See downloads here and wattage plot graphic from LTspice analysis and then read the below post to obtain an explaination of the result of the test.
This is perfected and finalized........
Well the sonic resonator is well baked enough developed along to give a report of the advancements that have been made to improve it. And to make it conform to numerous standards of scrutiny. And I've learned here that you will not please everyone but those of you who are electronics techs, and use LTspice I think that my final development model here and its out come will interest you to run my simulation files and analyze (see above downloads).
Consider the following based upon a DC power input of 5.29 Watts pure steady state DC.
First of all the DC signal output has been worked on and perfected into a DC signal square wave output. The amplitude of the DC signal is 8.23 Watts. The rms, average and peak of a square wave are the same. And please note that the output at this point across the 120 ohm load resistor is a DC Peak signal output of 8.23 Watts. This has not been converted to peak to peak AC in the model but I have a model I have done this with.
Also, extra energy is stored in the half wave cycle by it being extend past the 180 degree half cycle point by +50 degrees to the 230 degree point in the wave cycle. So energy has been stored in the half wave by extension of the half cycle of 0.5 wave cycles to 0.64 wave cycles. As can be seen in the babove LTspice wattage plot. And you can download the model to run and verify that this is the case below. You can easily see that the half wave in proportion to the entire wave cycle, is reaching over into the negative half cycle and so, has its half cycle period extended.
Since this is a DC output signal, the positive half cycle is the On state, and the negative half cycle is the Off state. And so, can be viewed the same way as a digital signal. The Period of the On state then is extended +50 degrees to the 230 degree position of the wave cycle. So the the period of the On state of the power cycle is thus now 64% (230 degrees) of the wave cycle rather than 50% (180 degrees) of the wave cycle. So more energy is added into the power cycle this way, and not just only in the unusual peak power output amplitude that the model demonstrates in software simulations. The power then is stored in the wave cycle both by amplitude ~ as well as by extension of the period of the half cycle to 230 degrees.
Now there is no way with ordinary circuit concepts you are going to get a square wave output of 8.23 Watts output with only 5.29 Watts DC input from a DC power supply. If you do the math on a purely lossless system model (theoretically 100% efficient system) you will not get a 8.23 Watts square wave calculated out of an input of 5.29 Watts DC input ~ unless there is more to the circuits concepts and principles than meets the eye. Such as conservation of losses and restoration of those losses back into the circuit to do useful work. And the use of electromechanical resonance.
If you convert 5.29 Watts DC to a DC Signal Peak of 5.29W*1.414 = 7.48006W in a lossless model (and this is based upon a sine wave peak rather than a square wave). So the rms value of the sine wave peak will be 5.29 Watts, and our rms value of our square wave is the same as its average and peak which equals 8.23 Watts. Understand? See? Thats over unity.
Ok now imagine that you upscale this device into the hundreds of watts range or the kilowatts range.
Example: Input power is 529 Watts, the output square wave power then equals 823 Watts. And so, for lighting and heating we have a unique scenario for cost saving.
Or lets upscale this to look like this:
5290 Watt steady DC In ~ 8230 Watts DC square wave signal Out.
(By adding a capacitor in series with the output and a light bulb or heater you have a simple method of converting the DC to AC for such loads.)
So, the idea seems to hold some interesting potential especially for industrial lighting and heating cost savings. But would be something nice to use out here in the private residential sector for our lighting and heating needs.
For industrial manufacturing facilities that use a few thousands watts per day merely for lighting, and then in the winter uses infra red space heating for large open areas. I am sure that a good amount of cost savings can be accomplished by use of these circuits to enhance the power. And so, I would classify these devices as "electrical power enhancement circuits".
Summed Up:
Here is how it all adds up. After the software simulation runs the circuit's simulation the DC power input starts to become steady after 3 seconds. So the initial charge up of the circuit is complete and the current and voltage of the power supply become steady at around 5.29 Watts steady state DC. Now since there is no periodic wave cycle power in the power supply at this point. The rms, average and peak power input of the power supply are all one and the same, 5.29 Watts pure DC steady state. And so, the square wave output is likewise to the DC power input, the rms, average and peak power of the square wave are one and the same, 8.23 Watts. So we have a power enhancement of: 2.94 Watts.
Extended Half Cycle Period:
Now its hard to tell how the extended period of the half cycle will average out in terms of the power that is placed in the extended +50 degrees past the 180 degree half cycle.
It just so happens that 5.29 Watts / 8.23 Watts = 0.6427
When rounded off, this equals 0.64 or our extended half cycle period.
Since there appears to be a direct relationship between the square wave amplitude and the extended period of the half cycle. I can not say that we can extend the period of the half cycle anymore. And so, there is a limit.
