A MYSTERIOUS RESONANT CIRCUIT
by EMdevices, July 23, 2008
By accident I discovered a very interesting resonating circuit. All it took was the "small" mistake of reversing the polarity on the transistor trigger coil as I was trying to reconfigure my trusted old Blocking oscillator circuit.
I have explored this circuit some more and found out how to control the resonant frequency, and why it resonates so high. It seems the breadboard internal capacitance is playing a part, and so I added more capacitance on a spare winding to control the frequency.
Here's a few pictures and the scope shots:
Figure 1
Image of my breadboard circuit. Very simple, some of you have seen it before in another thread.
Figure 2
Schematic of the circuit. All windings are on the toroid core, obviously. Not sure what the capacitor values are.
Figure 3
This is the voltage waveform at the Collector of the NPN. Notice something strange, which I never seen before. Notice that the voltage is actually NEGATIVE when the NPN is "triggered" on (you'll realize this from next figure) Frequency is about 20 MHz.
Figure 4
This is the Base voltage. Notice the shape of the waveform is similar to the collector but inverted. This is the mistake I made, but now it seems fortunate I made it.
Figure 5
This is the output across the 150 ohms resistor. It heats up pretty fast. Transistor is cool on the other hand. These tiny Radio Shack transistors have never controled so much power without frying before. Waveform is almost sinusoidal but not quite. Different values of capacitance up top, will change it a bit so it's almost sinusoidal. The output power is almost 1 watt if one does a careful integration of this waveform.
Figure 6
I got the idea to scope the battery to see if there is anything unusual. WOW !!!! What the heck? Now I don't trust my AMPERAGE measurements I did earlier, where it seemed I was drawing so little current (40 mili Amps or less from the 8.5 Volt battery, so not even 0.4 watts as input, which would give OU performance to this circuit by a wide margin) I need to work on isolating and filtering the power supply so I can have an accurate current measurement, so I'm not claiming OverUnity performance, just yet, so everybody just relax....
Figure 7
Another image of the breadboard from the other side.
EM
;D
Interesting
Paul Andrulis
Ladies and Gentilemen,
I now firmly claim OVERUNITY, and wish to enter this circuit for the OVERUNITY PRIZE at this website !!!
I've found an excellent way to smooth battery RF voltage fluctuations to where they are below 0.4 volts, and the following modified circuit illustrates the modification.  (series L + C, when tuned have inpedance = 0 )
Also, I now have an almost perfect sinewave at the output, of 17.5 Volts Amplitude across the 150 ohm load resistor.
Here's the power calculations:
POWER IN = ( 8.2 Volts DC ) x ( 0.1 Amp DC) = 0.82 watts
POWER OUT = ( 17.5 Volts AC) ^2 / ( 150 ohms)Â / 2 = 1.02 watts
EXCESS POWER =Â (1.02 - 0.82) / 0.82 = 0.24 = 24 % extra energy
COP = 1.02 / 0.82 = 1.24
At last !!!!!!!
EM
P.S. I just sent a PM to Stefan to alert him.  The game is on, yepeeeeee !!!!, I just hope 24 % extra energy is enough of a margin to make such a claim and have it varified. I'll try to determine the exact capacitor values later tonight, and I'll post the exact waveforms as well.
a) how do you measure input current ?
b) whats mysterious about an oscillator with inductive coupled load and lc tank ?
rgds. !!!???!!!
Quote from: fritz on July 25, 2008, 09:08:58 AM
a) how do you measure input current ?
b) whats mysterious about an oscillator with inductive coupled load and lc tank ?
rgds. !!!???!!!
a)  I measure the current with an ampmeter in series with the battery.  Reading is 0.1 amps (Voltage measured across the battery is 8.2 volts, both are DC measurements)
b) The mystery comes about due to the polarity of the windings. Look for the black dot on the coils, it tells which terminals have the same polarity when the flux is changing through the core.  In normal oscillators (like Armstrong, Blocking, etc..), the trigger winding should be reversed from what I show, so that when the Base is (+) and current flows, the Collector can pump the resonant tank. Also, notice the collector voltage waveform, notice it's NEGATIVE when the NPN is on, I sure haven't seen that before and I'm not too sure what the transistor is doing. I'm sure it's internal parasitic capacitance playes a part. Maybe even negative resistance is at work here, not too sure at this point.
Sincerely,
EM
P.S. broli, I see your posting below, I plan on doing a loop back tonight, but I need to think it through make sure the voltage doesn't increase and burn things out. In my mind that would be the ultimate proof of overunity. I have not done any margin of error calculations yet.
Cool nice going. Did you take the margin of error into account? Also since you claim OU can you not add a circuit that sends the power back?
Hi EM,
Good job.
But...lol... I would like to add, that I discovered some time ago, that using your blocking oscillator for the self running micro TPU, I could get it to run much longer and much better (brighter), if I had the transistor reversed, if you recall. ;D
Many claimed it could not possibly run the way I had it, but of course it did. And for a very long time, if I recall. LOL No one paid much mind to it. I found it facinating.
See the following:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3599.msg60203.html#msg60203
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3599.msg60208.html#msg60208
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3599.msg60261.html#msg60261
And many more posts.
Cheers,
Bruce
what is your voltage amplitude across the 150 Ohm resistor:
17.5V (p-p), (p), or (rms) ?
hmmm, the fact that the transistor doesn't heats up means
only that the class c osc/amp has a useful operating point
/driving impedance.
Maybe this issue (transistor not heating up but load heating up)
was so often repeated over and over in the Stiffler threads that
it somehow made the way to kind of truth. for whatever reason.
If you have a voltage source and a load - the stuff with the higher
impedance gets hot.
If you have kind of transformer/complex load line between source
and load - you have the same in respect to the transformation ration.
The first transistor radios had every amp stage coupled by transformers
for optimum gain/matching (copper was cheap these days and they
used it from their tube setups.
rgds.
Can i ask why there is no smoke coming from your 1/4 watt load resister if it is indeed dissipating 1.02 watts
Peter
I remember Bruce, you had switched a transistor around and it ran, LOL,  maybe we should purposefully change things around, we might never know what we're about to discover.
poynt99,  the 17.5 volts is the amplitude, so the voltage swings up to +17.5 volts then down to -17.5 volts,  that's why I devide by 2, in my power output calculation.
Peterae, the output resistor gets hot within about 3 seconds, hot enough that I can't touch it. Obviously I disconect the battery real quick after I take my scope shots and freez the image on the scope.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on July 25, 2008, 09:16:23 AM
b) The mystery comes about due to the polarity of the windings. Look for the black dot on the coils, it tells which terminals have the same polarity when the flux is changing through the core. In normal oscillators (like Armstrong, Blocking, etc..), the trigger winding should be reversed from what I show, so that when the Base is (+) and current flows, the Collector can pump the resonant tank. Also, notice the collector voltage waveform, notice it's NEGATIVE when the NPN is on, I sure haven't seen that before and I'm not too sure what the transistor is doing. I'm sure it's internal parasitic capacitance playes a part. Maybe even negative resistance is at work here, not too sure at this point.
Because of the frequency and the scope shots - I wouldn't use the terms "on" and
"off". There is even e big phase shift between base and emitter.
And what I see from the battery scope trace makes me no wonder that
the thing works with neg. ucoll.
Howdy EMDevices,
Excellent Work. I kind of jealous actually. I am sure there are many ways to tap ZPE, and in the coming months and years there will be many more. Your blocking oscillator is a catalyst. This one breakthrough will hopefully cause a cascade effect and the hundredth monkey effect will kick in and we will start seeing breakthroughs all over the place.
Again, Excellent Work!
Blessed Be Brothers...
guys, I'm not going to answer anymore questions for right now untill I post the latest scope shots, tonight when I get home.
the new waveforms that go along with my OU claim are very smooth and sinusoidal, compared to what I posted above in the first post. The battery RF is now effectively suppressed as well, like I mentioned already. Just be patient.  I though it through quite a bit before I dared to post such a bold claim this morning, so this is for real, I'm honest, and I hope I did not leave something out that is basic and embarassing.  Let's hope not.
EM
P.S. Just as a side note, as I was experimenting last evening, trying to supress the RF on the battery, I noticed that shunt capacitors across the battery did not effectively short the RF, and instead caused a weird chaotic wavforms, and made the core "sing", meaning it made audible sounds, these sounds also can be produced when I vary other parameters.  Then I tried a small toroid inductor in series with the battery to block the RF, since the inductor has a high impedance at high frequency (Z = jwL), but I noticed something very odd. the waveform on the scope started to modulate in frequency, I was getting FM modulation from 20 kHz up to 50 MHz and back down, then back up, very strange, I have never seen that behavior before. It was also very sensitive to the touch of my hand. Anyway, lot's to explore with this circuit.
8)
@EMDEVICES
GREAT WORK !!!
I also claim overunity ;D well lets call it unity :)
how ever my unit is much diffrent ;)
and i will be up dateing my thred today
i have come up with a number of ways it can be wired ;D ;D
agin good stuff congrats emd!!
ist
Quote from: EMdevices on July 25, 2008, 08:17:00 AM
...
POWER OUT = ( 17.5 Volts AC) ^2 / ( 150 ohms) / 2 = 1.02 watts
...
Hi EMdevices
Refering to your pictures, the output voltage is not sinusoidal so your formula Pout = Vp^2 / 2*R can't be applied. You must use a true RMS power meter before claiming OU.
It is clear that only 24% of extra energy is in the margin of a wrong estimation due to a inaccurate formula.
A NPN transistor can be used with reversed polarity. It is a known fact in electronics. In this case the transistor characteristics such as gain are very different and poor but can be enough for sustaining an oscillation.
Dipoles (negative impedances) or a quadripoles (such transistors) with very weak gain just over 1 can be used to build oscillators.
Fran?ois
scale it up a bit...........to qualify for prize must be one watt of usable power.
EM,
Could you give us the number of turns you used on each winding + core type and size if you know it?
Congratulations - Great Work!
-Duff
on the power calc issue - i think even a sinusoidal waveform needs an RMS factor in the equation, not just dividing the pk-pk by 2 - here in the UK the mains supply volts are nominal 240V RMS = approx 680V pk-pk
on the transistor polarity issue - i was interested a while back when experimenting with ultra low-power oscillator circuits to find circuit designs which often had transistors connected with reverse polarity
anyway, it's interesting how circuit setup mistakes can sometimes lead to new discoveries, so don't be discouraged if this circuit turns out not to be OU yet
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Quote from: armagdn03 on July 25, 2008, 10:55:03 AM
scale it up a bit...........to qualify for prize must be one watt of usable power.
mine is scaled.... for low power out put or huge power output.....
currently when i break my contact my mot unit will return 1500v on each break i have 4 of thease in my unit so in 1 revalution i have over 6000v returning and the best part i mesure no draw from my source.... ;D
im not talking of current flow here this is my primary only ... my 4 mot unit the secondaryies are not there yet and are not nessarly needed depending on how you set it up ;D
the universe is the limit .... and we aint there yet ...
ist
wate till i switch amparage ;D 8) then you see the light... stand up 4 your rite!!
i put in... in 1 of my tests 5 amp @12vdc and i mesured over 20 amp peek upon return .... needless to say it was more than 12vdc returning...
@EMDevices
P=1.414*RMS
P=.5*P-P
P-P=2*P
RMS=.707*P
Assuming 'P' equals peak....
Power=Volts*Amps - Sort Of.
FYI for others: RMS stands for "Root Mean Square" to find it, take your peak to peak
voltage and multiply by .707.
This assumes a sine wave. And
RMS is .707 the Vpeak.
or take RMS voltage and divide by .707 to get back to the VP-P
This would get U to Vpeak. Vp-p would be twice that.
I'm sure EM knows this but lets let him finish. Results good or bad, I can't wait! Either way this sounds like near unity.
I guess the overunity prize has quite a few rules, I had forgoten.
Here's the link to it (or you can see it as you log into overunity.com)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2157.0.html
Looks like I need 50 watts usuable output power and to build 3 units, among other things, and send them out for verification. Ok, I'll start the process of scaling it up soon.
EM
EMD's calculation is ok.
he used the "trick" where if you're lazy and don't want to calculate RMS from Vp, you just square the peak voltage and divide by double the load, which is why he divided by 2. confusing, but the same thing.
interesting to note that the calculated COP for EM's inductor oscillator circuit is around the same figure for my switched-capacitor test circuit (my energy gain = 2.69Wsec/2.24Wsec = 1.2)
is it possible that there is some common feature of reactance which is connected with this overunity behaviour?
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
@ EMDevices
Did you measured the resistor if it is really 150 Ohm ?
regards
"Singing" components is a trace of magneto or electro-striction. Note that acoustics can be in hypersonic range - in mega and giga hertz region, especially in crystals and metals. It's all magneto and electrostriction, even if not hearable.
Then again, your example of auto-varying sinewave frequency (kind of Earth's VLF spherics) is an example of "infinite sweep" where fedback Doppler shift happens - this can be produced if acoustics are at play, which is suitably "slow" to produce enough delay for such "effect".
