All the best.
Quote from: itsu on December 23, 2018, 09:56:24 AM
Brad,
I rather think that in the multiple probe setup (1st screenshot), the blue CH2 is somehow "forced" to join up
with the phase of CH1 yellow due to the same ground points.
Itsu
Itsu
I still have a hard time believing that CH1 and CH2 should not be in phase.
Unless your CSR is some what inductive,CH1 and CH2s phase should always line up.
Simply remove CH2s ground lead,and leave it floating. Your scope shares a common ground-dose it not?. If so,then removing CH2s ground lead,and just leave it lying on the bench, should make no difference to the phase angle between CH1 and CH2.
If you see no change in phase angle between CH1 and CH2 when you remove CH2s ground lead,then your current probe is not showing you correct results.
If the phase angle between CH1 and CH2 dose change when you remove CH2s ground lead,then you have a problem with one of your scope probes or leads,as the phase angle should not change when removing one of the ground clip leads--as long as 1 remains clipped to the ground reference point.
It may also be that your CSR is some what inductive.
Brad
Itsu
I have carried out the below tests,and i cannot get CH1s and CH2s phase to alter,regardless of frequency--until up around 11MHz,when something odd happens.
I am using my tape wound bifi coil--you may have seen it in previous experiments.
Schematic below,along with scope shots at each frequency.
I also removed CH2s ground lead,and carried out the tests again--no difference found.
Chanel colors as in schematic,along with resistor values as used.
Resistors are 100 watt non inductive.
Im not going to calculate results for tests 1-5,but only for test 6 at 11MHz
First you will note in test 6 that ch2s voltage is leading ch1s voltage--odd ???
But the fun begins when we calculate our power in and out :o
P/in is CH1 x (Ch1-CH2)/2
P/in =49.8mW
P/out is 6.59vrms over 10 ohms
P/out=4342.81 mW :o
So my COP in this test is 8720.48%
Obviously i have done something wrong,and i am attempting to find that mistake now.
Brad
For the diagram that was provided with the CSR in the 'positive' wire of the function generator,
that is incorrect for trying to measure the phase angle of Iin. You are trying to measure the phase
angle across both the function generator and the CSR in series when doing it that way. It is incorrect.
You can't measure the phase angle between the voltage and current waveforms that way. If you tried that
same CSR and ground placement arrangement with a regular transformer (with the primary having both wires connected),
you would also get incorrect phase angle measurement results. If you want to place the CSR there, I believe you would
have to make the common ground point for all the probe grounds right at the 'positive' terminal of the function generator,
before the CSR.
Quote from: Void on December 25, 2018, 12:36:24 AM
For the diagram that was provided with the CSR in the 'positive' wire of the function generator,
that is incorrect for trying to measure the phase angle of Iin. You are trying to measure the phase
angle across both the function generator and the CSR in series when doing it that way. It is incorrect.
You can't measure the phase angle between the voltage and current waveforms that way. If you tried that
same CSR and ground placement arrangement with a regular transformer (with the primary having both wires connected),
you would also get incorrect phase angle measurement results. If you want to place the CSR there, I believe you would
have to make the common ground point for all the probe grounds right at the 'positive' terminal of the function generator,
before the CSR.
Void
I see no problem here.
Ch1 is measuring the voltage across the function generator.
CH2 is also measuring the voltage across the function generator,minus the voltage drop across a pure resistance(the CSR).
All ground leads are connected at one point,and that is at the ground lead of the function generator.
As i said,i see no problem with the circuit provided,or any of the measuring points.
I have found the error in my previous result's.
Some dope left CH3s chanel multiplication at 2x from some previous testing,where the CVR was .5 ohms.
None the less,i am still over a COP of 300% :o
So CH1 shows us our voltage input value,and CH2 shows us the voltage drop across our CSR,which also gives us our current value. You then multiply the voltage and current to get P/in.
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on December 24, 2018, 12:02:35 PM
I haven't not to know that.
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".
Euclid
This statement from a great thinker saves us from wasting time with those who talk nonsense while they have the burden of proof. Thanks a lot, Euclid! ;D
Yes indeed. I used that about you.
You rejected the Tesla's bifilar pancake coil without reason, so i could simply ignore what you say without reason. Your thinking works in finding your own faults, that's good. Thanks indeed, Euclid!
Quote from: tinman on December 24, 2018, 10:31:12 PM
Itsu
I still have a hard time believing that CH1 and CH2 should not be in phase.
Unless your CSR is some what inductive,CH1 and CH2s phase should always line up.
Simply remove CH2s ground lead,and leave it floating. Your scope shares a common ground-dose it not?. If so,then removing CH2s ground lead,and just leave it lying on the bench, should make no difference to the phase angle between CH1 and CH2.