If it can be extended I do not believe that it can be extend so that the angle of the period is 270 degrees, which would reach the negative peak. But, if it is possible to extend it more, then I suspect that it will not go past 0.7 wave cycles at most. Perhaps 0.68 might be the limit if that amount of periodic extension can be accomplished?
It would perhaps take a super computer able to analyze and also make design changes and tweaks, to come up with some sort of improvement. Given a standard model to begin with, the software then would analyze the circuit, change a parts unit value and analyze the results of the various changes made and tabulate the data ~ and then formulate the most efficient model from its data. So thats what we need to happen somewheres, someday. Its kind of hard for one person to keep track of all of the various changes and their effect and data.
Innovation:
I guess all we are going to get is baby steps here, and so, the rest is up to a whole army of researchers and university students to improve and make something out of the math of it all.
I am hoping though that someone with some Spice library models for vacuum tubes might make this into a higher powered device model. And maybe realize a greater ratio of input to output power for use in such things as industrial electric lighting and heating. My tube suggestion for this is the 4-65 A beam power tube. And if anyone comes up with a LTspice library model for this particular vacuum tube, then I would like to have a copy of that to model circuits with.
I would have to say that with all of the circuit components, that would normally result in allot of losses in such a circuit. And with a DC power input that in no way under conventional thinking can equate to a square wave output as this model demonstrates, that this model best demonstrates what some refer to as over unity. Which in some engineering circles is a taboo and hence forbidden term.
You can download the model here and run it and who knows, somewheres, sometime ~ someone else may advance it even more.
Loading The Circuit:
As for the ways I have found to load the circuit to take power off, you can use a capacitor, a resistor or a coil or transformer. However when you add a diode or two to rectify the output and then a filter capacitor you have immediate losses. I believe that one of the things that happens is that the diodes pulse the half cycles and so, these pulses feed back into the transistor collector circuit of L1 and L2, etc, as a reflected wave and upset the circuits timings. And the filter capacitor draws allot of charge current. This does not mean that in time a remedy will not be found. However if no remedy is ever found, then the application of the circuit is such that it will work with resistive loads such as electric lights and heaters. But these things account for allot of our power use. Electric heating is used in manufacturing on a daily basis and not just in the winter.
Applications:
Given enough output voltage, the circuit I believe could change the way we light our buildings particularly when using fluorescent lights that respond to higher frequencies better than they do to 60 Hz. Some fluorescent lights can be fired up without filament heaters in each end. Tesla did this using H.F. frequencies.
Also, in some of my models I have been able to effect high instantaneous power peaks. Such peaks I believe would be useful with fluorescent lights and with quartz (infra red) heaters as well as with oil filled heaters that store heat in the thermal mass of the oil. The idea of the oil heater is to use the regular 120V AC line to bring the oil up to hot, then this device can replenish heat losses with instantaneous high wattage peaks. And so, sort of stroke the heat, and stoke it up. While resulting in a cost savings.
However the square wave output when used in a higher voltage and higher powered model is able to flat out run a quartz or oil filled heater and bring it up to hot, and then can be switched, manually or in a self automated manner to provide instantaneous power peaks which is more applicable with oil filled heaters than with quartz types (the instantaneous peak mode I mean).
And well, the device can be used with incandescent light bulbs also.
Since the device works on a DC power supply input, in an emergency the device can be powered by a few automotive batteries and so, provide light and heat.
Since the device can be used with batteries it then would make a great addition to solar electric systems since the device can run straight off of the storage battery bank. And so, enhance the lighting and heating capability of solar electric systems making them more efficient.
The margin of efficiency that my low powered simulation model under discussion here demonstrates is equal to:
8.23 Watts / 5.29 Watts = 1.55:1
Now to calculate the improvement:
5.29 Watts / 8.23 Watts = 0.6427 ~ equal to the extended period of the half cycle
0.64 wave cycle - 0.5 wave cycle = 0.14
0.14*100 =14%
14% then equals the power enhancement improvement that this model would provide to a solar electric system.
More Software Analysis:
I have seen applications written for LTspice by hobbyist that run in the program. My thoughts is that someone might become familiar with these circuits. Or a team of researchers, may write an application for use in LTspice, or an whole new Spice software, that can analyze this circuit (and this circuit only) and self adjust and tweak around the parts values so that the software can come up with a design with the best figures of Input versus Output. And such things as transistor or vacuum tube max voltage and current ratings not be exceeded.
Conclusion:
I believe in sharing things that are important with others. And I know allot of us study and try hard to accomplish things with regards to potential over unity or alternative energy innovations. And so, more minds working on somethings leads to something in the world sooner. And who knows, someone may be working on something that we can not conceive of at the moment that will achieve something even more for us when combined with these ideas.
Then again, we may not ever find anything else that seems for the moment to be feasible at least in software analysis. And I know I don't have any 1 Henry to 0.5 Henry transformers at the moment to prototype a test bench model with, but someone out there may.