Quote from: EMdevices on July 25, 2008, 09:16:23 AM
a) I measure the current with an ampmeter in series with the battery. Reading is 0.1 amps (Voltage measured across the battery is 8.2 volts, both are DC measurements)
Battery Type Capacity (mAh) Typical Drain (mA)
D 12000 200
C 6000 100
AA 2000 50
9 Volt 500 15
Are you sure about the 0.1 amps? 0.01 sounds better.
Ok, here's the scope shots that I promised.
Figure 1, my new arrangement. (positive red wire is just hanging loose in this image)
Figure 2, output waveform at the 148.7 ohm resistor (yes I measured it, whoever asked)
Figure 3, look at that smooth voltage at the battery terminals !! (Someone tell Dr Stiffler to use the same approach.)
Figure 4, schematic, I had forgotten this morning when I posted, that I used two branches of LC to smooth it even further.
I see my Voltage is a bit smaller more like 7 volts. I had used my digital meter to measure it while in operation. This means lower input power so a higher COP. Also, the amperage is 0.1 amps, I did a sanity check with a simple resistor across the 9 V battery, just to make sure I'm not off by a factor of ten like it happened last year. Grumpy you're so optimistic. LOL
EM
P.S. The scope shots file names have no relation to what is on the schematic, just go by what I wrote above, Figure 1 is the top image and it goes down from there. I think it's self explanatory, but just in case somebody gets confused.
duff, the toroid has 3 sets of windings, each 15 turns. My added coil for driving the transistor base has 8 turns. Not sure what core type it is.
is the battery warm or hot to the touch?
EDIT:
I ask because a 9v battery is not meant to provide that much current.
example:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gh9DLppHHW0J:www.powerstream.com/9V-Alkaline-tests.htm+9v+battery+0.1+amps&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
@ EMdevices
I know that you know this so I feel stupid pointing it out, but why are you using a 1/4 watt resistor? Resistors change value when they get hot (which they get when run over power rating). To get good results you should use at least a 2 watt resistor. You should get the same results in your circuit but the question of what is the actual value of the resistor would not come up.
@ EMdevices
If the load resistor was 190 ohms instead of 150 ohms due to heating, then you would no longer be over unity:
watts out = (0.707*17.5)^2/190 = 0.80568
good point xee about th heating and change of resistance.
EMD, suggest using at least a 10W power resistor in there. if the transistor doesn't get too hot let it run for a bit and check the load resistance (disconnect it from the circuit) right after you take your voltage measurement.
Nice work EMD,
To fully confirm OU, I suggest:
First: Put a large electrolytic cap - 10,000 microfarad or so parallel to the battery.
Second: Put a bridge rectifier where the 150 ohm load is, (This will require disconnecting the ground connected side of the coil.
Third: Use the output of the bridge rectifier to charge the electrolytic - essentially powering the device
Fourth: Start the oscillator with the battery then remove the battery.
Quote from: xee on July 26, 2008, 01:04:46 AM
If the load resistor was 190 ohms instead of 150 ohms due to heating, then you would no longer be over unity:
Just make sure resistance does not drop :) It may drop with higher temperature as well, depending on resistor's material.
Quote from: EMdevices on July 25, 2008, 06:29:32 PM
I see my Voltage is a bit smaller more like 7 volts.
Looks like 6.25V, to be more exact. :)
Hi!
Sorry to say, but this simple circuit is not, and will never be an "OU" configuration.... A transistor and a few components - I think this is one of the most researched circuits in past century, wouldn't you think?
Like some people said before, the faulty measurement procedure and consequent errors are to blaim...
Seeing all those different "OU el.circuits" all around the web - not even a single el. component / circuit (being that passive or active) has ever been scientifically recognised as an option to invalidate CoE...
The man-made electronic components are by it's origin and definition just a conservative devices. The passive ones, like C and L are the ones which can sparckle some ideas.... Let's say, in a resonant condition. Which would be exactly unity under ideal conditions....
Yet you all know that there's actually no ideal capacitance or inductance... There's always a resistive component, which is an equivalent for a friction in mechanical devices. Having an oscillating circuit, there are radiated losses, too.
The main goal for engineers wrt. electronic devices is to come as close to an unity as possible (in energy terms). But semiconductors are 'f...ed up when it comes to energy efficiency'.
Unless someone defines where the additional energy is comming from (sucking energy from e.g. the "surrounding heat, Aether, ZPE, Dark energy,... "), there can be no valid claims about 'OU'.
spinner, so what? The text like yours is a standard one, no need to reiterate it - I doubt guys over here are stupid not to understand that OU is impossible in conventional equations. But these schemes are real world - they are not equations. You are also missing the point that not all real world schemes make "sense" in equations rendering equations useless.
Do not pretend physics "knows it all" - it is still unable to unite quantum mechanics (electro-dynamics) and general relativity theory (i.e. electro-magnetism and gravity) - both are "sane", but somehow incompatible. There's a great abyss between both as far as I know.
I think "Mass" and "electricity" controlled together is what makes overunity possible - but they are exactly things NOT united in physics, so you can't tell for sure a'priori - there's no theory for that exist.
To tell what I've mentioned exactly: "standard model" (which is based on laws of conservation among other things) has no gravity in it, and has some deviations with real world data. You just can't be serious telling overunity does not exist in this universe, especially considering some people achieved it. Do not underestimate "filters of perception" in human brain. Many "unwanted" or "unimportant" things are usually left unexplored. Simply remember who you was at your younger ages: you "saw" basically nothing, because you had no idea about what you saw. In an older age you have a lot of ideas, and you "see" things, but unlike in a younger age, you are stopping new ideas from entering your brain. That's what "filter of perception" is. Your younger state is what brought you to where you are now.
EMdevices, please do not forget about Faraday cage test.
@ xee, I used a 1/4 watt resistor because that's what I have. I'll go buy some higher values ones. Also, I don't worry about the resitance GOING UP WITH TEMPETURE, since that's not what happens in practice. As the temperature heats up, the resistance goes down, not by much in this case. For example lightbulbts can drop from 130 ohms to 30 ohms, I've measured it first hand.
@grumpy, the battery does not heat up. I understand those battery charts, its the mAh, a measure of energy, so if you drain more you depleate faster, that's all. But you can draw two amps if you really wanted.
@aleks, yes the voltage is more like 6.5, but I like to err on the side of caution. I did some rough calculations of my margin of error and the COP can varry from 1.35 to about 1.20.
@willitwork, yes I've been thinking and planning to do this ultimate test to prove OU without a shadow of doubt. However, it's a bit trick, and the reason is that the oscillator and the output power depends on the load resistor. I tried different resistors and I get different performance. This is not uncommon, most stages in an electronic system need matching between stages. So, I am researching and thinking how I can do this effectively. OU engineering is not as easy as it looks.
EM
sure you can have excess engery that is not the problem but to use it correctly apears to be my problem ....
just like em said it is much harder than you think ..... not as easy as it looks i know this first hand.... for some time now....
but i had no training peroid in any of this ... that is half my problem....
ist
@ EM
I suggest you measure your VBE and you will probably find it very high and almost certainly above the typical SOA limit of 5V. This will degrade the junction and bring the transistor gain / hfe down a peg or two until the transistor eventually destroys. Strange things happen during this process and I have experimented with a few configurations without a base emiter diode as per your circuit.
Hoppy
@ EM
I should have said measure the VBE on a scope not with a meter.
Hoppy
Quote from: EMdevices on July 26, 2008, 09:15:19 AM
....
@willitwork, yes I've been thinking and planning to do this ultimate test to prove OU without a shadow of doubt. However, it's a bit trick, and the reason is that the oscillator and the output power depends on the load resistor. I tried different resistors and I get different performance. This is not uncommon, most stages in an electronic system need matching between stages. So, I am researching and thinking how I can do this effectively. OU engineering is not as easy as it looks.
EM
Hi EM,
First I would suggest trying a simple linear regulator (I think of the adjustable LM317) set to 7 or 8V DC output just to match your present battery voltage and load the regulator output with 100mA to see how your oscillator behaves with that type of load (of course your output coil is lifted from gnd and drives a full wave bridge (4 x 1N4148 or 1N914 or similar HF diodes) with a puffer electrolytic capacitor as earlier was already suggested).
And if your oscillator still consumes around 100mA from the battery while your regulator reproduces this power input then you could loop back its output to replace the battery...
I know the linear regulator surely wastes power which may amount to even loosing the higher than one COP margin but this would be the simplest first try to investigate and get a further insight on your circuit.
Next step would be to look for a simple DC-DC converter which can have over 90% efficiency that surely maintains the higher than one COP of your oscillator circuit. Here is some switching type ICs for this job (of course there are many other types too): http://www.siongboon.com/projects/2005-08-07_lm2576_dc-dc_converter/ and maybe the LM2575-ADJ type (its output voltage is adjustable, not fixed) can be a simple candidate for this test.
Wish you good luck and experimenting.
Couple of questions: is the capacitor in the order of several nF of value between the gnd and the transistor base? Also the value of the capacitor for the tank circuit that affects the running frequency?
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: EMdevices on July 26, 2008, 09:15:19 AM
@grumpy, the battery does not heat up. I understand those battery charts, its the mAh, a measure of energy, so if you drain more you depleate faster, that's all. But you can draw two amps if you really wanted.
EM
I am aware of that. Shorting a 9v is a popular way to warm your pockets on a cold day.
I brought it up because I don't think that circuit should draw 0.1 amps. Do you have another means to measure the current?
Now you say the battery does not heat up - do a sanity check by placing an equivalent resistor across the battery to get your 0.1 amps and see if the battery heats up.
@ EMdevices
Hmmm, most things increase in resistance with temperature. I checked a 75 watt light bulb and it was 14 ohms without power and of course it is about 200 ohms with 120 volts powered.
watts = E^2/R = 120^2/200 = 72
If I did my math right, a 150 ohm carbon resistor will be about 190 ohms when its internal temperature is about 800 C.
@xee, maybe your right, I think I got my light bulb measurements backwards. I did this a while ago. Good point to check then, I'll follow the advice and go buy a higher power rating resistor.
@grumpy, I checked it just with the 150 ohm resistor shorted across the 9 volt battery, and it draws around 0.4 amps, and yes things heat up quick, even the battery. Actually, letting the circuit run for a while (I tried about a minute) heats the resistor up really good, and I guess the battery warms up a bit too.
gyulasun, thanks for the suggestions
hoppy, the Vbe voltage swings negative to -10 Volts or so, as can be seen in the scope shots I posted. I hope nothing will degrade, but it might. The transistor is certainly operating in a non conventional way.
something's not adding up here:
EM measured the load res at 148.7R right? shorting the load res direct across the 9V battery reads 0.4A on his meter
9v / 148.7R = .0605mA
time to start checking components and meter again, very carefully
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
...in fact, if the battery is still at around 6.25V, as shown on the trace, then 6.25/148.7 = .042A
@EM
any chance your reading of 0.4A is actually 0.04A?
just a thought
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Quote from: nul-points on July 26, 2008, 06:26:11 PM
something's not adding up here:
EM measured the load res at 148.7R right? shorting the load res direct across the 9V battery reads 0.4A on his meter
9v / 148.7R = .0605mA
time to start checking components and meter again, very carefully
all the best
sandy
Hi Sandy,
You happen to have a typo: 9 / 148.7 = .0605 Amper , ok? (you wrote mA)
Putting it in mA, it is 60.5mA.
Otherwise I agree with you.
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: EMdevices on July 25, 2008, 08:17:00 AM
{snip}
I've found an excellent way to smooth battery RF voltage fluctuations to where they are below 0.4 volts, and the following modified circuit illustrates the modification. (series L + C, when tuned have inpedance = 0 )
Also, I now have an almost perfect sinewave at the output, of 17.5 Volts Amplitude across the 150 ohm load resistor.
Here's the power calculations:
POWER IN = ( 8.2 Volts DC ) x ( 0.1 Amp DC) = 0.82 watts
POWER OUT = ( 17.5 Volts AC) ^2 / ( 150 ohms) / 2 = 1.02 watts
EXCESS POWER = (1.02 - 0.82) / 0.82 = 0.24 = 24 % extra energy
COP = 1.02 / 0.82 = 1.24
{snip}
Try putting a resistor accross your 9v bat of about 80 ohms and if the bat gets hot - something ain't right.
thanks, Gyula - i managed to wake up in my follow-on email :)
(with the example of a battery voltage at 6.25V giving 0.042A thro' 148.7R)
i'm very interested to hear if EM's inductor-based circuit can be confirmed as showing the same level of COP as my switched-cap test circuit (1.2 approx)
we both have very simple (and very different) circuits but both have ferrite-cored coils, so i'm wondering if it's the coils in our circuits which are tapping the 'free energy' source?
all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
Hi EMdevices,
good work,
but check your output resistor,
as what the others said, 150 Ohms at 9 Volts should give:
9Volts / 150 Ohm= 60 mA.
Well, if you can scale up your circuit and it produces at least 3 Watts
of free energy, then you can apply for the overunity prize.