If you see no change in phase angle between CH1 and CH2 when you remove CH2s ground lead,then your current probe is not showing you correct results.
If the phase angle between CH1 and CH2 dose change when you remove CH2s ground lead,then you have a problem with one of your scope probes or leads,as the phase angle should not change when removing one of the ground clip leads--as long as 1 remains clipped to the ground reference point.
It may also be that your CSR is some what inductive.
Brad
Brad,
thanks for doing these tests.
But, of course CH1 and CH2 should be in phase, we are measuring across a (in my case induction free!) resistor.
By putting the both CH1 and CH2 probes across the FG and csr + FG you force them to ONLY measure resistance, so 0° phases.
I do not imply anything else.
But do you think the voltage and current across the whole input branch (FG, csr, L1) should also be pure resistive?
I don't think so, and that is (i think) what my current probe is measuring, the current compared to FG voltage
across the whole input branch.
When i remove CH2 ground from the common ground point, nothing happens as, like you say my scope has all probes
grounds connected together.
It only changes phases (compared to my current scope) when changing the CH2 ground from common ground point to just
before csr (R2) where also the current probe is, but of course you have to remove the other probes (grounds) as
otherwise you would short out the FG.
In my opinion, you measure/calculate input power only across the FG / csr (which show you phase 0°)
instead of the whole input branch (including L1) which MUST lead to a phase shift due to its inductive/capacitive
nature, so you are missing the Cos phi part in your calculation (try it, use -65 to -80% Cos Phi, you will be close to COP=1)
Any COP of 8000% or even 300% must be wrong, common sense dictates this.
Anyway, i will leave it at this as i seem to be unable to get across what i see / think.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: itsu on December 25, 2018, 05:16:16 AM
Brad,
thanks for doing these tests.
But, of course CH1 and CH2 should be in phase, we are measuring across a (in my case induction free!) resistor.
By putting the both CH1 and CH2 probes across the FG and csr + FG you force them to ONLY measure resistance, so 0° phases.
I do not imply anything else.
But do you think the voltage and current across the whole input branch (FG, csr, L1) should also be pure resistive?
I don't think so, and that is (i think) what my current probe is measuring, the current compared to FG voltage
across the whole input branch.
When i remove CH2 ground from the common ground point, nothing happens as, like you say my scope has all probes
grounds connected together.
It only changes phases (compared to my current scope) when changing the CH2 ground from common ground point to just
before csr (R2) where also the current probe is, but of course you have to remove the other probes (grounds) as
otherwise you would short out the FG.
In my opinion, you measure/calculate input power only across the FG / csr (which show you phase 0°)
instead of the whole input branch (including L1) which MUST lead to a phase shift due to its inductive/capacitive
nature, so you are missing the Cos phi part in your calculation (try it, use -65 to -80% Cos Phi, you will be close to COP=1)
Any COP of 8000% or even 300% must be wrong, common sense dictates this.
Anyway, i will leave it at this as i seem to be unable to get across what i see / think.
Regards Itsu
Ok,i have to keep reminding myself that you have a battery operated or isolated FG--as i remember.
But lets look at the circuit below,where the FG shares a common ground with the scope.
We will also take voltage& current phase angle into account-->power factor.
Also we will look at the bifi coil,and how it may be acting.
First,the bifi coil.
Depending on both the inductance and capacitance value of the coil,at some point in frequency,the inductance will be canceled out by the capacitance,and the coil will act as a pure resistance.
This would result in a voltage and current phase angle of 0
Power factor.
When i calculate power ,i calculate for a power factor of 1.
This gives us a maximum real power value--when the voltage and current are in phase.
Once voltage and current become out of phase,the power factor drops,and the real power value is less.
So i am calculating for a maximum input power-->the actual value can only be less.
Now the circuit.
When we look at the circuit and scope probe placement's,we see the following.
CH1 is measuring the voltage across the FG--there is no doubt about that
CH2 is measuring the voltage across the FG and a pure resistance--there is no doubt about that.
CH1 and CH2 should always be in phase(or extremely close to)
If we subtract CH2s voltage from CH1s voltage,we get the voltage drop across our CSR--there is no doubt about that. From this we can calculate our current value,and we already know CH1 is our voltage value.
As our current from the FG must flow through the CSR ,we can now calculate P/in
We now calculate for maximum power,where the phase angle between voltage and current is 0
Also when i use the scope for flea fart power measurements at high frequencies,i switch the probes over to 10x,and then set my scope channels to 10x as well,so as the actual values are still correct. This then eliminates almost all influences the scope probes and grounds have on the circuit values.
Now,you are worried about the phase angle between voltage and current ?
Well let me throw a spanner into the works here :D
Lets look at what i was working on today.
I wound a new coil--nothing special.