I of course do hope that something else will come along somewheres to help round out the world of alternative energy concepts. And whether or not their ideas can be combined with mine for a more complete and effective concept. Well, is not the point, if someone else has something that is working or at least can be modeled in software, then I hope that their innovations also will add to the world of things that we need.
More than anything, we need people to become focused on something that appears to be feasible in software analysis. And so, allow as many as can and want to, to do those analysis themselves and so, pool together. And then as a world wide team of interest, we can make test and if all goes well, we will have something that I hope will work on the test bench. An who knows who will be the first to get all of the parts together to test it all? Sure wished today that I had the parts to test it all.
If I could have a transformer to test these circuits with, I would like one of those new toroid core power supply and audio transformer types with a 1 Henry primary and a 0.5 Henry secondary. And there is a new core material that is used with audio transformers that consist of powdered ferrite with piezio electric crystal powder impregnated into the powdered ferrite core. It is said that this core enhances the audio quality and so, I wonder what it might do in this circuit? I wonder if the piezio electric crystal might be capable of adding its electrical energy to the sum of energies?
Ok, when I saw that my concepts worked in software simulations, I thought then that I had accomplished it. But I had to work at it all to get something substantial out of it. And so, days it looked all good and then days it did not.
And so, I concluded early in my testing that if all I could get out of this is enhancements for electric lighting and heating then thats perhaps what we need the most at this time. And so, though the device fails when I attempt to convert the output to DC for obtaining an energy efficient power supply it does shine with potential for use with lighting and heating.
So, when I realized that my square wave output held up to the idea of a notable and demonstrable energy enhancement. I was satisfied with that. I did realize in the end what I was looking for. And its hard to argue with the results when it comes to us in a square wave output in watts where the rms, average and peak power of the square wave are all one and the same.
LTspice IV analysis then demonstrates that the over unity device concept works in software, and is feasible in software analysis. And anyone can run the simulation for themselves and analyze the DC input versus the square wave output power ratio. And you can download those files here at in this post. See above.
For those of you who do not have LTspice and those of you who want to know where the power is measured at output here is a circuit diagram.
The power is measured across R1 in the LTspice software analysis.
If anyone is interested in what an actual square wave looks like, and how even the small deviations from squareness exhibited by the output of the above circuit affect the claim of "overunity", you can check that other thread.
I know what a square wave looks like, and I also know how to count every little crest and trough of the ripple across the top of a square wave and average up the power. And anyone else who is familiar with LTspice can and most likely will do the same. And I recommend that they do.
And since the period of the square wave has been extended that makes the power stretch out across the wave cycle which I doubt that you can account for. Extends the power across the wave cycle and that adds up.
It happens that 5.29 Watts in / 8.23 watts out = 0.64 which is the amount that the half cycle period has been extended across the wave cycle. So that averages up to some higher than you know. And so, tell me what that amounts too? How does that extra power in the extended period average out?
In practise in switching power supplies a little bit of wave cycle ripple across the top of a square wave means very little.
And well, if you are doing something in this world to make this world a better place then maybe you can have some comment here. If you are here to shoot down and antagonize us all who are trying to do something well have your fun. Those who are interested in whats going on here will look at the files and run them and someone may even build the thing if they have the ideal parts in their junk box.
Now if you got some electronics education and know what your talking about then comment. But I very much doubt that your comments will add up to much in the long run. And if you think that this is the only forum that I have this posted in for examination and download then think again.
But have your fun if you want. Show me one of your inventions please? Maybe you got one covetted invention that you promote, of which perhaps you do not understand how it works? Just a reader?
For those us, those of you, who know to check out things for yourself ~ I know you will. And so, let the files and your analysis of them in LTspice be your guide. I know that some of you are pretty keen on things and will appreciate my files allot.
So enjoy them.
As far as thinking that I will answer every criticle comment or view, well I won't be paying attention because I know what I am doing here with these things. And you do not. Folk who want to know will look into it and analyze it and so, thats the important thing.
We all know enough to not pay attention to everything that some folk have to say. Since you are not going to satisfie the views of everyone, and shouldn't even try or bother too.
I take good advice in a forum when I recognize it, but know enough to stay on track with my work and dismiss antagonist.
Dear D.R. Jackson,
TinselKoala, who others on this forum used to know as "Al" is a skeptic of anything O.U. and a Hoaxer. Please do not let him dissuade you or bother you too much.
Keep up the good work!
Kind regards,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on May 09, 2009, 04:43:32 PM
Dear D.R. Jackson,
TinselKoala, who others on this forum used to know as "Al" is a skeptic of anything O.U. and a Hoaxer. Please do not let him dissuade you or bother you too much.
Keep up the good work!