Regards, Stefan.
xee had me worried about the resistor changing it's value when heated up, so I meaused its resistance by itself while I heated it up,  with a magnifyer lens in direct sunlight, hot hot hot.... and guess what, the value bearly changed from 147.5 to perhaps 147.7, or some insignificant amount like that.
well, good news, I got better results now:
Power Input = ( 6.0 Volts ) x ( 0.09 Amps) = 0.54 watts
Power Output = 0.5Â *Â (17 Volts_peak )^2Â / (148 ohms) = 0.976 watts
COP = 0.976 / 0.54 = 1.80
So, nearly 80 % more energy out.  And I have been rounding the numbers up or down to be conservative, for example the voltage seemed to be more like 17.5 Volts, so I used 17.0 volts, and the amperage reading was changing between 0.08 and 0.09 amps, so it's probably 0.085 so I used 0.09 amps to be safe.
For those scrutenizing the number I might have made a mistake of writing 0.4 instead of 0.04, also, the battery I'm using is depleating as I'm experimenting with it. It came from the fire alarm after it started beeping that the battery was low, so then I took it out and have been using it for a few months now with different experiments, so you can see why it's voltage is droping so low. The circuit seems to be more efficient as the input voltage drops. I still get around 17 volts output which is amazing.
EM
EM,
So as the impedance of the battery increases, the COP increases.
Have you calculated or measured the input impedance of the oscillator?
Do you think the COP you are seeing is frequency dependant?
-Duff
you all seen this long ago im sure... i sure have just never bothered to build it
however im sure it works along the same lines.....
almost the same unit em.... ;D
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gTAqGKt64WM
the joule thief
so what if you took the output of one of thease units and used it as your 9v supply..... or in place of it ... what will be your return or your COP
ist
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bRaVI4Solg0
even better vid.... ;D ;D ;D
@ EMdevices
It is the internal resistor temperature that matters, but I doubt it gets to 800 C so it is probably not the resistor. The only other thing I can think of that you might be doing wrong is your calculations. They seem to be correct. But if 17 volts is your peak to peak voltage instead of your peak voltage as you stated, then the power out would only be 0.24 watts.
Vpp = 17
Vp = 17/2 = 8.5
Vrms = Vp / SQR(2) = 6.01 for perfect sine wave
watts = (Vrms)^2 / R = 6.01^2 / 150 = 0.24
Is your peak to peak voltage really 34 volts? If so, I can't think of any reason why you are not OU.
QuoteIs your peak to peak voltage really 34 volts?
yes xee, it is and you can see it in the scope shots I posted.
Look, even if we get picky and say the waveform might not be perfectly sinusoidal (and shape matters), so let's assume an even lower voltage, let's say 15 volts peak amplitude, then
Pout = 0.5 * (15 volts)^2 / 147 = 0.765 watts
Pin = 0.54 watts
COP = 0.765 / 0.54 = 1.40
so we are still way into OU teritory, with 40% more energy output.
@all, I'll report more after I try to close the loop. I will stop by Radioshack and try and buy a rectifyer bridge. Hopefully it doesn't eat up to much power.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on July 28, 2008, 10:35:36 AM
@all, I'll report more after I try to close the loop. I will stop by Radioshack and try and buy a rectifyer bridge. Hopefully it doesn't eat up to much power.
You don't want to do that--a standard bridge rectifier is designed to run at 60Hz and
will chew up all your output power at higher frequencies. Buy some 1N4148 diodes instead and make a bridge rectifier from them.
Just my $0.02--I want to see this work (it has a
lot of similarity to Bob Boyce's original toroid experiment; well 1/3 of it anyway... :D
EDIT: Could you do one small test for me? I can't help but notice that your setup is completely isolated from Earth ground--if you connect the negative lead of your circuit to Earth ground does the effect remain, diminish, or completely disappear? I have been wondering for some time if the fact that my bench is grounded could be destroying the very effects I built it to look for... :-\
Hi EM,
well done.
Just try to get a bigger toroid core and use bigger coils and core.
This way you could probably scale the effect up into the 10 Watts range hopefully.
I hope you will get a selfrunning device.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
@EMDevices,
Can you please specify the exact part number or identifying markings of the NPN transistor you were using? The reason I ask is that since you are not operating it as a conventional transistor, the exact characteristics of the transistor are now very important. For example, the 2N2222A type has negative resistance and zener properties when driven unconventionally...
Thanks!
Eldarion
Quote from: hartiberlin on July 28, 2008, 12:21:25 PM
This way you could probably scale the effect up into the 10 Watts range hopefully.
In the worst case scenario one can simply build 10 similar units. Repeatability is most important while scaling up may not work depending on subtle characteristics of components. E.g. transistor may not work as required in another voltage or power range.
Anyway, this setup does look like SM TPU after all discussions on this forum. Just a grossly scaled-down variant. As was mentioned it does look like "Joule thief" as well (note that it needs a simple bifilar winding like the open TPU does).
EM, I almost choked when I read this initially, and the best my lil ol brain could come up with at the time was "interesting".
I am now wondering if your self frequency governing system isn't the motive principle behind the TPU itself.... (I am deadly serious.)
I am going to have to put my TPU experiments on hold for awhile, and build one of your circuits to test some questions!
If what I consider is correct....... (that possibly SM's driving unit was the actual source of OU, and the TPU itself merely amplified the effect...)... that would explain much.
;D Interesting.
Paul Andrulis
I have an old spare Compy power supply torn open before me, with some beautiful little toroidal cores sitting there as I speak. Small NPN's of every size shape and description in my parts bin, and breadboards just waiting. Add enough wire to choke a camel.... ;D
I think I am actually getting excited! (kewl)
Paul Andrulis
Quote from: pauldude000 on July 28, 2008, 02:34:02 PM
If what I consider is correct....... (that possibly SM's driving unit was the actual source of OU, and the TPU itself merely amplified the effect...)... that would explain much.
I nearly had the same reaction...and I think you are 100% correct here! The same thing should apply to the Boyce device. Use three of these, somehow triggered in sequence around the periphery, and the available power should increase dramatically. Hmmm...I seem to recall something in one of the SM documents explaining the operation of the TPU very similarly to this!
Eldarion
Quote from: eldarion on July 28, 2008, 02:50:26 PMUse three of these, somehow triggered in sequence around the periphery, and the available power should increase dramatically.
Why not just try to connect one into another after rectifier bridge? I wonder what happens on the "output" end of the existing unit if you use two or more batteries with higher overall input voltage.
Quote from: aleks on July 28, 2008, 02:56:33 PM
Why not just try to connect one into another after rectifier bridge? I wonder what happens on the "output" end of the existing unit if you use two or more batteries with higher overall input voltage.
Definitely an option. I was just trying to tie in the various clues on rotation and gyroscopic action...maybe the FTPU operated the way that you suggest?
Quote from: eldarion on July 28, 2008, 03:04:35 PM
Definitely an option. I was just trying to tie in the various clues on rotation and gyroscopic action...maybe the FTPU operated the way that you suggest?
Three or more toroids on a single chassis may create a really "pronounced" gyroscopic effect, especially if relatively high power is running around the cores (not just 1W). Beside that an open TPU may "house" 4 of such stages in those boxes, all connected via lamp wires in a "funky" fasion like openTPU is a big core while it's just an "artistic" way to interconnect parts of the device. And of course, considering geometric relation of these boxes, this may create a "rotating" magnetic field simply because units are "powered" in sequence and the non-rectified output is sinusoidal.
Please, can anybody explain to me, why in EMDevices' circuit the transistor is driven in a non-convential way
?
First when voltage is applied the cap next to transistor loads through 100 Ohm resistor and then when it reached 0,7 Volt the transistor is conducting. For me this is a convential way of using a transistor...
He is driving the base of the transistor negative, not positive. Look at the polarity of the feedback coil--it is reversed from a normal blocking oscillator.
Eldarion
EMdevices good luck with this.
it certainly seems interesting, i have it running but am using a larger ferrite core, so far i have had trouble in getting a high voltage loaded output.
I have just had to pack up for the night having made a discovery, the type of transistor is critical, first i used a ztx653 but the gain was too low so i swapped to a BC548C this got it oscilating and allowed me to play with cap values, but the break through for me was using both transistors in parralel, i still have a long way to go yet, but not tonigh big electrical storm here
It would be real interesting to know the transistor type you are using and also your cap values if you have a cap meter.
Peter
@EM
The miniTPU rides again. Go tonto, go blitzin. lol
I have noticed on many of my tests with other circuits that the load plays an important part in keeping the whole system under compression to then maintain the effect. This touches up on what @armagdn03 was saying about why we are not matching the load to the actual circuit capabilities.
Also, I think the reversed transistor is working because you are actually generating a reverse current on every pulse off which can then pass the transitors diode. Like when we did EC's circuit on the Tesla Project thread showing movement on impluse and movement off impluse creating a reversing current. So you are playing with both the current forward and current backwards. @allcanadian would know much more about this then me.
Good, very good indeed. Keep it up @EM.
good one whatsup
it does flow both ways :D
hot and cold.....
ist!
transistor: 2N4401, (from Radio Shack, box of 15)
Base Capacitor: 0.01J (not sure what that means)
Top capacitor for setting resonance: 47J
Capacitor in LC reactive branch, 220J
I guess there is a naming convention for these, I saw it somewhere once.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on July 28, 2008, 08:54:58 PM
transistor: 2N4401, (from Radio Shack, box of 15)
Base Capacitor: 0.01J (not sure what that means)
Top capacitor for setting resonance: 47J
Capacitor in LC reactive branch, 220J
I guess there is a naming convention for these, I saw it somewhere once.
EM
Base capacitor: 0.01uF
Top capacitor: 47pF
LC reactive capacitor: 22pF
Tolerance: +/-5%
EMDevices, do you live near a AM, FM, TV, etc. transmitting tower? Also, I think your scope was set to 20ns--implying a frequency of 12.5MHz--is this correct?
Interesting to note that the 2N4401 is only rated for 600mA of current...
Thanks!
Eldarion
Nice work EMdevices, thanks for sharing your findings :)
I am trying to replicate, have wound the toroid and I have all components except my transistor is 2N3904 (NPN HFE~100).
I will try and finish it tomorrow and then post info.
If it doesn't work or even oscillate, probably won't knowing my luck, then I'll get hold of the same transistor you have.
Regards, Fraser.
Quote from: eldarion on July 28, 2008, 09:03:04 PM
Base capacitor: 0.01uF
Top capacitor: 47pF
LC reactive capacitor: 22pF
Tolerance: +/-5%
EMDevices, do you live near a AM, FM, TV, etc. transmitting tower? Also, I think your scope was set to 20ns--implying a frequency of 12.5MHz--is this correct?
Interesting to note that the 2N4401 is only rated for 600mA of current...
Thanks!
Eldarion
i would say it might be 220p, not 22p
An inductor and a capacitor and a pulsed DC signal or spark gap are the only components that ring the bell.
--giantkiller. Wait for the rebound or reflection.
Quote from: poynt99 on July 28, 2008, 09:47:42 PM
i would say it might be 220p, not 22p
3 numbers followed by a letter always means that the value is given in code. In this case, the code is 22pF with no zeroes following it.
@all
CONCERNING CAP MARKINGS:
220J is 22pf
Using a one or two number marking, the number is directly in pf.
Using a three number marking, it is based upon the formula AB X 10^C in pf. In the case of a zero, then it is just AB.
For instance:
220J = 22pf
221J = 220pf
222J = 2200pf
etc....
103J would then be 10 X 10^3 pf, or 10,000pf or .01uf.
104J 100,000pf or .1uf
The end letter is the capacitors tolerance.
D = +/- 0.5 pf
F = +/- 1%
G = +/- 2%
H = +/- 3%
J = +/- 5%
K = +/- 10%
M = +/- 20%
P = +100% / -0%
Z = +80% / -20%
Now, some capacitors have a second number underneath the first, and it is voltage.
104J
50
This would then be a .1uf cap at 50v.
I hope this helps.
Paul Andrulis
Hi EM,
please can you state the exact frequency,
where you get these OU results ?
Does it only happen at this one frequency ?
Please don?t change the toroid and the coils.
It might be a lucky coincidence, that your winding combination
has got you this.
Maybe the 4 coil windings exhibit some anti-Lenz characteristic ?
Better replicate the setup with exactly the same parts again and also try to build a third
bigger unit, to see, if you can scale up the effect in power.
Also, why do you put the 2 LC lowpassfilters filters in parallel with the battery, but not in front of the battery ?
Can you also use a real powersupply instead of a battery to power this circuit
or does the internal battery resistance play a role inside the circuit ?
What, if you put a 100 nF cap directly parallel with the battery together with a 100 uF electrolytic cap ?
Many thanks and looking forward to more tests.
Regards, Stefan.
Get another battery and attach a DC motor, or buzzer, or attack it to various parts of the current circuit.
Based on my research I have established it IS possible to pull in EM fields and motors and buzzers are ideal, it could very well be the air core coils that do the receiving.
If doing such can boost the output then you should be closer to your goal as energy does not have to be lost from the loose coupled source.
Quote from: hartiberlin on July 29, 2008, 04:27:52 AM
Also, why do you put the 2 LC lowpassfilters filters in parallel with the battery, but not in front of the battery ?
I don't know what EM intended with the bandpass filter circuits but they aren't supressing RF in the battery. They are shorting RF around the battery. Same final effect in the battery.
I think the most important function for these LC circuits is they are completing the RF circuit where the battery was breaking it.
If he uses a power supply I suggest the LC's stay connected. At their resonant frequency their impedance is near zero.