It is just a normal bifi coil,where both wires were wound onto the former at the same time--bedini style. The coil is about 12mm wide,and 50mm in diameter. On either side of the coil,i glued a 10mm x 25mm ceramic magnet,so as like poles were facing each other.
While sweeping the frequency,this happened--see below scope shot.
At a certain frequency,I now have 0 volts across my CSR (R2) :o , but i have 2.25 volts across the load resistor (R1)
So my P/out is 2.25v across 10 ohms =506mW
But what is my P/in if there is no voltage drop across the CSR ?
The other thing to think about is-my FG can only deliver a maximum of 162mA of current,yet we have 225mA flowing through R1,and the transformer has a winding ratio of 1:1
And how do we have 225mA flowing through R1,and nothing through the CSR ???
I even used just CH1 to measure each value,with CH2 and CH3 disconnected from the circuit,and all were correct--no change.
So i do agree that something is amiss with this setup,but what is going on here?
Perhaps F6FLT can shed some light on this?.
Brad
Quote from: ayeaye on December 25, 2018, 02:10:38 AM
...You rejected the Tesla's bifilar pancake coil without reason, so i could simply ignore what you say without reason...
I don't reject Tesla's bifilar pancake coil. Proof: I made one and tested it!
And you? Show us what you realize instead of telling digressions or absurd lies against me.
It turned out that everything in my coil was classically explained and could even be easily modeled with LTspice.
Other experimenters note abnormal results, but it is clear that the measurement is difficult and there are possible experimental biases that have not yet be eliminated. So there is no OU in Tesla's coils, according to
Tesla himself who has never mentioned OU in its patent 512340, and until proven otherwise.
Hi Brad,
Very likely there is a parallel resonance developing from the two windings and their dirstributed capacitance at around 11 MHz and the loaded Q of this 'LC tank' can remain high enough to 'produce' the measured 2.25 V across R1. So the input current to this parallel 'LC tank' should be Q times less via the csr so this smaller current can only cause a small voltage drop across the 2 Ohm csr. Perhaps doing a differencial voltage drop measurement with two probe tips across the CSR can show the 5 to 10 mV voltage drop that cannot readily be seen in the present 2 V/DIV settings.
Gyula
Quote from: tinman on December 25, 2018, 10:19:15 AM
...
At a certain frequency,I now have 0 volts across my CSR (R2) :o , but i have 2.25 volts across the load resistor (R1)
...
We are poorly equipped for accurate high-frequency measurements. Radio amateurs never use scopes for RF power measurements. Just the capacity of the probe disturbs the signal or the magnetic flux through the loop between the tip of the probe and its ground wire (even when the tip is connected to the end of the ground wire, you can measure a significant signal at all), and the cable shielding may be insufficient.
Maybe we should go back to some very basic things. When I needed to measure high frequency voltages in the past, I placed a diode+cap circuit in series on the load and measured the DC voltage across the capacitor.
For example, here, to measure CH2, the diode would have to be connected to CH2 and in series the capacitor C to ground. A germanium or Schottky diode must be used to reduce the voltage drop (0.2->0.3 v vs 0.6 for Si), and the capacitor will be of the order of 0.47µF non-polarized (non-critical value).
The capacitor will charge to the max sinusoidal voltage minus 0.25v. If Vmax is measured, the rms voltage will be Vrms = (Vmax+0.25)/√2. The same method can be used for the 3 points of measurements with the same Diode+C circuit (just use a flying wire soldered to the diode, and use it as a probe). The setup will be much less disturbed than with a scope probe, the parasitic capacitance of the diode being low and the current taken very low because when the capacitor is charged, almost no current is drawn by the diode. And measuring a DC voltage avoids frequency sensitivity dependence, and avoids the long wires of a probe which, although coaxial, are often "porous" to radiation.
The disadvantage is that the measurable voltages must be higher than the diode voltage bias.
Quote from: tinman on December 25, 2018, 01:43:00 AM
Void
I see no problem here.
Ch1 is measuring the voltage across the function generator.
CH2 is also measuring the voltage across the function generator,minus the voltage drop across a pure resistance(the CSR).
All ground leads are connected at one point,and that is at the ground lead of the function generator.
As i said,i see no problem with the circuit provided,or any of the measuring points.
Hi Brad. Just because someone doesn't see something, it doesn't mean it is necessarily correct. :)
I have suggested how you can test it using a regular transformer to see whether placing the CSR there
with the probe grounds placed where they are gives correct results or not. I am tied up with other
things so can't demonstrate it right now. When Itsu uses his current probe at that same point
it does not have the same problem however, as it is measuring the actual current waveform as it actually is.
Itsu using his current probe at the same location should be showing a more correct phase angle measurement.