Kind regards,
Bruce
I read their other comments in my other post and concluded that all of their preoccupation over significant figures concluded that they were a nut.
I will not be dissuaded.
I have one more comment to post about this individual.
Thank You
D.R. Jackson
P.S.
I was sure that someone would come along who would not be satisfied with a square wave with a little ripple, and maybe a so slight deviation in the base width of the wave compared to the top width of the wave.
I knew that someone like that would come along. However, those who have been in electronics a long time, know enough to know that slight deviations do not stop the circuit from performing to close enough specifications such that we would never dream of building and testing and hopefully perfect a test bench model. Etc. etc.
And as to your comments in my other post about this device and the amount of significant figures that the software computes to power to be, up to 5, 6 or seven figures past the decimal point. In practise we usually just round those off to three figures. Maybe two significant figures past the decimal. And as to why someone wants to be so precise in measuring every little figure down to 5, 6 of 7 figures past the decimal, well you can do that if you want. But most of the time we do not.
One thing you did not comment on, was the unusual fact about the period of the power half cycle being increased to 0.64 wave cycles (to 230 degrees). So how do you account for that and the power in that extra 14% of added period? Can't explain that can you?
Anyways such comments as those made about these matters will not deter anyone who sees what is up; from want to examine this all the more.
And if the individual thinks that we have the time to answer such trivial questions about minute details about imperfections of wave form and about a string of significant figures past the decimal. Well as for such trivial things, no one has the time to waste to pay attention to such an individual. So post such trivial comments all you want. The sum of them, does not out weigh the sum of the findings of this circuit that everyone can analyze.
After having read more of you comments at my other post, I thought I would tell people what you are up to. And so, enjoy yourself all you want. We will keep up our work and stay on course, despite you.
Well,
Spice is a nice tool -
BUT
You need to understand a little bit more to use it.
I would start to _READ_ about the difference between Energy and Power. Thats essential for further investigation.
Its _NO_ OU to make a pulse with higher power out of a powersupply with less power.
Take a photo flash - during charging it takes few watts for some seconds to charge - and can release it with the power of more than 100 watts.
Your circuit increases the power and not the energy.
I can make a 1MW pulse out of a 1W source - if i charge the 1W source for a million of seconds I got the energy of 1MWs - I can discharge that for 1s and get a 1MW impulse.
The energy you got is your 8.xxW times the dutycycle - thats 0.64 - so its slightly less than your input cycle.
Your output voltage is not rectangular - its pulsed dc - so the rms value is as above.
The "rms"=="peak" only applies on _TRUE_ AC.
Having great tools like spice doesn´t compensate the basic understanding of electricity.
Quote from: D.R.Jackson on May 09, 2009, 04:59:51 PM
I read their other comments in my other post and concluded that all of their preoccupation over significant figures concluded that they were a nut.
I will not be dissuaded.
I have one more comment to post about this individual.
Thank You
D.R. Jackson
There a few others also.
Paul.
Quote from: fritz on May 09, 2009, 06:36:56 PM
Well,
Spice is a nice tool -
BUT
You need to understand a little bit more to use it.
I would start to _READ_ about the difference between Energy and Power. Thats essential for further investigation.
Its _NO_ OU to make a pulse with higher power out of a powersupply with less power.
Take a photo flash - during charging it takes few watts for some seconds to charge - and can release it with the power of more than 100 watts.
Your circuit increases the power and not the energy.
I can make a 1MW pulse out of a 1W source - if i charge the 1W source for a million of seconds I got the energy of 1MWs - I can discharge that for 1s and get a 1MW impulse.
The energy you got is your 8.xxW times the dutycycle - thats 0.64 - so its slightly less than your input cycle.
Your output voltage is not rectangular - its pulsed dc - so the rms value is as above.
The "rms"=="peak" only applies on _TRUE_ AC.
Having great tools like spice doesn´t compensate the basic understanding of electricity.
If I understand you right Fritz, you are assuming that the DC power input is not steady state at this point in the circuit and does not equate to pure DC? Which after 3 seconds of charge up time the DC power input settles down to a steady state and contains no periodic information from the circuit.
The voltage and current then are steady at this point.
You will not find anything in the power supply after this point to suggest that there is any pulsed power (periodic power) coming from the power supply.
Now as for energy in the circuit. You have to remember that electromechanical resonance has long been considered to be additive energy. In theory. And also, the greater the mass the greater the energy. And so, we have large transformer and coil masses in the circuit to add that energy in terms of an induced electromotive force in volts. So thats the view applied to the added energy needed.
And so, the circuit increases the power as you say, but there is also a mean provided for additive energy. The circuit uses Virtual Power Supply Terminals created by the diodes to recapture losses. And those losses can only be returned back into the circuit through the emitter of the transistor as additional current supplied by the rectification of current that L1 induced into L2.