I think you will find he is using the coil and cap to get rid of the nasty noise which is across the battery, i am having the same problem, i have about 2 volts of crap across my battery, and it doesnt go by putting different cap across, he is trying to get a smooth dc across his battery because he can then be confident of the power consumption.
My rendition is running at about 22Mhz, but have not had much chance to refine cap values yet.
Quote from: Peterae on July 29, 2008, 08:15:28 AM
I think you will find he is using the coil and cap to get rid of the nasty noise which is across the battery, i am having the same problem, i have about 2 volts of crap across my battery, and it doesnt go by putting different cap across, he is trying to get a smooth dc across his battery because he can then be confident of the power consumption.
My rendition is running at about 22Mhz, but have not had much chance to refine cap values yet.
Hi Peter,
You sounds like you understand how to get rid of the 'noise' which is across the battery, then why do not you wind an air core coil of 4-6 turns of 0.8 or 1mm Cu (enameled) wire and connect it in series with 15-20pF capacitor to shunt the 2V crap across your battery?
To find the resonance of your series LC circuit at 22MHz, you simply stretch or squize the turns of the air core coil while you watch your scope showing the 2V crap till you see it starts reducing in amplitude. Using only capacitors across the battery usually helps in up to some MHz range, unless you buy special capacitors with very low ESR values at your frequency of choice. With the series resonant circuit you effectively improve the shunting effect of the capacitors, like EMdevices has showed. To make an air core coil, simply choose a cylindrical form of any hard material with 8-15mm diameter like a pencil or biro etc and wind 4-6 or 8 turns on it then fix it.
Sorry for this, I simply wished to ask the above question to help you stepping further on.
rgds, Gyula
Hi Guyla
Thanks for the advice, yes i have not had anytime to do this yet, but will be next up after i have tried more transistors to get better operation, i have only had about 3 hours on the build last night and about an hour spent getting it to run.
Peter
So, did anyone prooved if this circuit's "OU" is just a measurement error, or there really is something strange happening?
Thanks!
Too early for me to say yet, i need to get mine optimzed, and get the noise on the battery cancelled, plus i am using a diferent core as i dont have anything like EM.
As soon as i get some numbers i will post these, but it will be some days, as i have a buisness to run.
Peter
This worked for me on a similar circuit to get rid of RF in battery. The advantage is that it does not require tuning. I have not tried it with this circuit.
Hi guys,
@Stefan, it works at a particular frequency, but it can work at other nearby frequencies. I just say it works at a particular fixed frequency because it's a tuned device and only when tuned can I cancel the RF at the battery so I can take a clean amperage and voltage reading. If it's not filtered it might still be OU but I don't have the patience to integrate these frequencies to find out. Also, I realized I made a mistake in the circuit. Below is the correct one. Notice the battery connects differently. The first LC branch is what DID THE TRICK :) this LC branch somehow provides the reactance and saves the battery from doing it, or sourcing reactive energy, or it just shorts RF, simpler concept. The second branch is just extra for a little bit more smoothing so I can have a clean amperage reading.
@Peterae, yes, a simple capacitor across the battery will not short out the RF, which I found distrubing, because a capacitor has a low impedance at high frequencies, however, most capacitors have other parasitics and series resistance (Effective Series Resistance, ESR) or maybe for some other reason just don't do the job. An LC branch, on the other hand, I found it works miracles, it surprised me how well it worked !
@ BEP, you're correct, we're shorting with the first LC branch, but the last branch is blocking as per figure below and since I used a mini toroid ferrite, I'm smoothing the current so I have a nice clean amperage reading. without this second branch the voltage is just as smooth, maybe the ripple 24% bigger, but I just wanted to be absolutely sure the current wasn't surging.
@ whoever asked, the frequncy is around 10 - 25 MHz or so, the scope shots are at 20 ns per division, this just going from memory. I live close to Cape Canaveral, Florida , so lot's of radio stations around here.
EM
P.S. I have found an article that might be the single best theory to describe the SM tpu. It talks about rotating magnetic fields, magnetostriciton, rotation, NMR, and even LEVITATION in an Iron Nickel (FeNi) wire. They even talk about frequencies in the low kHz. It's from IEEE, and it's about 190 kB file, so I can't uploaded. [edit:] Ok I just figured out how to upload: see the file here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item102
I added a before/after comparison of voltage at the battery terminals, the LC branch sure works wonders !!
@EM
The IEEE article is great. Can any one with access post the other articles which are in the reference sections?
Regards
It would be very interesting to know, if your circuit have OU results in a faraday cage. Do you plan to do such a test ?
Thank you
Quote from: EMdevices on July 29, 2008, 02:16:03 PM
P.S. I have found an article that might be the single best theory to describe the SM tpu. It talks about rotating magnetic fields, magnetostriciton, rotation, NMR, and even LEVITATION in an Iron Nickel (FeNi) wire. They even talk about frequencies in the low kHz. It's from IEEE, and it's about 190 kB file, so I can't uploaded. [edit:] Ok I just figured out how to upload: see the file here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item102
Cool, thanks for the paper.. If they had 528 Hz, it would fit into Solfeggio's "transformation and miracles" frequency. But probably it's still the same thing (10 Hz is a small deviation). I wonder if Solfeggio's original frequencies shifted now. Earth grows, frequencies shift. Maybe current MI frequency should be as in this paper - around 538 Hz? :) Well, it's just a speculation.
Also note that wire's peak rotation frequency lies in "Schumann resonance" range pretty much.
And... as article suggests, there is really no difference between solenoid and acoustic transducer as far as these effects are considered. So, it's about interatomic forces non-equilibrium induced by mechanical vibration. In this TPU biz, magnetostriction is of course a thing to use since it allows to couple to electric circuitry easily. But you surely should not stick to "magnetostriction" term in understanding how thing may work.
Ok i have taken all the scope shots of my setup, can someone explain how i post 4 scope shots and a picture of my setup
Thanks
Peter
Quote from: Peterae on July 29, 2008, 04:15:29 PM
Ok i have taken all the scope shots of my setup, can someone explain how i post 4 scope shots and a picture of my setup
Thanks
Peter
Hi Peter,
If the size of your photos are less than 100kB each then you can simply attach to your next post at
Attach by clicking on Browsing or on (more attachments), you should see this just under your text window that opens when you press the Reply button.
If you have higher than 100KB picture files then you may upload them here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=upload max 5MB files each and you can see them by clicking on the Forum Download icon (top left side Column)
Gyula
Quote from: Peterae on July 29, 2008, 04:15:29 PM
Ok i have taken all the scope shots of my setup, can someone explain how i post 4 scope shots and a picture of my setup
Thanks
Peter
Hi Peter,
This should work:
make each photo less than 100kb by saving each pic as JPG (you may have to reduce size and save until you get the size down.)
then press the insert image button in the post composer of this forum, the insert image button is 1 in from the left on the bottom row, it's got a small photograph on the button.
Fraser.
edit: LOL :D, Gyula beat me to it
In Honour of EMDevices i give my first test results.
I am strugling with noise on my psu still, trying to clear it totaly effects the output amplitude.
I am using a 2n2219A
My Cap on the base is 470pf
My Cap across the coil winding is 22pf
My circuit is setup as per EM's first diagram, my scope shots are also taken from the same positioons
I use a NiCad Bank which at the time of the test was 12.6Volts
The current drawn from the NiCad psu was measured to be 118mA i measured this 1 with a DVM and 2 with a moving iron coil meter.
I have not had time to crunch the numbers maybe someone could help here.
Scope shot 1 is taken on the collector i have 54V PK-PK, Cyc RMS = 17.55Volts
Scope shot 2 is taken across the base 2.1V PK-PK. Cyc RMS = 520 mVolts
Scope shot 3 is taken across a 150 Ohm Load Resistor, 47 V PK-Pk, Cyc RMS = 15.55 V, i had to make this up using 9 150 Ohm Resistors to increase the wattage(3 x 150R in parralel with 3 of these in series), i measured the resistance to confirm it was 149.3Ohms.
Scope shot 4 is taken across the battery unfortunatley it was 1.72V PK-Pk so i need to do some work on this.
Picture 5 is my setup
Peter
**** Ive just spotted a mistake on scope shot 2 when i grabbed the shot, so take no notice of what the scope says the PK-PK is it is showing Chan A info instead of Chan B, the waveform is correct but is 2.1V PK-PK, Cyc RMS 520mV
Thanks Gyulasun and Yucca, shows how often i post LOL
Quote from: Peterae on July 29, 2008, 04:41:48 PM
Scope shot 4 is taken across the battery unfortunatley it was 1.72V PK-Pk so i need to do some work on this.
So, after filtering it out it will turn into something like 1V DC? In that case you have even better COP than EM.
Peter,
Your measurements give also a COP of about 1.25 so CONGRATULATIONS to you too!!!
your input power is 12.6V x 0.118A = 1.4868W
your output power across the 149.3 Ohm load is (16.72 x 16.72) / 149.3 = 1.8724W (I took 16.72 by dividing your peak to peak voltage of 47V by 2.82 to get its true RMS value, your scope give a bit better value for this as 17.55V)
your COP is 1.8724 / 1.4868 = 1.25
Of course you need further "cleaning" across the battery like EMdevices just showed on his modified schematics.
Also, try to connect the battery lead to members of your battery bank lower in voltage to be able to reduce supply voltage to find 'sweeter working point' .
rgds, Gyula
What i will say is i was pushing my luck running at 12 volts, the transistor was warming up but not burning.
Thanks guys, still early days yet. Plenty to play with.
It's nice to be able to back up EM anyway
Quote from: gyulasun on July 29, 2008, 05:00:47 PM
your input power is 12.6V x 0.118A = 1.4868W
The draw voltage is yet to be determined.
Absolutely wonderful Peter, thanks for doing the experiment, even the waveform across the collector looks simular. Good job!!!
EM
Quote from: Peterae on July 29, 2008, 05:04:08 PM
Thanks guys, still early days yet. Plenty to play with.
It's nice to be able to back up EM anyway
Yes, indeed so.
Do you have any data on your toroidal core? (the best would be to know its permeability, just like in case of EMdevices's...)
Thanks, Gyula
Yes the core was bought in the UK in Maplin
N87AB HEM3010 31.8 22.75 18.5 88 146
see web page
http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?ModuleNo=32792&doy=29m7
Peter
Quote from: gyulasun on July 29, 2008, 05:00:47 PM
your output power across the 149.3 Ohm load is (16.72 x 16.72) / 149.3 = 1.8724W (I took 16.72 by dividing your peak to peak voltage of 47V by 2.82 to get its true RMS value, your scope give a bit better value for this as 17.55V)
Note the RMS figure is worse - 15.55V, but this still gives COP>1. I wonder about connected battery plot whose PK-PK is 1.72V. If it's true, the COP is probably close to 10 here.
Hi EM
Great find, all respect to you, i am mearly copying your work
Thanks
Peter
Quote from: aleks on July 29, 2008, 05:22:26 PM
Note the RMS figure is worse - 15.55V, but this still gives COP>1. I wonder about connected battery plot whose PK-PK is 1.72V. If it's true, the COP is probably close to 10 here.
Hi Aleks,
I understand that in case Peter's present AC voltage drop of 1.72 Vpp is shunted and then it can add to the useful output this it is still far from a COP of 8-10. How do you mean this I wonder?
Thanks, Gyula
Peter, thanks for the toriod core data!
Quote from: gyulasun on July 29, 2008, 05:00:47 PM
Peter,
Your measurements give also a COP of about 1.25 so CONGRATULATIONS to you too!!!
your input power is 12.6V x 0.118A = 1.4868W
your output power across the 149.3 Ohm load is (16.72 x 16.72) / 149.3 = 1.8724W (I took 16.72 by dividing your peak to peak voltage of 47V by 2.82 to get its true RMS value, your scope give a bit better value for this as 17.55V)
your COP is 1.8724 / 1.4868 = 1.25
Of course you need further "cleaning" across the battery like EMdevices just showed on his modified schematics.
Also, try to connect the battery lead to members of your battery bank lower in voltage to be able to reduce supply voltage to find 'sweeter working point' .
rgds, Gyula
Just a reminder that the RMS shortcut Vpk x 0.707 can only be applied to a pure sinewave.
Hoppy
Yes, Hoppy that is correct, my calculations are a quick evaluations to see the COP which seem higher than one.
And all such results should be treated with suspition till looping back the output is a success...
rgds, Gyula
@ Peterae
Very nicely built replication. Would you please list the number of turns in each of your transformer windings?
@EM
Please clairify the polarity of the battery in your latest schematic. The schematic symbol indicates one polarity while your text indicates the opposite.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg66.imageshack.us%2Fimg66%2F626%2Fpuzlecircuitschmod20080um6.jpg&hash=f812ae893360ae6a5b4dd104ab33d7fc82f3c6af)
Also, would you please give us a breakdown of the turns you've used in the windings. We can assume that you used the same as in the micro tpu thread but we'd be guessing and it difficult looking at the picture to know EXACTLY what you have done.
If you know the core characteristics that would also be helpful.
Thanks,
-Duff
Hi Peterae,
well done.
But I don?t see, that you measured the input current into your circuit on a shunt resistor ?
Please use a LC lowpassfilter at the battery to cut off all hash from the circuit.