Placing the CSR and probe grounds where you have them means you are trying to measure the current phase angle
across both the function generator and the CSR. This is ok for measuring voltages if you take the difference,
but it will be incorrect for measuring the phase angle between the voltage waveform and the current waveform.
Think about it. How can you correctly measure the current phase angle when you are measuring across both the
function generator and CSR at the same time?
I wish a Merry Christmas to everyone!
Quote from: F6FLT on December 25, 2018, 11:48:15 AM
It turned out
Yes it turned out without experimenting or anything, it's quite interesting how the things turn out.
author=F6FLT link=topic=17861.msg528771#msg528771 date=1545760211]
QuoteWe are poorly equipped for accurate high-frequency measurements.
I would have thought that a 50MHz scope and probes was well within it's limits at 12MHz.
QuoteMaybe we should go back to some very basic things. When I needed to measure high frequency voltages in the past, I placed a diode+cap circuit in series on the load and measured the DC voltage across the capacitor.
Yes,i have also done this in the past,and will give it another shot.
But i agree with void--the way the circuit is,and where the scope probes are placed,we will not see the voltage/current phase offset--the two will always be in phase regardless.
Quote from: Void on December 25, 2018, 12:53:27 PM
Hi Brad. Just because someone doesn't see something, it doesn't mean it is necessarily correct. :)
I have suggested how you can test it using a regular transformer to see whether placing the CSR there
with the probe grounds placed where they are gives correct results or not. I am tied up with other
things so can't demonstrate it right now. When Itsu uses his current probe at that same point
it does not have the same problem however, as it is measuring the actual current waveform as it actually is.
Itsu using his current probe at the same location should be showing a more correct phase angle measurement.
Placing the CSR and probe grounds where you have them means you are trying to measure the current phase angle
across both the function generator and the CSR. This is ok for measuring voltages if you take the difference,
but it will be incorrect for measuring the phase angle between the voltage waveform and the current waveform.
Think about it. How can you correctly measure the current phase angle when you are measuring across both the
function generator and CSR at the same time?
I wish a Merry Christmas to everyone!
Yes,i understand that.
But what i dont understand,as i said back in my test results post,is how can i have a larger current flowing through the load resistor than my FG can deliver,when the transformer(bifi coil) is a 1:1 turn ratio ?.
2nd,how can the voltage either side of the CSR be the same?--not looking at voltage/current phase offset here.
I can place the CSR on the ground side of the FG,and get my phase offset measurement that way-no problem there.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 25, 2018, 07:20:54 PM
Yes,i understand that.
But what i dont understand,as i said back in my test results post,is how can i have a larger current flowing through the load resistor than my FG can deliver,when the transformer(bifi coil) is a 1:1 turn ratio ?.
2nd,how can the voltage either side of the CSR be the same?--not looking at voltage/current phase offset here.
I can place the CSR on the ground side of the FG,and get my phase offset measurement that way-no problem there.
Brad
Hi Brad. I am not sure exactly all that you are doing there, but when dealing with AC circuits
things are not always so straight forward. You have to consider impedances and phase angles
between voltage and current waveforms at the same time, you can't just look at magnitudes of current
and voltage and try to draw conclusions from that. Unfortunately I don't have much time available
right now to look into it more. Good luck with your testing! All the best...
I'm sorry but, voltage and current cannot be in phase in a circuit where is capacitance. ch1 and ch2 may be almost in phase, but this is only because the voltage on the function generator is much greater than the voltage on the shunt resistor R2. Between ch1 and (ch2 - ch1) there should be a significant phase difference, due to capacitance. In spite that the voltage on the resistor R2 is small, it is important for calculating power, and thus the phase angle between the resistor R2 and the voltage on the function generator, makes a great difference. Thus replacing (ch2 - ch1) with a phase angle just with (ch2 - ch1) provides very wrong result, because all the phase angle factor is then omitted, which in absolute value can be somewhere in between 0.5 and 1. When there though is not much phase difference between the voltage and current in that circuit, then i don't know, one possibility then is that the bifilar coil is really bad, with almost no capacitance between the windings. When this is the case, then so bad bifilar coil sure cannot provide any overunity.
Quote from: Void on December 25, 2018, 09:08:14 PM
Hi Brad. I am not sure exactly all that you are doing there, but when dealing with AC circuits
things are not always so straight forward. You have to consider impedances and phase angles
between voltage and current waveforms at the same time, you can't just look at magnitudes of current
and voltage and try to draw conclusions from that. Unfortunately I don't have much time available
right now to look into it more. Good luck with your testing! All the best...
Void
New test setup and parameters.
I have shifted the CSR to the ground rail.
As can be seen,there is little phase shift between voltage and current,as in the other tests.