Yes its true that you can produce intantaneous peaks of over 1 MW out ot a watt. But its kind of hard to produce allot of wattage out of a little in the form of a nearly square wave, with an increased half cycle period.
Intantaneous power of the kind you mentioned of 1 MW from 1 watt. Is of a very small period of duration since 1 watt in no way can support 1 MW for a period of one half cycle more or less for 1/4 wave cycle. So, the matter of how long the period or duration of the power output is is directly related to the input power in that if you increase the power to instantaneous power, the duration of that high wattage peak is going to be far less than half the wave cycle and less than 0.25 wavecycels.
My models can be made to produce instantaneous peaks and their period is always far less than half a cycle. So, there is no way 1 watt can support 1 MW for 180 degrees.
My circuit supports 8.23 Watts for a period of 0.64 wavecycles which is +50 degrees past 180 degrees. So that whats up here. with only 5.29 watts in DC that is steady state and not being peaked up into pulsed energy by the circuit.
5.29 watts peaked up = 7.48006 W peak and thats a sine wave peak. That can not explain the 8.23 watts of near square wave. Wher the rms, average and peak of a square wave are all one and the same.
See you have to do your math!
Do the math, thats considered impossible.
Having worked in radio since 1976 and RF power amplifiers I know the difference between rms, average and peak power of sine waves pretty well. And so, go look up the effects of sqyare wave power in terms of rms, average and peak as compared to sine wave power in terms of rms, average and peak.
Now when you can explain that high wattage instantaneous peaks from 1 watt to procude 1 Mw is possible, but only for a small period of duration in a wave cycle, and can not be sustained very long per wave cycle. And then come to find out that my power output here if for long than 180 degrees of the wave cycle and is equal to the half cycle period being extended from 0.5 of the wavecyle to 0.64, or from 180 to 230 degrees, you can not sustain that amount of power output with a little bit of Dc power input, unless the circuit has means to add energy to the scheme.
When you can explain that, the extension of the period ~ that makes it all different.
5.29 Watts / 8,23 watts = 0.64 which is directly related to the extension of the period past the 180 degree wavecycel point. And since the power supply has no periodic information being fed back into it as a small amount of instantaneous pulsed power being drawn to effect this, then that makes this all different than you are thinking.
In order to understand this circuit and what it is doing you have to run the model and then see that there is no power from the power supply as you suggest. Not even in the form of a small pulse. So you really have to run the model to evaluate the performance and so, without running the model and examining it after 3 seconds or more of initial circuit charge up time to come to a steady state of DC power input, you miss the actions of the circuit.
If done correctly, power measurements are valid for determining COP.
In the case presented here where the claimed COP is 8.33W/5.29W = 1.57:1, an error has been made.
With pulsed DC power, the RMS power is the average power over one cycle (assuming the wave form is periodic).
Input power (RMS) = 5.29W RMS (no dispute here, will assume correct)
Output power (RMS) = 8.23Wp x .64 (duty cycle) = 5.27W RMS
COP = Po/Pi = 5.27/5.29 = 0.996:1
Conclusion: The circuit is clearly underunity, and LTSpice is running correctly. Interpretation of the output data is in error.
Two oversights:
1) Duty Cycle must be taken into account for any measurement, and for pulsed DC the RMS power is the average power. If the wave form is periodic (i.e. repeating consistently) one need only compute one cycle. The RMS power is: Po(peak) [Ton/period].
2) From the above it was noted that the COP was nearly 1:1. In theory it should have been exactly 1:1, but due to rounding errors etc, it was 0.996:1. This is not a big concern, but the point that should be noted, is in the real world this figure would have been significantly less, perhaps 0.8:1 or worse. The reason the circuit presented here exhibits a COP of 1:1 is because no real world finite resistances are present in the circuit. Every inductor or transformer has a real world DC resistance, and if introduced in the circuit, the simulation would clearly show a reduced COP, well below 1:1.
Regards,
.99
Ok,
#1)
COP, efficiency or whatever is defined as the ratio of the _ENERGY_ comming out of our blackbox - and the _ENERGY_ going in.
#2)
_ENERGY_ is the product(simple case - DC) or integral(AC) of the power times the time of observation. If we stick to normal units we can measure that in Ws, Wh, kWh.
#3)
If we have DC power at out- and input we can forget about the _ENERGY_ because both powers are available in the same time intervals - so COP of the _ENERGY_ ratio is the same as the ratio of _POWER_.
#4)
If we cope with varying power - we have to define a time interval for our ratio.
In the case of an continuous AC power - we can define this time interval as the period of the fundamental frequency.
#5)
For your case this periode is T.
The input power is 5.39W x T (because its on all the time). The output power is 8.xxW x T x 0.64 (because its only available for 0.64 xT time duration).
Your output power isnt´t available all the time.