I guess EMdevices 2nd shortout LC bandpass is not really neccessary.
2 LC lowpassfilter would have done it too.
The magic is probably in the 4 coil?s setup on the core.
EMdevices, did the device make any vibration or sound
and did it change, when you held the windings tighter together
with your hands ?
Maybe there is a mechanical interaction ?
Hi Peterae and EM,
maybe you can also try to
substitute your 150 Ohm outputresistor
with using just an Avramenko plug with 2 x 1N4148 diodes
directly at the scopeshot 3 point as the output.
So use this one wire output to charge
up a big capacitor and then have a load
resistor across only this cap.
This way you could probably further reduce your
input current from the battery.
Would be interesting to try.
Many thanks.
Regards,.Stefan.
Here's some construction data on the coil.
I have used 13 turns of 0.6mm Single stranded wire tech is at this address
http://www.maplin.co.uk/module.aspx?ModuleNo=6187&doy=30m7
I first laid the White-Yellow-Red wires side by side while winding.
Peter
Quote from: gyulasun on July 29, 2008, 05:28:55 PM
Hi Aleks,
I understand that in case Peter's present AC voltage drop of 1.72 Vpp is shunted and then it can add to the useful output this it is still far from a COP of 8-10. How do you mean this I wonder?
Well, when EMdevices measured across connected battery, of course meter shunts it as well, but the reading is still 6V DC (was before double LC filter installed - around 30Vpp AC). Peterae's current
unfiltered reading is 1.72Vpp AC (compare it to 30Vpp). I doubt Peterae's meter is wrong, so it must be draw that is really that low. In that case it means COP is way above 1.0. I do not see a problem with my logic, but there can be some problem with measurements? But how it's possible to make a measurement mistake in such a simple circuit? I can only think about amerage which is not 118mA, but around 1A.
BTW, "overunity battery chargers" may also obviously have a much lower voltage reading over connected battery than when measured short-circuited.
Quote from: Hoppy on July 29, 2008, 06:19:29 PM
Just a reminder that the RMS shortcut Vpk x 0.707 can only be applied to a pure sinewave.
Yes, of course, and in fact there is no need to make speculation as Peterae gave exact cycle RMS values.
Hi aleks
The results are certainly hard to swallow, i will feel happier when i have a smooth dc across the battery and i have new measurements, i think EM is ahead of me here, i work 6 days a week and have quiet busy evenings so get very little time, but theres no rush to get this right, I certainly am not in a hurry to close the loop right now as i would hate to take any glory away from it's rightfull owner EM.
Good work EM on smoothing that noise out.
I think when closing the loop, the output should be tried with the noise as well as without, just incase the noise is causing the OU effect to manifest, afterall if the loop is closed who cares if there is noise or not.
Peter
This is a great thread!
Blocking oscillators are so much fun and possibly the key to this.
There exists the possibility that there is a spin going on here
My trouble is that I dont trust digital measurements on ac signals other than mains frequency.
they only way is to build it, get back to dc and see for oneself
Great work guys...easy instructions.. and low parts count..
"no mass electronics here, just the knowledge of the coils and how they interact with each other"
Lindsay
@ Peterae
Thanks for the coil data. You do great documentation.
@duff, for the polarity go by the (+) and (-) symbols, and not by the short and long bars, since I never know which is which :)
@Peter, feel free to go right ahead, don't wait for me. I'm slow and methodical and there's plenty of room for everyone to share in the "glory", we have a way to go to scale it up and close the loop efectively. Right now this thing is more of a curiosity circuit, but can teach us important lessons if we study it closely and determine the "secret" of why it's acting the way it is. Then we can scale up wisely and efectively having removed the guess work.
@Mannix, I agree with you. RF can sneak around the probes and short out through space capacitance, so DC would be more trustworthy, I'm ordering some nice diodes...
@ Stefan, there are big vibrations and the associated noise of around 4-5 kHz when I adjust the capacitance somewhat and go off frequency, but for all the scopes shots I posted, the operation does not have the vibrations (and noise) on purpose, I adjusted things to eliminate all that, but there could be tiny vibrations still present that do not affect the scope waveform.  I have not played with the turns ratio yet, or spacing of coils, etc..Â
@Frederick, I'll be doing more tests and I'll definitely try to see if a faraday cage makes a difference.
@all, I have more scope shots comparing the voltage at the 3 coils, and it's very interesting that they are out of phase with each other. If we assume coil A is 0 phase, then coil B seemed to be 90 phase, and C was 180. This tells me that voltage is not determined entirely by the FLUX changeing in the core, as in V = N d phi/dt, or else they should all be in phase, wouldn't they? However, at the same time a magnet brought close to the core does affect the frequency somewhat, so the inductance of the core does play a part. I'm thinking capacitive coupling between the coils is playing a part as well at these high frequencies, and one can tell since even bringing the hand close to the circuit has some effect, which is to be expected with these high RF frequencies.
I did try a crude rectifyer setup with some existing diodes I had laying around(not sure what kind), and was able to get about 13 volts DC (Pout = 13^2 / 150 = 1.127 watts) but it's not quite OU since the waveforms change and my current input increases(phasing between current and voltage chages at the collector/base junctions). I was expecting this since the output impedance is not quite the same now, so it's not as easy as some assume. With RF everything is about matching impedences (and for DC as well) Anyway, I'll have to do more experimenting and figure out the voltage drop of the diodes in forward conduction, etc.., so this is work in progress, but the power is there and with the right tweaking we'll have a true bonified closed loop OU circuit without all the uncertainty of measurement equipment interveaning and suppresing our joy and exuberence... LOL :)
Oh, I almost forgot an important occurance, but before I tell you I want to be clear that I'm not the paranoid type and I even jokingly dismissed Bob Boyces stories about lightning strikes, etc.. Well, last evening I came home and there was light rain, and boom........ I was in the living room and I saw orange light reflecting on the outside building and droped to the ground by instinct, I was shaken to say the least. My wife thought I got hit but I didn't. I figured two houses down the road got hit since they have a high roofline and lighting rods on the roof. Well a few minutes later fire trucks pull in the drive way, and block our road and I come to find out it's my neighbor on the other side of my house, he had a 7" hole in the top of his roof and smoke filed their house but they were ok, they put a tarp up there. However, I tried to get on my computer and realized the circut breaker snaped for only that room, so I must of had some of the energy couple to my house. Anyway, here's the crazy thing, that room is where I experiment with the torids, right by the window, and this room is the closes to where the lightning hit my neighbor. Spacing between houses is about 12 feet or so and figure another 12 feet slope distance up to the corner of the roof, and that's how close it was. My neighbor has been in lightning storms before and said in 15 years or so never had this happen anywhere in the neighborhood. So, not sure what to think, the circuit was not on at the time, last time it was on was about 24 hours before, but I'm thinking could there be a coincidence? could a "paterning" of the "eather" somehow develop and make a low "resistive" path in the sky? It would be nice to do a long term statistical study on certain circuits and their probabilistic effects on lighning patterns. Anyway, I hope there is not corelation between a small 1 inch ferrite toroid and lighning strikes. Take it for what is worth..... not implying anything here...just something to think about...
EM
EM That's is strange with the lightning, the night i built this i had to stop because just after i started testing we had a severe lightning storm, i posted here to mention it at the time, i cant remember the last lightning we had, must be well over a year ago, so there you go we have OU just switch on sit back and capture those lightning strikes. :o
Peter
Quote from: EMdevices on July 30, 2008, 10:50:42 AMTake it for what is worth..... not implying anything here...just something to think about...
It may mean you are on a right track. ;) Even electrons have to go through a lot of resistance before current starts flowing in a closed circuit.
Quote from: EMdevices on July 30, 2008, 10:50:42 AMIf we assume coil A is 0 phase, then coil B seemed to be 90 phase, and C was 180.
It's a good sign since having "cancelled out flux" (0 deg & 180 deg signals) produces "radiant electricity field" or aether vortex. Whereas in acoustics, destructive interference produces a lowered pressure, in electricity it likewise produces a "relaxed" aether. I think :) (well, it may be a bit different, not completely comparable to acoustics). But what always bothered me is WHAT happens to energy that goes side-by-side, in anti-phase. Something should happen. In acoustics, it's probably a statistical "zero" while in aether it may mean more than that: such interference may change state of the aether. It's what I wanted to say.
xee thanks for the comment on the documentation.
It would be good if i could get things right, there are infact 14 Turns because where the wire comes out is also a complete turn DOH, i cannot go back and edit it it wont let me so here's a new picture
Quote from: EMdevices on July 30, 2008, 10:50:42 AM
@all, I have more scope shots comparing the voltage at the 3 coils, and it's very interesting that they are out of phase with each other.
Excellent!!! I was wondering ever since I saw this circuit if that was the case--you have something that now matches SM's first clues and the Boyce device as you mention. Remember SM's comments on interesting things when transformers get slightly out of phase with each other? ;D
My replication is in progress, and I have a few ideas for increasing the output power...
Eldarion
One thing I have noticed here which may well be a good thing, but is hard to state as an absolute truth.
I noticed that Peterae's core seems to be larger (more material by cross section) than EM's. If true, then saturation energy is probably different for each core. This would mean that the specifics of the core are not that picky to achieve the effect, and it should be easily replicable.
I intend to try with two cores. A small yellow I salvaged out of a computer power supply. (didn't need it anyway ehh ;D ) I will also try with a massive one, namely a yoke, since I already salvaged it for a different test. Might as well rewind it.
If it works on both, then we will KNOW that it is not a "core specific" device. That would be awesome.
@Mannix
If you are still in touch with SM, tell him I empathize.
Paul Andrulis
Quote from: EMdevices on July 30, 2008, 10:50:42 AM
Oh, I almost forgot an important occurance, but before I tell you I want to be clear that I'm not the paranoid type and I even jokingly dismissed Bob Boyces stories about lightning strikes, etc.. Well, last evening I came home and there was light rain, and boom........ I was in the living room and I saw orange light reflecting on the outside building and droped to the ground by instinct, I was shaken to say the least. My wife thought I got hit but I didn't. I figured two houses down the road got hit since they have a high roofline and lighting rods on the roof. Well a few minutes later fire trucks pull in the drive way, and block our road and I come to find out it's my neighbor on the other side of my house, he had a 7" hole in the top of his roof and smoke filed their house but they were ok, they put a tarp up there. However, I tried to get on my computer and realized the circut breaker snaped for only that room, so I must of had some of the energy couple to my house. Anyway, here's the crazy thing, that room is where I experiment with the torids, right by the window, and this room is the closes to where the lightning hit my neighbor. Spacing between houses is about 12 feet or so and figure another 12 feet slope distance up to the corner of the roof, and that's how close it was. My neighbor has been in lightning storms before and said in 15 years or so never had this happen anywhere in the neighborhood. So, not sure what to think, the circuit was not on at the time, last time it was on was about 24 hours before, but I'm thinking could there be a coincidence? could a "paterning" of the "eather" somehow develop and make a low "resistive" path in the sky? It would be nice to do a long term statistical study on certain circuits and their probabilistic effects on lighning patterns. Anyway, I hope there is not corelation between a small 1 inch ferrite toroid and lighning strikes. Take it for what is worth..... not implying anything here...just something to think about...
EM
When you create changes in the "potential" (I use this terms since so many do not accept aether, or tempic field) these changes linger. Like when you wave you have in a smoky room the smoke keeps moving for a while afterwords. Bob lightning strike was to his hand which has it's own field - that was quite specific by the way. These changes can be detected or sensed because they cause changes in dielectric properties. Yes, the aether can be configered as a low resistance pathway or zone of potential, or anything else such as areas where materials are weakened. Which element of your build is oriented in the direction of the strike? A "seat of the pants" guess would say that a lobe off the ferrite is in the location. Breaker snapped for that room - sounds like a transient. Way to go EM! If you still have doubts, you better get over them. I have a friend that was studying lightning - I'll send you a pm.
hi to all
@ MANNIX
YES YOU HAD RAID <no mass electronics here, just the knowledge of the coils and how they interact with each other>
i HAVE TOLD SOMEWHERE HERE THAT <,tpu of s.m> is not have core and only need coils but only just small switching parts > LIKE TESLA TRANSF.
i like to ask YOU <MANNIX I EXPLANE WHAT BATERY SMALL IS THERE IN THE S.M TPU < 3v or 1,5 v > to charge the cap >>in the tpu ;) ;) ;)
@all,
Something I'd like to point out is that high-frequency ferrite cores appear to be a must. I tried this circuit with a Micrometals mix 52 iron powder core (ur of 75 at DC) and the circuit wouldn't even work--it just sat there drawing < 10mA @ 13.8V. My next attempt will be with a large HF ferrite core from an old VGA monitor cable... ;D
@EMDevices,
Can you please post a large picture of your circuit, or verify that your core is ferrite? It looks like it is ferrite from what I can see in-between the windings in the small pictures...
Thanks!
Eldarion
Hey, all replicators!
Em has said that he has 180 phase shift....
What we were able to some how get 120 deg and 240 deg ......3phase
or 90 180 270......... 4 phase....and so on
That means it MUST be spinning ... early days just brain storming
It been bugging me for a long while ...how to get multiphase inductively..without moving parts
The core oscillator for what ever we want to configure?