I used the scope to calculate all math,including the A-B calculation in the output test to obtain our voltage across R2(the load resistor).
This is so the scope can calculate for phase shift as well.
I have the scope probes set to 10x,and also each channel of the scope,so as the values shown by the scope remain correct.
Setting the probes to the 10x setting allows for very little impact on the circuit values when the probes and ground leads are connected to the circuit.
The first pic shows the circuit,scope probe placement,and resulting scope shot with math calculation.
Our P/in seems to be a steady 109mW as calculated by the scope.
Note the current flowing through R1 is 35.5mA
The second pic shows the circuit,scope probe placement,and resultant VRMS value across the 10 ohm load resistor.
Our P/out is then 1.9vRMS across the 10 ohm load resistor.
P/out=361mW.
Note the current flowing through R2(the load resistor) is then 190mA,and the transformer turn ratio is 1:1 :o
Our COP in this test seems to be 331% ???
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 25, 2018, 10:53:27 PM
New test setup and parameters.
Great. Can you say what coil do you use, so that some can hopefully replicate?
Hi Tinman
If you move a probe to measure either Pin or Pout, you change the configuration. The capacity of the probes is significant in the process.
The three probes must be connected at the same time. Is that the case?
Two probes are connected at the same time, as i understand. Two separate measurements, one for measuring input power, and the other for measuring output power. I think this is a good way of doing it, and decreases error.
Why two probes when measuring output power, it's because the voltage on R2 then will be calculated in math channel from two voltages. Good in that is that the oscilloscope's ground is always the same as the function generator's ground.
Therefore the measure can be irrelevant.
If the scope has only 2 channels, at least a third probe should be always connected to the device and terminated at the other free end by a 1 Mohm resistor.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 26, 2018, 09:55:05 AM
at least a third probe should be always connected to the device and terminated at the other free end by a 1 Mohm resistor.
I think he uses 10 times attenuation probes, that's a good way to do it and all i can say by now about it.
I see however one problem.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 26, 2018, 09:55:05 AM
at least a third probe should be always connected to the device and terminated at the other free end by a 1 Mohm resistor.
I think he uses 10 times attenuation probes, that's a good way to do it, all i can say by now about it.
Tinman, i see however one problem there.
The voltage calculated on R2 will be inverted too, but this doesn't matter, as what interests us is the square of its rms.
The problem is though, the voltage measured on R1 is inverted, because it is not measured in the right direction, considering the direction of the current. But, the ch2 in the input power measurement is not inverted. Yet, it is used in the math channel calculation not inverted, math channel is calculated simply as ch1 * ch2. One can see it too, ch2 represents current there, and the circuit as it has been known, is capacitive, that is current should precede the voltage, but on that oscilloscope image it lags the voltage.
No hell, it seems that you are right, ch1 * (-ch2) is - ch1 * ch2, also when calculating math channel. Ok, i pointed out that the ch2 is not inverted, as it properly should, we cannot see the channels in the right phases, the calculation though seems to be right.
Hi Brad.
What was the frequency of operation there? Was the scope set to 50nS per division? 13 MHz approx. ? ? ?
... or am I reading that wrong? Are you using non-inductive resistors for the CSR and load resistor?
It is looking like your load resistor R2 may actually be inductive, and if that is the case that could cause
the current reading across it to read considerably higher than the true resistive load current.
It is possible that Vin and Iin could be close to being in phase if the pancake coils are being driven
at a frequency that is close to a resonance point for them.
Also, see the attached picture of your latest test setup with some additions from me.
I have indicated three different currents: I1, I2, and I due to capacitive coupling back to the function
generator ground. All three of these currents are not equal in both magnitude and phase angle! These
are three different currents. The current returning to the function generator via capacitive coupling bypasses
the CSR R1. Your measurement of the input current therefore will not be accurate IMO.
It is for this reason that I said that I think using a current probe at the 'positive' output wire
of the function generator is probably the best representation of the input current for this type of setup,
assuming the current probe is reading reasonably accurately for both magnitude and phase angle. However,
due to the complexities in making accurate measurements in this type of setup, I personally would still
not have a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of those measurements even when using the current probe.
That is just me however. :)
As much as i know, current in a single closed loop is everywhere the same, and its phase is the same.
If F6FLT or someone else points out some great difficulties in measurement, yes, oscilloscope is all about accuracy. My suggestion is then, measure some simple circuit, like a one containing only a capacitor, with similar frequency and voltages. Then simulate the same in LTspice, and see how great the error is.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 26, 2018, 11:38:11 AM
As much as i know, current in a single closed loop is everywhere the same, and its phase is the same.
Hello ayeaye. If you look at the diagram I attached above, it should be clear that such a circuit, where an open ended
coil is being driven from the generator, is not a 'single closed loop'. It is therefore not so straight forward
to make accurate measurements on such a setup.