#6)
RMS
RMS is defined as the value for a composite signal - which emits the same energy in a load than a dc signal of the same value would have.
This means that 5Watts DC heats up a resistor to the same temperature - as a 5Vrms AC signal would do. (assuming ideal resistor).
Even if you have for time T x 0.64 8.xxW - which heats up the resistor - you have for the rest of the periode T x 0.36 no power - no heating - the resistor would cool down - emit energy.
Because the resistor has some thermal capacity - it will have a resulting temperature t - which corresponds to the 5.39W feed in. This temperature is defined by the ratio its feed with energy.
#7)
If you would have the same power (-8.xxW) in the "off" periode - you would have an output rms power of 8.xxW - but its off in this time interval.
In your circuit - the input "pi" type LC filter gets charged during the off periode with energy - because no energy going out. This energy is released during on periode which results in a higher power in this phase......
This is why I assume that you don´t know the difference between power and energy - or have a different approach to what engineers and physicians mean if they talk about "rms".
rgds.
"RMS
RMS is defined as the value for a composite signal - which emits the same energy in a load than a dc signal of the same value would have.
This means that 5Watts DC heats up a resistor to the same temperature - as a 5Vrms AC signal would do. (assuming ideal resistor).
Even if you have for time T x 0.64 8.xxW - which heats up the resistor - you have for the rest of the periode T x 0.36 no power - no heating - the resistor would cool down - emit energy.
Because the resistor has some thermal capacity - it will have a resulting temperature t - which corresponds to the 5.39W feed in. This temperature is defined by the ratio its feed with energy."
I know this pretty well. I hope this does not post twice here since the first time I posted it I lost it. So this is a second try at responding.
Ok, you did not mention that the rms, average and peak value of a squarewave are one and the same. And so. the rms value of 8.23 Watts is 8.23 Watts, the average value is 8.32 Watts, and the peak value is also 8.23 Watts.
Go look that up at Wikipedia. And the 8.23 watts square wave makes this a little different ball games doesn't it?
Instantaneous Peak Power ~ Versus Input Power
RNS, Average and Peak Power of a Square Wave Versus a Sine Wave?
Ok, I would not want some comments offered up here as a supposed analysis to be a waste of your time here, and so to help you here, here are the facts and I hope you understand them. Regarding the assumptions of Fritz.
Clearly a few others here do not understand the difference between sine wave rms values and physics and that of square rms values. But Wikipedia can clear that matter up real fast for you.
When you can explain to the audience the rms value of a square wave then come back here.
The above comments posted to me apply to sine wave analysis, we must analyze a square wave instead. A different creature rms wise.
Well let us examine the premise of Fritz. Regarding Fritz's analysis of the wave cycles and the period of them.
In the above wattage plot in LTspice, you will see a plot of my circuit modified to produce instantaneous peak power peaks of 17.18 Watts. To examine the effects of the premise of Fritz. To see how it all really works, based upon Fritz's conjectures.
This is done under the following conditions (and you can download this model below to test the instantaneous power peaks).
The power supply of the circuit simulated in this plot is heavily filtered of any wave form information from reaching it by a very heavy low pass filter made of two 6 Henry coils and a 1000u capacitor. And as you can see in the plot, LTspice computes that the power supply input power is not periodic which means that it does not have any pulsed or sine wave components to it and is, thus a pure straight line beginning about at 3 seconds of initial charge up time ~ for the circuit to fully charge up after coming on; to fully stabilize into a steady DC state of power input of 5.08 Watts DC. And so, no more sine wave cycles are existant in the power supply thereafter. So we have a plotted straight line. And hence are given the condition of a purely DC power input devoid of any pulses or sine wave cycles of any kind. Hence pure steady state DC input. Which we have to have to provide this examination.
So these are the conditions and the snap shot in time where we are analyzing these instantaneous wave forms.
And so Fritz; this is the snap shot, since you mentioned snap shots, in time and over a long period of time. I'm gonna make you look at it here. Give you the snap shot I mean.
~ Note that the one wave cycle, is graphed so to divide into two for you to see the half cycles marked in the middle of the scale as 0.5. And see how that the instantaneous peak is less than a half wave cycle. Which is normal and so, is the normal physics of such high wattage instantaneous peaks.
So given those conditions of the power supply which are the same conditions of my circuit that outputs 8.32 Watts in a sqaure wave form with a certain rise and fall time (being this is an audio circuit and not a digital circuit).
* ~ What this plot then demonstrates is that intantaneous power can not be maintained at a high level for anything as long as 1/2 wave cycle. The 17.18 Watt instantaneous peak is plotted as can be seen above as being less than 1/2 wave cycle. And you can see that a lower wattage peak then covers more than 180 degrees and thus is longer than 1/2 wave cycle which is typical under these conditions, since the high intantaneous peak can not fill in the space of 1/2 wave cycle. And this is the normal condition of any circuit producing instantaneous high wattage peaks for a input power of much lower wattage. And so, instantaneous peak power levels way over the input power can only be maintained for periods less than 1/2 wave cycle. Never as much as half a wave cycle or longer than half a wave cycle (180 degrees).