I hope so..I really do
Lindsay
@EMDevices,
Quote from: EMdevices on July 30, 2008, 10:50:42 AM
I have more scope shots comparing the voltage at the 3 coils, and it's very interesting that they are out of phase with each other. If we assume coil A is 0 phase, then coil B seemed to be 90 phase, and C was 180. This tells me that voltage is not determined entirely by the FLUX changeing in the core, as in V = N d phi/dt, or else they should all be in phase, wouldn't they?
I think you know this, but just in case. The phase that is measured across the coil windings will depend on the component attached to the coil winding. To compare the phase coming out of the windings it would be necessary to measure the phase of each winding with only a resistor attached to the winding.
Quote from: xee on July 30, 2008, 10:35:25 PM
@EMDevices,
I think you know this, but just in case. The phase that is measured across the coil windings will depend on the component attached to the coil winding. To compare the phase coming out of the windings it would be necessary to measure the phase of each winding with only a resistor attached to the winding.
Do not kill the achievement. All know that L and C shift voltage phase by 90 deg. What's more important how it turned out in tandem. I do not think dissecting it and "proving" that with resistors it's all in-phase, is a worthless affair.
@Mannix
tap into the collector.
Otto
Quote from: eldarion on July 30, 2008, 12:43:54 PM
Excellent!!! I was wondering ever since I saw this circuit if that was the case--you have something that now matches SM's first clues and the Boyce device as you mention. Remember SM's comments on interesting things when transformers get slightly out of phase with each other? ;D
My replication is in progress, and I have a few ideas for increasing the output power...
Eldarion
;) both from Florida........
Hi Everyone,
OK, I got round to building and testing the circuit, however I have used a 2N3904 transistor, so this isn't a replication per-se. Also my supply is a not a semi-depleted 9V battery but it's a bench supply set at 9V. Also I have 100 ohm over output instead of 150 ohm.
Thus far does not show cop>1 for me.
I need to get the right tranny.
Fraser.
I made this little high frequency bridge and it performs well and can charge an electrolytic up nicely, just included the piccy here because it's a nice little module for experimenting with.
@ EMdevices
Here is a schematic of where I think you are going next. I thought it might save you the trouble of making one. If you mark it up I will update it with your changes (if that would be helpful).
Quote from: aleks on July 31, 2008, 03:10:36 AMI do not think dissecting it and "proving" that with resistors it's all in-phase, is a worthless affair.
I meant it's not a "worthy affair".
Quote from: Yucca on July 31, 2008, 07:05:51 AM
Thus far does not show cop>1 for me.
I need to get the right tranny.
You also need a right toroidal winding - yours does not look right. (white wire is roughly wound, spaced far apart, and it is not synced to 3 base windings)
Yucca
The transistor made all the difference for me, i also could not get good results until i tried the 2n2219A
Peter
@ Yucca
Your documentation is good but I am still confused. Your scope shot seems to show 32 MHz across the power supply resistor. Is your DVM rated for reading AC current at 32 MHz? If not that could be why the DVM reading was bad. EMdevices was filtering out the AC and just reading the DC current.
Two different toroids, three builds each and new windings each time, all new components. Can't get anything at all out of it without pumping at least an amp through the 2N4401, and can only do that for a half-second before it overheats. Re-arranged the circuit to use a MOSFET and got even less. The exact magnetic properties of the toroid must be critical.
Quote from: xee on July 31, 2008, 09:55:11 AM
@ Yucca
Your documentation is good but I am still confused. Your scope shot seems to show 32 MHz across the power supply resistor. Is your DVM rated for reading AC current at 32 MHz? If not that could be why the DVM reading was bad. EMdevices was filtering out the AC and just reading the DC current.
why not utialize it ?? insted of discarding it..... ::)
ist
My torroid is totaly different dimensions to EM's, it may be important to build on plug in dev boards due to the in built capacitance between the pin rows.
Also note so far we have both used batteries, although mine are nicad.
I second what Peterae said, the transistor is critical.  I think it's that high hfe constant, which for me it's 200.  I also tried my more robust transistor for high power and it did not work (it has a lower hfe)
@xee, thanks for the diagram, certainly what I had in mind.  Regarding the flux and the phases, I would add that we need to specify what quantity were measuring.  When I say, phase has to be the same, I'm refering to the voltage phase. so if V = N dphi/dt, the voltage is wholy dependent, or driven by the flux, but the CURENT will have a different phase depending on the components we hook up to the windings.  Since my VOLTAGES are out of phase, this can mean a few things, like Mannix said 1) ROTATION, or like I suggested 2) Electrostatic couplings, or perhaps another explanation.
A slight variation:
I hooked up another toroid to my circuit to help isolate the phenomena.  This new toroid has only two windings, that were wound at opposite sides of the toroid, so they DO NOT overlap. I wanted to make sure there was no electrostatic coupling, that's why. One winding has 40 turns of fine wire and is hooked to the transistor Colector and the filtered (+) rail, the other coil has 8 turns and drives the Base.  Well guess what? It still workes! Scoping at the Collector, I see the same waveform, with the typical short drop into the negative voltage range. The voltage swings up to 17 or 15 volts peak just like before.  I hooked up a variable plate capacitor and tried to varry some capacitances to see what has a profound effect.  It seems the base circuit is what realy sets the oscillation frequency and bringing my hand close to the 8 turn winding increases the capacitance and the frequency goes down (it's around 5 MHz in this case and droping) This by far is the most sensitive way to affect frequency. The capacitor that hooks the 100kohm resistor and 8 turn coil to ground, needs to be a low ESR capacitor so the RF signal can have a good path to ground and over to the transistor (base emiter junction).   This capacitor does not affect the frequency that much beyond a certain point, so the resonant mode seems to be dictated by only the 8 turn coil and it's interwinding capacitance (and maybe junction capacitance in the transistor), much like the TESLA secondary coil.   The many turn collector coil just pumps this tank circuit.  This is a very close setup to an Armstrong oscillator, except for this odd negative dip in the collector voltage waveform. Since the collector driven winding has 40 turns or so, and there is no output resistor to suck energy, I measued the input amperage to this oscillator and it was below 1 mA, and my scope just showed zero on the screet to 3 decimal places. (don't worry I calibrated it with a 1 kohm resistor to make sure it works)
Anyway, my 3 coil torroid is a bit different since it has all the capacitors and resonating modes, but at least now I'm begining to understand something more about the dynamics of this oscillator.
EM
Quote from: aleks on July 31, 2008, 07:53:27 AM
You also need a right toroidal winding - yours does not look right. (white wire is roughly wound, spaced far apart, and it is not synced to 3 base windings)
Thanks for the heads up on that.
Quote from: xee on July 31, 2008, 09:55:11 AM
@ Yucca
Your documentation is good but I am still confused. Your scope shot seems to show 32 MHz across the power supply resistor. Is your DVM rated for reading AC current at 32 MHz? If not that could be why the DVM reading was bad. EMdevices was filtering out the AC and just reading the DC current.
You're right, I wouldn't trust my DVM on anything but pure sin < 1khz. The 32MHz signal only accounts for 10% or less of the signal the rest is DC underneath, so I thought that even if the DVM didn't see any of the AC it wouldn't matter too much.
I'm gonna put some more time on this when I get the right transistor. As Peterae said it seems that this particular transistor is needed.
Fraser.
Quote from: Yucca on July 31, 2008, 07:05:51 AM
Hi Everyone,
OK, I got round to building and testing the circuit, however I have used a 2N3904 transistor, so this isn't a replication per-se. Also my supply is a not a semi-depleted 9V battery but it's a bench supply set at 9V. Also I have 100 ohm over output instead of 150 ohm.
Thus far does not show cop>1 for me.
I need to get the right tranny.
Fraser.
@Yucca,
Your waveforms are very close to what I got, as is your amperage. Get rid of that iron powder core! :D
Quote from: EMdevices on July 31, 2008, 10:48:42 AM
I second what Peterae said, the transistor is critical. I think it's that high hfe constant, which for me it's 200.
Sounds like "arm" effect. The higher the HFE the higher will be the current on collector given base's current. Probably can be replaced by more turns on base's winding. I.e. for HFE=50 use 4*8=32 turns instead of 8. Just a speculation. Well, I'm probably mistaken here - this should be 8/4=2 turns (i.e. lower voltage at base -> higher current at base -> higher current at collector). Or maybe I'm completely off here. ;) Sorry for confusion - just posting an idea.
Quote from: eldarion on July 31, 2008, 11:51:43 AM
@Yucca,
Your waveforms are very close to what I got, as is your amperage. Get rid of that iron powder core! :D
Yep the core was from a PC PSU, it was the mains filter. I have a big roll (5kg of 25mm width) of metglass tape on the way from canada woohoo :D primarily for working on Thane's bitoroid. But I will make a little toroid up for blocking oscillator research too.
RE my waveform:
I've just discovered tonight that the waveform I posted was only a small part of the overall waveform, I'm embarrassed to admit :-[ but I never zoomed out by turning down the timebase, I guess it's because I was lucky to have the timebase set to 10ns and it just happened to catch the 32mhz nicely.
Anyway when I zoomed out I saw that I was getting pulses running at about 10khz, each pulse had a few hundred oscillations in it at 32mhz. This explains the DVM giving me a lower current reading than the scope on the input, the scope was only catching the higher amplitude 32mhz pulses with its trigger.
Each pulse had an exponential decay envelope to it that fell about halfway and then stepped sharply to zero, I was suprised to see such a complex waveform from such a simple circuit. I will experiment more with this 2N3904 variant of the circuit.
I have not been able to replicate EM's results yet though I have wound numerious toroids with the cores I have available. Today I purchased 2n4401 transistors, as EM used, and was still not able to get results so I can assume that the core material is the component I am missing. I have order more cores from Amidon so hopefully they will be here early next week.
I have had some rather interesting wave forms develope that I thought I would share. I got these today after installing the 2n4401 in the circuit. The other transistors that I tried with the same circuit did not produce these results.
Here's a list of the transistors I tried that did not work
mps8099 hfe=267
2n2222a hfe=195 (cross match for 2n4401)
bc547 hfe=363
2n3904, hfe=272
2n3440, hfe=53
2n3439 hfe=207
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg145.imageshack.us%2Fimg145%2F9250%2F20080731scope1qe2.jpg&hash=3f066d30cc46f8b35dc5abf80e815b07226557a5)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg112.imageshack.us%2Fimg112%2F6421%2Fmysticoscschemv1vl4.jpg&hash=a71bd2a8b8e9baa26aea39666fbdab61afaafde5)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg151.imageshack.us%2Fimg151%2F6606%2F20080731scope2uv7.jpg&hash=d81b71931734c7d0c12309fbaca0bbf6b269a01c)
The octagonal ring came from an old 20" Gateway monitor that someone threw away and I tried it as a last resort being that I gotten no results with my other toriods.
The ring has all kinds of possiblilities for managing rotation
Duff
I don't know what is going on with my replication (I use the term loosely, as crossreferenced trannies I had for a match would not oscillate at all). Yet, I am going to have to post some shots, as I decided that I may need to vary the pulse frequency, so used a 100k pot. Too low, and a npn goes POOF (I have a small handfull of these. ;d )
I am getting 70volt spikes from hell across the output resistors.
I am going to have to post scope shots, so that you all can make heads or tails of what is happening. I will do it when I get a chance in the near future. One of the few waveforms I have seen not easily explainable by myself in some manner.
Paul Andrulis
@ duff
I think EM was using a 0.01 uF capacitor for C1 whereas you seem to be using a 20 pF capacitor. That might make a difference.
Quote from: xee on July 31, 2008, 08:36:02 PM
@ duff
I think EM was using a 0.01 uF capacitor for C1 whereas you seem to be using a 20 pF capacitor. That might make a difference.
@xee,
I tried a 0.01uF in the circuit before swapping to a 20pF and it produced similar results.
Thanks for noticing
-Duff
Quote from: duff on July 31, 2008, 09:52:55 PM
@xee,
I tried a 0.01uF in the circuit before swapping to a 20pF and it produced similar results.
Thanks for noticing
-Duff
Your toroid looks different to say the least. Why are you not trying to have the same toroidal winding as EMdevices had? Inductances are also different as you wrote them - they should be equal, except the transistor's base inductor.
I have made a few of these now but i do not have the right transistors.
My output is around 1 volt or so...and no heat any where
I have a few 2n types that run however.
I made it open, with no breadboard and a ferrrite core and what is interesting is that component position and lead dress have more influence on the type of oscillation (pulse or continiuos) than the cap values...Im talking millimetres. so wire lengths are important.
Lindsay
Quote from: aleks on August 01, 2008, 03:17:11 AM
Your toroid looks different to say the least. Why are you not trying to have the same toroidal winding as EMdevices had? Inductances are also different as you wrote them - they should be equal, except the transistor's base inductor.
@aleks
Yes, it is different looking. I tried several different toroids before I tried the one in the pic. It was a last effort attempt before ordering more.
There are 14 turns on each of the collector, LC, & LR windings. The base had 8.
That's what Peterae used and EMdevices never explicitly stated the winding count on each of his.
The inductance varied - can only guess why. Maybe some of the turns pulled away for the toroid or it was the way I had to pull them off different sides for routing. The inductance was measured on an old marconi LCR bridge @10KHz (I have digital meters but don't trust them as much).