Quote from: Void on December 26, 2018, 11:26:54 AM
Hi Brad.
What was the frequency of operation there? Was the scope set to 50nS per division? 13 MHz approx. ? ? ?
... or am I reading that wrong? Are you using non-inductive resistors for the CSR and load resistor?
It is looking like your load resistor R2 may actually be inductive, and if that is the case that could cause
the current reading across it to read considerably higher than the true resistive load current.
It is possible that Vin and Iin could be close to being in phase if the pancake coils are being driven
at a frequency that is close to a resonance point for them.
Also, see the attached picture of your latest test setup with some additions from me.
I have indicated three different currents: I1, I2, and I due to capacitive coupling back to the function
generator ground. All three of these currents are not equal in both magnitude and phase angle! These
are three different currents. The current returning to the function generator via capacitive coupling bypasses
the CSR R1. Your measurement of the input current therefore will not be accurate IMO.
It is for this reason that I said that I think using a current probe at the 'positive' output wire
of the function generator is probably the best representation of the input current for this type of setup,
assuming the current probe is reading reasonably accurately for both magnitude and phase angle. However,
due to the complexities in making accurate measurements in this type of setup, I personally would still
not have a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of those measurements even when using the current probe.
That is just me however. :)
Hi Void
Yes,turns out these !so called! non inductive resisters become quite inductive after 2MHz-ok below that.
Swapping it out for a 1/2 watt carbon resistor made all the magical OU disappear :D
Brad
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2018, 10:09:35 PM
Hi Void
Yes,turns out these !so called! non inductive resisters become quite inductive after 2MHz-ok below that.
Swapping it out for a 1/2 watt carbon resistor made all the magical OU disappear :D
Brad
Hi Brad. Ha ha. Ok, yes, it was kind of looking like that might well be the culprit when I
was looking over your test setup and measurement results. Have a happy new year guys!
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2018, 10:09:35 PM
Swapping it out for a 1/2 watt carbon resistor made all the magical OU disappear :D
Ok, thank you for finding it out. Means that we should go back to the beginning? As these circuits with a weird way of using bifilar coil, after all appeared to be no way to go. You got overunity results at very high frequencies, yes 13 MHz, inductive resistors that supposed to be non-inductive, may explain this.
Void, you should somewhat more understand the basics. The figures below are made with geda, which is a spice simulator like LTspice. See that the current has always the same phase, no matter where in the circuit. In spite that there is both a capacitor and an inductor in the circuit. It has the same value everywhere too, but i made one resistor two times greater than the other, so that both traces can be seen. See that the current somewhat leads the voltage, because in spite of the inductor, the circuit is mostly capacitive. It is true when the circuit is all connected in series (when all is one loop). It is not true about the current in parts connected in parallel in some components of the circuit.
The direction of voltages below is correct in accordance with the kirchoff's law. One may ask why is the voltage on the voltage source inverted. It is, as the movement of the assumed positive particles is from + to - in the voltage source, when the power is consumed. But the voltage on the rest of the circuit is not inverted, and this is what one should use, like when calculating power.
Indeed try to measure some simple circuit, like that on the figure below, with only a capacitor and a simple coil, with the same components that you use and the same ways of measurement. Then simulate it in LTspice and see how much it differs. That way you will see at once when some resistors are inductive or anything else is not how it supposed to be.
Quote from: Void on December 26, 2018, 11:26:54 AM
Hi Brad.
What was the frequency of operation there? Was the scope set to 50nS per division? 13 MHz approx. ? ? ?
... or am I reading that wrong? Are you using non-inductive resistors for the CSR and load resistor?
It is looking like your load resistor R2 may actually be inductive, and if that is the case that could cause
the current reading across it to read considerably higher than the true resistive load current.
It is possible that Vin and Iin could be close to being in phase if the pancake coils are being driven
at a frequency that is close to a resonance point for them.
Also, see the attached picture of your latest test setup with some additions from me.
I have indicated three different currents: I1, I2, and I due to capacitive coupling back to the function
generator ground. All three of these currents are not equal in both magnitude and phase angle! These
are three different currents. The current returning to the function generator via capacitive coupling bypasses
the CSR R1. Your measurement of the input current therefore will not be accurate IMO.
It is for this reason that I said that I think using a current probe at the 'positive' output wire
of the function generator is probably the best representation of the input current for this type of setup,
assuming the current probe is reading reasonably accurately for both magnitude and phase angle. However,
due to the complexities in making accurate measurements in this type of setup, I personally would still
not have a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of those measurements even when using the current probe.
That is just me however. :)
Yes,like i posted in reply 278,when looking at the other circuit.
I do mostly agree with what you say,although there are some points that need more study --to me anyway.