This 17.18 Watt peak then can only be maintained at this level for a duration of 0.35 wave cycles or 126 degrees, and can not endure to 180 degrees.
Now we can manage in a circuit, to reach an instantaneous peak of 100 Watts, but the duration of such a peak would be far less than that of the 17.18 Watt peak seen in the above software plot. And so, averaged out with the other peaks in the wave cycle would come out to to be less than the power input of a normal circuit, when averaged.
Now in my circuit that is nearly a square wave, in square wave terms the peak, average and rms are all one and the same level. Unlike a sine wave.
So Fritz missed the point here in terms of the full analysis and findings. And did not get the snap shot he was talking about.
If we could maintain such a peak of 17.18 Watts for as long a 1/2 wave cycle then we would have over unity energy. And so, if we could maintain such peaks of power for 180 degrees of the 360 degree wave cycle period, then we would have had over unity energy a long time ago. But you see, it does not work that way.
(Well it works that way in my circuits where the period of the peak square wave power is extended to 0.64 wave cycle (230 degrees or +50 degrees past the 180 degree wave cycle). See now? Explain one that Fritz?)
Now these peaks in this circuit versus the input power are a little higher when average with the other half of the wave cycle, than you would normally see for the amount of DC power input since this plot is from one of my modified resonator circuits. But here, when I convert the power into instantaneous peak power, the physics of those things mentioned in this reply here follow the well known behavior of circuits producing such unusually high peaks for a little amount of DC input.
Such high peaks can never be maintained for at least 1/2 wave cycle!
The reaosning of Fritz then does not apply to the performance of these circuits here in this post. Since he is not accounting for the duration of the peak power output, versus the purely steady state filtered DC power input. And so, those things that he mentions I have already, along the way, considered in advance of study and made provisions for.
Of course the amount of power that my circuit realizes as a squarewave is not as extraordinary as the amount of instantaneous peak power as you see in above plot.
The ratio of the pure steady state DC power input in my circuit here at this post is 0.64:1 where:
5.29 Watts steady state DC Input / 8.32 Watts square wave output = 0.64
And so, the with this amount of extension of the half cycle we realize an enhancement. Being that you noramlly can not maintain such a level of peak, average or rms sqaure wave power output over the input power for anything such as 1/2 (0.5) wave cycle, yet here we are now with such a higher peak lasting more than 1/2 wave cycle. So thats what Fritz missed to see.
Summary:
What the matter then, under examination here is; is that the instantaneous peak ~ under examonation here, of the 17.18 Watts sine wave peak of power, can only last according to electrical physics in this circuit for a duration of 0.35 wave cycles or 126 degrees and so can not last as long as 180 degrees out of 360. Whereas, the sonic resonator circuit outputs a square wave peak of 8.32 Watts for a long duration of period across the wave cycle of 0.64 wave cycles or 230 degrees. +50 degrees past 180 degrees. For a pure DC steady state DC power input of 5.23 Watts. Which can only provide a sine wave peak power input into a theoretically lossless circuit, of 7.48006 Watts peak for 180 degrees, in a purely theoretical lossless model. Which means that it can only output a square wave of 5.23 Watts as the rms value of the peak sine wave input into the purely theoretical lossless model. When converted to the equivalent square wave of the power, that represents the 7.48006 Watts peak sine wave equivalent. But all of this is impossible in conventional circuits to accomplish.
Whalla!
So this is the snap shot Fritz.
Now further comment about all of this and not getting this point is something I should not even bother with answering anymore after this. Fortunately there are those who will get the point. And as you can see, the premise is flawed if Fritz thinks for one minute that you can sustain such high instantaneous peaks for 1/2 wave cycle or more, and not call that equation over unity. He's got the wrong picture or snap shot in his mind.
In ordianry thinking as you can see, from the above example plot of instantaneous power. You can not ordinarily maintain such a high level of peak intantaneous power versus input power for anything as long as 0.5 wave cycle. And as I said, if we could ~ we would have realized over unity a long time ago in AC fundamental terms.
In my LTspice simulation of the sonic resonator circuit, we have a DC input power of 5.29 Watts. And so, if we were to manage to draw a sine wave peak of 5.29 Watts * 1.414 = 7.48006 Watts peak for 180 degrees of the output wave cycle from a circuit. Well the circuit first of all has to be completely lossless to do this. So an ordinary circuit is not going to output 7.48006 Watts peak over a duration of 180 degrees of the wave cycle because of losses in the circuit. And so, to draw out 8.32 Watts peak then and as a sqaure wave, means we not only have reduced losses but have realized that there is some energy added into the output somewheres. And so, the peak cycle of this output is 0.64 wave cycles which defies explaination in ordinary terms and is the thing that Fritz just glossed over and was blind to. But you can run the simulation and analyze this for yourself.