@all
What I find interesting about the waveforms is the pulsing action along with the resonance in the envelopes OR is this modulation? I don't think I've ever seen the rectangular waveforms before coming from a oscillator....
I need to look at this some more today and try to understand how this is happening.
Is this unusual or is it just me?
-Duff
Duff
EM used 15 turns and 8 for the base drive, also i used a 47k res and a 47k pot in series to allow the base resistor to be adjusted.
Peter
Also your Inductance is way off mine 302uH and 98uH for base drive.
Hi Duff,
EMDevices wrote about his coils number of turns in the 1st page of this thread for you:
Quote from: EMdevices on July 25, 2008, 06:29:32 PM
duff, the toroid has 3 sets of windings, each 15 turns. My added coil for driving the transistor base has 8 turns. Not sure what core type it is.
So eventually you have used the same because Peter also used EMDevices's turns numbers as he wrote.
Quote from: duff on August 01, 2008, 09:02:38 AM
What I find interesting about the waveforms is the pulsing action along with the resonance in the envelopes OR is this modulation? I don't think I've ever seen the rectangular waveforms before coming from a oscillator....
Regarding your waveforms shown in the previous page I think you have two oscillations of different frequencies in the same oscillator circuit. This is not unusual in HF oscillators where there are at least two frequency selective networks or pair of components.
The first is I think the R2C1, this gives the lower frequency oscillations (this is about the 20us time (4 * 5us)). (Notice the value of C1 is modified by the base-emitter input capacitance which from the 2N4401 data sheet can be max 30pF, for a Philips made such transistor, http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/datasheets/2N4401_4.pdf ).
The second is your 8.2uH base feeding coil L1 together with C1 + also the base-emitter input cap value, I think this constitutes the higher frequency operation of around 16 MHz as your digital meter in the oscilloscope shows.
Because the waveforms from EMDevices or Peter do not show a two frequency operation I think the lower frequency operation cannot occur in their circuits due to smaller loopgain or feedback for that lower frequency but in your circuit it can.
Mannix reports he has not used ferrite cores (if I understood it right) so this explains why his wire lengths affect so much the frequency (without ferrite core the coils has much less inductances). He has not reported on the double frequency oscillations but he can see this with a scope only.
Regards,
Gyula
Sorry to be a naysayer... But what should be checked for sure is resistance of resistor at that high frequency (it may rise or may fall in comparison to DC I believe). Another serious obstacle is low-watt rating of resistor. I probably know too little about electricity to tell anything for sure, but the volt/amp reading across some component does not necessarily mean energy DRAW is as high. E.g. in a superconductor you can have voltage and amperage as high as necessary, and for as long time as necessary - all measurable, but they won't be doing WORK. Hence, until you attach MOTOR instead of transistor, the motor that rises a piece of weight up and down, you can't be sure your schematic produces more work than it takes energy from the battery. Better to show layman's proof than EE's "magical" formulas.
Quote from: aleks on August 01, 2008, 02:12:03 PM
Sorry to be a naysayer... But what should be checked for sure is resistance of resistor at that high frequency (it may rise or may fall in comparison to DC I believe).
I, and many other engineers, have used these carbon film resistors in VHF radio equipment--they do not change value by any significant amount, even at 144Mhz. If the measurements of resistor voltage were taken with the scope probe and scope ground attached close to the resistor body, then the results are definitely valid.
Eldarion
Quote from: aleks on August 01, 2008, 02:12:03 PM
Sorry to be a naysayer...- all measurable, but they won't be doing WORK. Hence, until you attach MOTOR instead of transistor, the motor that rises a piece of weight up and down, you can't be sure your schematic produces more work than it takes energy from the battery. Better to show layman's proof than EE's "magical" formulas.
@aleks
I'm sure you understand that actual work being done is not limited to things as tangible as a weight being lifted. Conversion of an energy to heat or another energy is a valid form of work. Similar to what Eldarion stated... in a carbon resistor little will change until heat extremes are met or the frequency applied is so high that the inductance of that resistor and the leads must be considered.
I dislike having to deal with the complexities of pulsing and alternating signals but it is a simple fact of life with electronics. Accuracy with these signals causes problems for more than the layman.
Quote from: BEP on August 01, 2008, 05:53:48 PM
@aleks
I'm sure you understand that actual work being done is not limited to things as tangible as a weight being lifted. Conversion of an energy to heat or another energy is a valid form of work. Similar to what Eldarion stated... in a carbon resistor little will change until heat extremes are met or the frequency applied is so high that the inductance of that resistor and the leads must be considered.
I dislike having to deal with the complexities of pulsing and alternating signals but it is a simple fact of life with electronics. Accuracy with these signals causes problems for more than the layman.
Well, I think you are missing one thing (or maybe I'm mistaken on it), is that resistor not necessarily converts all current into heat. I see it pretty wrong to equate power going along resistor to heat it dissipates. After all, the only purpose of resistor is to provide resistive path to current. This, in turn, simply disfavors one energy path in comparison to another energy path: this can be seen as returning part of the energy back to the previous segment of the circuit while dissipating a bit of it as heat as well. A segment of wire may have a high power going along it, but only a bit of it turning into heat. And of course, motor is not the only thing that can be used. You may use some special calorimeter, or put a LED and measure its light energy output.
Quote from: gyulasun on August 01, 2008, 01:09:19 PM
Hi Duff,
EMDevices wrote about his coils number of turns in the 1st page of this thread for you:
So eventually you have used the same because Peter also used EMDevices's turns numbers as he wrote.
Regarding your waveforms shown in the previous page I think you have two oscillations of different frequencies in the same oscillator circuit. This is not unusual in HF oscillators where there are at least two frequency selective networks or pair of components.
The first is I think the R2C1, this gives the lower frequency oscillations (this is about the 20us time (4 * 5us)). (Notice the value of C1 is modified by the base-emitter input capacitance which from the 2N4401 data sheet can be max 30pF, for a Philips made such transistor, http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/datasheets/2N4401_4.pdf ).
The second is your 8.2uH base feeding coil L1 together with C1 + also the base-emitter input cap value, I think this constitutes the higher frequency operation of around 16 MHz as your digital meter in the oscilloscope shows.
Because the waveforms from EMDevices or Peter do not show a two frequency operation I think the lower frequency operation cannot occur in their circuits due to smaller loopgain or feedback for that lower frequency but in your circuit it can.
Mannix reports he has not used ferrite cores (if I understood it right) so this explains why his wire lengths affect so much the frequency (without ferrite core the coils has much less inductances). He has not reported on the double frequency oscillations but he can see this with a scope only.
Regards,
Gyula
@gyulasun
Woh - I missed EM's response. I believe he did an edit on that post and I never read again after the initial posting. Thanks for pointing that out.
I see what your saying with regards to the base emitter capacitance however when I had the 0.01uF in the circuit I saw the same effect. Don't you think the .01uF cap would have swamped out the junction capacitance?
-Duff
Quote from: eldarion on August 01, 2008, 02:39:45 PM
I, and many other engineers, have used these carbon film resistors in VHF radio equipment--they do not change value by any significant amount, even at 144Mhz. If the measurements of resistor voltage were taken with the scope probe and scope ground attached close to the resistor body, then the results are definitely valid.
Eldarion
any metal film or carbon resistor is inductive IF there surface is not
tublar (outside an ceramic or glas body. or even it is an comosite resistor
(as usual in 1959 60 and longer is USA. that was and carbon powder tat is pressed in the middle of an plastic (bakelite) tube.
most resitors NOW are withe an carbon (or metal) surface that is windeing (as snake) outside and zylindiic body. So the are inductuctive with mostly 5 to 10
turns on the body.
THAT MAKE INDUCTIVITY that will even make problems in some FM circuits,
but it can used also if an small choke is needed, and can replased with an resitor.
(some oszillator circuits, even low-power trnsmitters , will work this way)
Pese
@ duff
You were not asking me, so I hope I am not cutting in. But I suspect the 0.01 uF capacitor acts like an RF short-DC block. The reactance of the 0.01 uF capacitor will be very low so when added in series with the higher reactance from the transistor it will have little affect on the resonant frequency. I hope that explanation makes sense.
Quote from: xee on August 01, 2008, 09:32:16 PM
@ duff
You were not asking me, so I hope I am not cutting in. But I suspect the 0.01 uF capacitor acts like an RF short-DC block. The reactance of the 0.01 uF capacitor will be very low so when added in series with the higher reactance from the transistor it will have little affect on the resonant frequency. I hope that explanation makes sense.
@xee
Not a problem -
Actually you guys have helped a lot - Thanks!
-Duff
hi all
@EM WAY YOU DONT TRAING TO PUT LETS SAY INPUT <3 > 9 VOLTS BATERY IN SERIAL AND SEE THEN WHAT WHILL BE MYBE YOU ARE NEED MORE VOLTAGE TO
ACTIVATE THIS PUSH PULL CIRCUITS WHIT MORE VOLTAGE
MAYBE THEN THE SMALL NPN TRASISTOR WHILL WORK BETER
I SAID BEACOUSE THE NPN OSCILATOR TRASISTORS WORK PROPERTLY OF LITLE HIGH VOLTAG \
MAST IF YOU INCREASE THE VOLTAGE YOU MAST SMALL YOU TURNS OF FEED BACK THAT COIL HO GOING TO BASE OF TRANSISTOR
IF YOU DONT THEN YOU WHILL GET BURST THE TRANS.
;) ;) ;) :D
hi Apostle Macedonia,
You promised long time ago to tell as how it works the SM TPU - where it is?
khabe
Quote from: duff on August 01, 2008, 11:42:10 PM
@xee
Not a problem -
Actually you guys have helped a lot - Thanks!
-Duff
@ Duff, you are welcome.
@ Xee, thanks for chiming in with the explanation, you nicely explained Duff's question for me.
I also agree with your schematics on looping back the output power to replace the battery. I would certainly include a voltage stabilizer in the loop so that no any runaway situation could occur when someone closes the switch into the Run position (in your schematics, Reply # 139). I know that the use of any regulator involves power loss so it should be applied with caution. I mentioned LM317 linear regulator for EMDevices as a simple adjustable solution but many other regulators are available for this task.
Thanks, Gyula
@ gyulasun
I think EMDevices knows what he is doing. The schematic was just a place to start with the intent that he would mark it up with his corrections. If it runs away I do not think he will be too unhappy because that can be easily fixed. I am concerned about changing the load on the coil winding from 150 ohms to an RF short through the capacitor. A good next step would probably be to try to increase the COP but I suspected that he would want to try using what he already had. I am just trying to help out as best I can and it seemed like he was doing the schematics the hard way and might want some help.
Since heat rise is a good relative indication of power level, I have run some temperature rise tests on a 1/2 watt 150 Ohm (approximate) carbon resistor using two tiny thermocouples, one taped to the resistor, the other sensing ambient 77 F (which did not move during the test)
The resistor was a 1/2 watt carbon film from Piher, start cold value 149.8
The resistor was fed from a HP 6181c Variable Current source
Voltage across the resistor was measured with a Fluke87
Temperatures were measured with a Fluke 52 Dual Thermocouple meter.
mA Volts Power W Temp
25 3.73 0.0933 92.0
50 7.41 0.371 131.2
75 11.02 0.826 190.0
100 14.58 1.46 266.2
125 17.88 2.23 350.6
150 21.1 3.16 435.8
The resistor changed value a bit during the test from the heat. Final cold value was149.6
I built up the mystery coil and got the identical waveform as EM. The same resistor was used with T/C and temperature never exceeded 190 F putting the power at roughly 0.83 Watts. I even tried tuning the resonant cap.
Power input to the circuit was about 20% higher. Unless you have true RMS computation within your scope, you cannot use the peak to peak voltage in a power formula because of the odd waveshape.
attached is the pdf if values get scrambled during post
.........V
@ Vortex1
Excellent test. Thanks. But EM was getting approximately 17 volts across his 150 ohm 1/4 resistor. In your chart, 190F is only 11 volts.So it would seem that you are not getting as much output voltage as he was (and therefore not as much power). Would you agree with that?
Oh stupid me. He was getting 17 volts peak. That would be about 12 volts RMS. But still higher than 11 volts.
xee
The 11 volts does not represent output of my coil, rather it is a static test of 75 mA DC through the 150 ohm resistor from my DC current source. In this case it produced 190 F heating, which resistor can now be connected to coil to see if heating effect is greater or smaller. This was reference information.
How do you go from 17 volts peak to 12 volts RMS. This is not possible except with simple rules, which do not hold for irregular waveforms and are therefore highly inaccurate with high crest ratios.
Perhaps I was not clear......V
@ Vortex1,
You are probaby correct. Afterall, it is theoretically impossible to get more power out than goes in. You seem to have provided a good method of testing EMDevices results. But his sine waves looked good after he added additional RF traps.
EDIT: I guess this is a good example of how hard it is to tell how perfect a sine wave is just by looking at it.
Hi xee
I do not rule out that something interesting could be happening with EM's coil. I am just interested in getting precise power measurements, which is difficult considering crest factors. My RF powermeters do not have enough resolution or accuracy for this low power level, I cannot rely on scope waveforms unless the scope has very wide bandwith. Even then crest factors must be considered.