Brad
Tinman, why is that capacitor drawn there in your circuit? The equivalent circuit should be something like that on the figure below, with no capacitance where you drew it. Or is it a yet another modification of the circuit?
That capacitance sure adds capacitance to the circuit loop. The only place in that circuit where the current may be different in value or in phase, is in the resistor R1, because it is parallel to the secondary winding of the bifilar coil. In all the rest of the circuit the current is everywhere the same.
Quote from: ayeaye on December 27, 2018, 06:09:55 AM
Tinman, why is that capacitor drawn there in your circuit? The equivalent circuit should be something like that on the figure below, with no capacitance where you drew it. Or is it a yet another modification of the circuit?
That capacitance sure adds capacitance to the circuit loop. The only place in that circuit where the current may be different in value or in phase, is in the resistor R1, because it is parallel to the secondary winding of the bifilar coil. In all the rest of the circuit the current is everywhere the same.
It is to indicate the small amount of stray capacitance that creates a small current loop,such as void was talking about in post 360.
Brad
Quote from: ayeaye on December 27, 2018, 06:09:55 AM
In all the rest of the circuit the current is everywhere the same.
No
When dealing with these BIFI pancake coils,the current is different throughout the bifi coil windings,and the value at each point depends on frequency.
It will only be the same at the start and end of the coils.
Watch this video,and see what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JK7PYBdMUI
Brad
No, i didn't say that current is the same everywhere inside a bifilar coil. Bifilar coil is not a single branch, it is two coupled windings connected with capacitance. In addition to capacitance, a current moving to the capacitance induces current in the other winding.
Tinman, your video can be easily explained. At higher frequencies the resistance of the capacitance decreases a lot, thus naturally most goes through the capacitance and not the other way. Some things were rather interesting, like the lightness of the led-s changed quite arbitrarily, i cannot quite explain that. This is not enough though to replace my interest in overunity.
Quote from: tinman on December 27, 2018, 08:10:40 AM
It is to indicate the small amount of stray capacitance that creates a small current loop,such as void was talking about in post 360.
Hi Brad. At frequencies in the high kHz and into the MHz range, that capacitive coupling current return
to the function generator ground can be quite significant. 100 pF at 1 MHz has an impedance of only around 1.6 K Ohms,
for example. If high voltages are being generated on the coil assembly, for example if one or both coils
is operating at resonance, a significant current (relatively speaking) can flow there. At resonance, single ended
coils can create a significant ground return current (significant relative to the input power level).
Quote from: Void on December 27, 2018, 01:58:56 PM
that capacitive coupling current return to the function generator ground can be quite significant.
This was essentially the first thing that i said after i saw the TinselKoala's video. There are two current paths, but he measured only one. Then Partzman said that this second return path is insignificant and i finally agreed, as this capacitance is sure much smaller than the capacitance in the bifilar coil. But to really find out, it can always be measured.
Quote from: Void on December 27, 2018, 01:58:56 PM
Hi Brad. At frequencies in the high kHz and into the MHz range, that capacitive coupling current return
to the function generator ground can be quite significant. 100 pF at 1 MHz has an impedance of only around 1.6 K Ohms,
for example. If high voltages are being generated on the coil assembly, for example if one or both coils
is operating at resonance, a significant current (relatively speaking) can flow there. At resonance, single ended
coils can create a significant ground return current (significant relative to the input power level).
It reminded me of a recurring problem for feeding the radio antennas, due to current on the shielding braid of the coaxial cables.
The solution, which could be applied to the cables of the FG and of the scope probes, is to wrap a few turns of the cables in ferrite toroid cores. The inductance created in this way has a high impedance that prevents or reduces ground currents.
But here there is a risk: aggravating the problem by creating resonance effects, especially if the impedance is not high enough! Only a test can tell us if it works.
Quote from: Void on December 27, 2018, 01:58:56 PM
Hi Brad. At frequencies in the high kHz and into the MHz range, that capacitive coupling current return
to the function generator ground can be quite significant. 100 pF at 1 MHz has an impedance of only around 1.6 K Ohms,
for example. If high voltages are being generated on the coil assembly, for example if one or both coils
is operating at resonance, a significant current (relatively speaking) can flow there. At resonance, single ended
coils can create a significant ground return current (significant relative to the input power level).
In my case,i dont think it would be of any value that would skew the measurements to much,as the max voltage across the coil was only about 13 volts peak.
Like all coils,i can make this one mostly inductive,mostly capacitive,and purely resistive,simply by changing the frequency.
See screen shots below.
Brad
Honestly, what i first thought after seeing the TinselKoala's video, was the following. First impressions may be wrong.