Please check wikipedia for a quick overview of measurement when crest factors are involved.
I do wish EM the best and hope his circuit does produce OU.
ART
QuoteAs is well known, and documented, there is such a thing as "Cold"
electricty.
How do you know the device is producing "cold electricity" if it cannot be measured?
Show me a documented device that produces "cold electricity" that anyone can replicate.
Supply a circuit that truly delivers "cold electricity" and I will come up with a way to measure it.
Kind regards......V
Quote from: Vortex1 on August 02, 2008, 08:22:46 PM
Since heat rise is a good relative indication of power level, I have run some temperature rise tests on a 1/2 watt 150 Ohm (approximate) carbon resistor using two tiny thermocouples, one taped to the resistor, the other sensing ambient 77 F (which did not move during the test)
Nice test, but DC is known for high thermic losses. Do you think at 20 MHz losses will be similar? After all, we have 50/60 Hz in a wall outlet because previously at DC losses were unbearable. For even better test you could attach a function generator.
Aleks
The RMS value of an AC waveform is defined as "the heating effect of an AC waveform when applied to a non-inductive resistor", in other words, the DC equivalent. So, if the instrument is a 'true RMS' meter, it should read the RMS value regardless of the shape of the waveform.
Most RMS measurements relate to a sinusoidal (i.e.undistorted) waveform. Simpler instruments actually respond to the peak value of the AC waveform and apply a standard calibration factor to display the RMS value on the scale, but in such cases it is only accurate for pure sine waves.
AC voltages sitting on a DC bias will give incorrect readings. You should use a DC voltmeter to measure the average DC, then interpose a capacitor to isolate the DC and measure the 'ripple' or AC component using your RMS voltmeter.
But some meters don't like excessively 'peaky' waveforms. Generally, the solid-state digital meters are accurate as long as the peak value is less than 6 times the RMS value, more than that, all bets are off.
The most accurate true-RMS meters are hot-wire ammeters. Moving-iron meters are inhrently true-RMS reading too, but their accuracy diminishes with frequency.
Analog Devices and Linear Technology make several RMS-DC converters as integrated circuits. One of the Linear Technology devices is actually a dual heater-on-a chip. It works very well.
There are True RMS meters and True RMS meters.
An average responding meter, such as a Fluke 77 will assume a sinewave. If measuring anything else, the reading will be subject to error.
Whereas a Fluke 87 TRMS meter will measure the TRMS content of an AC waveform only. If you are measuring mixed AC/DC, if I remember correctly, the manual says you should measure the AC voltage and then the DC voltage.
The next step up is say a Fluke 189. This can measure the combined AC+DC TRMS content.
At the top of the scale, so to speak, you've got a meter with a thermal converter, such as a Fluke 892X, or a Fluke 8506. This will give the most accurate results for the most distorted waveform, and/or an AC/DC mix.
Additionally, TRMS meters have a wider frequency response, an average responding meter such as a Fluke 77 will start to roll-off at 1kHz at best; possibly more likely nearer 400Hz.
A TRMS meter such as a Fluke 87 will be good to 20kHz or so.
Thermal TRMS meters are often good to MHz.
source:vintage radio UK
I've spent half a lifetime making low level power measurements. Thermal conversion is still known as the most accurate method when high frequencies and distorted waveforms are involved. IfI you can't afford the fancy equipment you can make a differential thermocouple circuit that compares an unknown temperature rise with a known temperature rise. Cost to you: two matched resistors, two thermocouples, any cheap meter that can read millivolts since you will be adjusting the power input to the "reference" power resistor for a "null". The thermocouples are taped to the resistors and connected inversely. Need I explain more?
QuoteAfter all, we have 50/60 Hz in a wall outlet because previously at DC losses were unbearable.
This is another "Tesla" type urban legends that annoy me. Actually DC is not practical because of corrosion effects at dissimilar metal junctions. It is actually more efficient since it does not radiate, hence is used for the newest high voltage transmission in parts of the US grid. DC is still used throughout your automobile with few negative effects except at the battery terminals.
......V
Quote from: Vortex1 on August 03, 2008, 08:00:39 AM
The RMS value of an AC waveform is defined as "the heating effect of an AC waveform when applied to a non-inductive resistor", in other words, the DC equivalent.
Well, no argue here, but heating effect does always depend on current's frequency and characteristics of the medium. Does it mean that "non-inductive resistor" heats equally well on any frequency, and that resistor basically works as a heater? I always assumed that resistor is more of a "current blocker" than direct current to heat converter (otherwise energy coming from the wall outlet could not be limited). Your Power/temperature graph does not tell much since average surface temperature depends on the thermal capacity and thermal conductance. I mean, from temperature measurement you can't tell how much energy is dissipated into surrounding air. OK, I may be wrong, but then it's good since it means I need to rework my understanding.
Quote from: Vortex1 on August 03, 2008, 08:00:39 AM
This is another "Tesla" type urban legends that annoy me. Actually DC is not practical because of corrosion effects at dissimilar metal junctions. It is actually more efficient since it does not radiate, hence is used for the newest high voltage transmission in parts of the US grid. DC is still used throughout your automobile with few negative effects except at the battery terminals.
You probably wanted to say DC does not "inductively couple". DC is not always used in automobiles, and DC motor driver circuit is subject to heavy overheating due to excessive quantity of transients. More advanced autos use 3phase AC motor/generator. Please if you can, give me an URL that compares transmission efficiency of DC and AC power. From what I've read, AC always won. In fact, for more advanced power lines a much higher frequency (in kilohertz range) was suggested.
Well, I should have rememberd Joule's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%27s_Law Sorry, need to review my understanding.. (I assumed resistor works as a voltage/current blocker, but not as a result of heating which is so much inefficient).
However, why not measure voltage across all other resistors? and then sum the dissipated power up? Won't it be funny? :) ah, not in this scheme as another resistor is 100k which will give a low dissipation value per formula.
To sum up, I'm sorry for my rambling, I have to work on my understanding better. You probably did achieve overunity. I personally just have a problem with physical formulas - so much reality packed into so little formulas. Probably that's why physicists tend to be pretentious (I do not want to insult anyone, sorry).
Quote from: aleks on August 03, 2008, 08:59:35 AM
You probably wanted to say DC does not "inductively couple". DC is not always used in automobiles, and DC motor driver circuit is subject to heavy overheating due to excessive quantity of transients. More advanced autos use 3phase AC motor/generator. Please if you can, give me an URL that compares transmission efficiency of DC and AC power. From what I've read, AC always won. In fact, for more advanced power lines a much higher frequency (in kilohertz range) was suggested.
say what ???
yeah check your facts.
DC motor drive is not DC for starters. it's pulsed DC so it doesn't even qualify for this transmission of power discussion.
do you know antenna theory? i'm no expert either, but all conductors radiate, and
they radiate better the higher you go in frequency. so for conventional transmission of power along 2 conductors, DC is obviously the best, because there is almost zero radiation. there are IR losses, but boosting it up to similar rms voltages levels (in other words HVDC) as used in AC transmission should minimize this power loss.
AC power transmission usually wins because it is easy to manage. step up and down is a snap. etc.
i'm sure vortex will correct me and add where needed here.
Thanks Poynt
Actually,I got tired of typing and hoped someone else would jump in. I agree with your explanation. HVDC has less (near zero) radiation loss but is expensive to up/downconverrt, therefore only used for the long haul and main trunks.
By the way has everyone calibrated their scope probes at 20-30 MHz before attempting to use the scope display as an accurate indicator?..Considerable error can occur if not.
......V
Quote from: poynt99 on August 03, 2008, 12:41:41 PMthey radiate better the higher you go in frequency.
Talking about an ideal world, eh? Radiating at 60 Hz, or even at 5kHz is pretty much problematic. I agree that in ideal conditions, highest quality line DC can potentially come out as a winner (if you are sure skin effect of higher frequencies won't make you any good).
Oh boy! We're really in the thicket now.
Quote from: Loner on August 03, 2008, 05:55:34 PM
I know I am. (In the Thicket) "Only" reason? Yeah Right. Ignore me. ;D
LOL LOL LOL!!!
now that was funny...
ist
is someone gonna post a pic of 1 aa battery powering 80 LED'S??
this can be done cuz i have done it ......
Of course it can be done. Page 101 of your switchmode handbook. Nothing new here.
just for fun, a simulation ;D
PRbat ~ .22Wrms
PBat ~ 2.43Wrms
PRload ~ 3.78Wrms
so COP: 3.78/2.65 = 1.426
frequency is about 2.2 MHz
next, closing the loop...
capacitor supply initial charge to 7V. battery is removed.
first scope with 150 Ohm load before bridge.
second scope with 150k Ohm load before bridge.
both cases show gradual decrease in output swing across load and therefore a decreasing supply voltage.
in this instance closing the loop looks to be underunity, even though the original COP calculation showed COP>1.
i'd stick to bench work art.
i did this sim just for fun, probably not worth more than a quick glimpse.
Quote from: poynt99 on August 10, 2008, 02:08:59 AM
i'd stick to bench work art.
i did this sim just for fun, probably not worth more than a quick glimpse.
indeed it is the best way to learn after you see somthing strange go to the source and and digg real deep with a small enough shovel....
to find what you seek...
or sift through all the BS round here ....
i found the SOURCE to be more accurate and far simpler..... ;D
then compare the 2 tesla and sm find the truth between the 2 we know tesla was correct ....
how?
HE STATED HE WAS NEVER WRONG......
intresting dont ya THINK?
ist
was tesla a human after all? ;) of course he was but a verry focoused one with big dreams in hand :)
In most cases, simulators can be used for a good indicator of how things will go.
But they are still simulators and can not account for everything involved. In some
cases they will down right fail the test. I have learned that it is just best to set it up
and run the test if you want the out come bad enough. It will cost but then what is
"your" limit in seeking the truth out.
thaelin
poynt99 thanks for doing the simulation. It's encouraging to see it give similar results. Now that you have it up and running you can tweak it and optimize it. I might try and simulate the same thing when I get some time. I'm in the process of moving and won't be experimenting for a while...
EM
EM,
yeah, i might play with it some. it seems 150 Ohms is already about the optimum load. 50 ohms gave COP about 0.8, and 400 Ohms was down to about 1.3.
i'll be curious to see your sim results.
have a smooth move dude :D
Nice work Poynt
Can you remove the tuned parasitic coil L3, C1 to see what effect this has on the simulation. Can you eliminate this and just peak up the output coil with a variable cap?
Also be interesting to try a "tuned plate, tuned grid" approach (from tubes, United States Patent 3747013) and see if there are efficiency improvements. Basically, tune C3 and C5 to apply to this transistor circuit.
I'll try this with my breadboard.
Curious......V
vortex,
when i get some time (real busy this week), i'll try what you suggest, and "slapper" also asked for a couple things. maybe this weekend.
@EM
I think the trannie was 2N2222A. Anyway, an interesting feature is that this trannie will act as a resonating negistor. (not OU, but a negistor, in that it draws less current with the higher voltage applied to the circuit.) I think I cam across it at JLNLabs (Naudin) website. I remember GK has a link on every post of his.
My thinking is this.... Say Poynts model is correct. So what? For the first section of the cycle, it IS OU. What you need to do, is pulse the overall circuit, with the time ranges of the pulses to HOLD it within the OU range. Pulsing the resonator, so to speak.
My thought is that the negistor circuit will provide both necessary voltage (gain with just one tranny, and you can link them in series for higher voltage with the same DC input voltage) and timing all in one tiny circuit (3 minimum components total). If you are interested, and it is not from JLN Labs, let me know and I will find it again (at that point anywhere from B. Beatty's site, to Rex or Bearden's...... but I think it was JLN).
Also, I have come across another SIMPLE OU device... 4 diodes, 4 caps, 100 feet of wire, that looks interesting. The problem is it only puts out microwatts of power... :( But hey, maybe it can be expanded upon to increase power! I will provide a link if anyone's interested.
Paul Andrulis
I had an electronic experiment kit if I was 8 years old.
Built a nice amp with (dont know) there was a class A
output stage with a bc328, and an bf494 preamp - should
amplify something. I found out that if I tap the diode -
some potential current source - with my wet fingers
there was a quite fascinating random modulated tone
comming out the pieco earphone.
Did only work for an afternoon - but
want to have that again. Could have listened for hours.
Never did the same again. Maybe due to the weird
grounding in that house. far out.
Hi EM,
any news on your circuit ?
Any new measurements ?
Many thanks.
@EM
TPUbruce posted a video on youtube, and is claiming to have gotten your circuit self running. I will see if I can provide a direct link to the vid. He gave you credit for the invention. (Which I thought was right.)
Paul Andrulis
@all
here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiIkeFXqRos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiIkeFXqRos)
Paul Andrulis
@pauldude000
It is not selfrunning for ever. Bruce's words - "1000 uf cap, lasts for 39 minutes."
Kames.
thanks for the links paul,
I've moved to an area surrounded by mountains, and hopefully plentiful in naturally occurring electromagnetic fluctuations that I can tap with a well designed loop antenna and doubly balanced mixer combination to reach those low frequencies, IF THEY EXIST :)
I'll be experimenting and playing with electronics soon enough, I haven't given up on this exciting area of research.
EM