I did experiments with moderate frequencies, 20 kHz, something. And then i thought, they want me to abandon it all, and replace it with that instead. With frequencies several megahertz, just because exactly there supposed to be some indications of overunity, in spite that no one can never be sure of course.
And yes i'm well aware of all the difficulties of high frequency circuits and their measurements. Like when one uses ordinary resistors at several megahertz, one can get some outlandish results. Because they are inductive at these frequencies, and cannot really measure instantaneous current. And then these indications of overunity too turned out to be wrong, perfect unity with carbon resistors. So a single reason why to go there at all, like dropped. Why to go there at all, why to start from where it's the most complicated? Was it just an additional waste of time? Goes like against common sense.
How to measure RF voltages relative to the ground? Here is the simplest and more robust method (but limited to sine currents > 0.5V):
Capacitor? Yes, high capacity capacitors can be used instead of resistors, to measure high frequency voltages. The instantaneous currents can then be calculated from the change of voltage seen in the oscilloscope trace. No need for diode, it's about observing the instantaneous voltage on the capacitor all the time, not to gather over a long time, and then measure.
About measuring an instantaneous current in that way. The oscilloscope math is not capable of such calculations, except the most expensive ones perhaps. This is one reason why i took so much effort to show how to do calculations with a Python script, from the oscilloscope's waveform data. That one would not be limited by the oscilloscope's math capabilities, like one wouldn't have to add more circuit elements that all may cause an additional error, just to be able to calculate power.
It's possible, and can overcome the problem of inductive resistors, but better to avoid the multiple megahertz circuits altogether. Most oscilloscope probes are also said to be 100 MHz, but i doubt that they work well over 10 MHz. When the oscilloscope is 100 MHz, it supposed to accurately measure a 100 MHz sine, all the probes and resistors in it should be the ones that are proper for that. But that's sure at the limit of accuracy.
Most of ordinary resistors have a negligible impedance even at 30 MHz: inductance < 0.1 - 1 µH, capacitance < 0.5 pF (except wirewound resistors). Here they are not the problem.
Osciloscope probes are a real problem due to their high capacitance. They disturb the measured circuits. They can drastically change a resonance frequency.
Quote from: F6FLT on December 31, 2018, 11:03:35 AM
Osciloscope probes are a real problem due to their high capacitance. They disturb the measured circuits. They can drastically change a resonance frequency.
Yes there may be up to 10 pF capacitance between the oscilloscope's probe and oscilloscope's ground. One should consider how much that can change the circuit at the given frequency. As i said, if there is no other way to be certain, then one way is to make a simple circuit, measure it, and then simulate the same circuit in LTspice. At that a simple circuit that certainly has no overunity, like a simple transformer instead of a bifilar coil, or such. Then see how great the difference is.
It's weird how power measurement is so great problem in electric devices. Electric devices can really be the most accurately and precisely measured, more than another phenomena.
The oscilloscope's probe capacitance 10 pF has an impedance 1.2 k at 13 MHz, so it should not significantly change the measurement of current with an 1 ohm shunt resistor. Also when there is a much greater capacitance in the circuit, it should also not significantly change the phase shift. But in parallel with coils with a very low inductance, it certainly changes the resonance. How much it impacts the measurements, sure depends on the circuit.
My two cents, add a 10 pF capacitor everywhere where is an oscilloscope measurement. Or measure the actual capacitance of the oscilloscope's probe, and use a capacitor with exactly the same value. Then when actually measuring with oscilloscope, remove the capacitor. That way the oscilloscope shouldn't significantly alter the circuit, and the oscilloscope's probe shouldn't change the coil's resonant frequency.
Apart from not using as high frequencies as 13 MHz.
At 13 MHz, a capacitance 10 pF in parallel with a 1 ohm resistor causes phase shift approximately -0.05 degrees https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1258032649 (https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1258032649) , thus measuring current with an oscilloscope and a 1 ohm shunt resistor shouldn't significantly alter the circuit.
I don't see that neither the resistors nor the oscilloscope measurement can significantly alter the Tinman's circuit, because the capacitance 10 pF is tiny, but i have not done the calculations. One thing, when measuring the voltage directly on the load resistor and not between two points and the function generator's ground, i see how to calculate the error, how to do it between the resistor and the function generator's ground, it's more difficult, and i have no clear idea how to calculate it. So for easier error calculation, it's better to measure the voltage directly on the load resistor with a floating scope, but certainly then has to be measured that there is no connection between the oscilloscope's and function generator's grounds.
So based on that, the Tinman's power measurements like should be reliable, except the statement by Tinman that the overunity disappeared when he used carbon resistors. Whatever resistors have no significant inductance in that circuit as seen above, so that shouldn't significantly alter the circuit, not to talk changing 3 times overunity to no overunity. So something is very weird. But nothing is never absolutely certain of course.