Now the 7.48006 Watts peak over a duration of 180 degrees of the wave cycle, is the DC peak power that a transistor collector will output into a purely resistive load in a theoretically lossless model. Before conversion to AC. Yet the rms value of that power is 5.29 Watts.
Now there are digital chips that can output wave half cycles for longer than 0.5 cycles. But the power input of the chip is greater than the power output and so, you can not make such things a standard of comparison since there is no such thing as enhanced power from such digital chips because of the losses in the chip.
So those comments made by Fritz do require some re thinking of the physical facts of the wave form period ~ along with the peak power output computed in software analysis over the period of time of 1/2 wave cycle where the period of the power is extended to 0.64 of the wave cycle which in ordinary electrical physics is impossible to accomplish at that level of square wave power output for that period of time.
So before you comment make sure you understand the performance aspects of this circuit. And know, what is the case of it and what is happening.
So, I can conclude that someone only read my comments in part and then jumped to a conclusion before considering all of the data that the software simulation demonstrates. Perhaps focusing in on one thing they thought they had a clue for, and failed to analyze the whole of it all.
Anyone who does not understand this point I am making here and have made in the previous posting above, is missing the point of it all altogether, if you are not going to analyze all of the findings as a whole, to get the whole picture you will assume you know what to comment here.
And so, what can you say to someone who is not going to get the point? I suspect that more will come here and not get the point either. To wit, I will not bother explaining this any further. And I shouldn't have to explain it further. Should I? Those of you who get the point understand it. Those who do not get the point won't and some will not even try, so, I wonder why someone will think that they have to offer up a comment when they have not considered all of the data as a whole?
As if I have nothing better to do here than to answer all the trivial things, or assumptions made only with half the picture. Fritz did not get the whole picture, ~ did not get the snap shot. I do though. Fritz is looking in the fore ground, and is missing the picture in the back drop behind the front matters. The whole snap shot is the matter. Not just a part.
I do appreciate Fritz though, since the comments made, emboldened me and inspired me to provide you with these details to furthr explain the points I have made with a plot for you to understand how it really works when it comes to ordinary matters of instantaneous output power peaks versus input power.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
As for extra energy, the larger the coil mass the larger the induced voltage, and so in mass~energy terms, more mass is more energy. And of course voltage equates to a force, or electromotive force. And so, the extra voltages induced into the circuit at higher the potential of the power supply, along with diodes strategically located to recapture losses and rectify them for returning back into the circuit, along with the running electromechanical resonance of the circuit equates to extra energy input into the circuit both by higher induced voltages as well as restoration of losses.
If you ask where the extra energy comes from I will say from the large mass of coils resonating in the circuit. Mass energy, E=MC squared, hence the larger the mass, the more the energy. And that does not violate a physical law but obeys the equation of Einstein. The coil is energy of the inertial momentum kind.
But you have to restore the losses to realize anything in terms of the electromechanical resonant energy along with the induced voltages.
I did not believe in such things, and did not want to, though I did have ideas working in my mind over time. And so, I just had to try them out to explore them. And now, I realize that in one way, you can demonstrate some things in a software model which I realize has never been done before. And I realize that for now and times to come it will be very controversial and lead to assumptions as well as speculations. But the models are here for you to download and examine.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Well its not allot of power output, but it is a leap in concepts and principles, as well as loss reduction views, to say the least.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Fritz go back to school and takes some courses, especially in techincal math with trigonometry and study wave cycles and peak half cycle power versus the duration of instantaneous peaks.
Now for you other guys, I bet you thought that I had not considered these things that you are mentioning here. And the energy of this circuit is not coming form the low pass filter but the transformer and Dx.
And I am amazed that you guys do not know the difference in the rms power of a square wave versus that of sine wave. Since you all are always talking about sine wave rms power physics here.
The rms power of a square wave to heat a resistor is the same as that of DC. But in this case the case period of the square wave half cycle of 8.32 Watts is extended making it more effective.
Go to Wikipedia.......
Well folks don't let no one confuse you around here with all of the analytic speculations!
The following table is from:
"The Electronics Equations Handbook"
By Stephen J. Erst 1989
Tab Books
~ Page 4
"Voltage Conversion Factors For Three Waveforms"
waveforms
sine wave:
Multiply By:
rms to average Pi/(2(Sqr 2))
average to peak 2/Pi
rms to peak 1/(Sqr 2)
triangle wave:
Multiply By:
rms to average 2/(Sqr 3)
average to peak 0.5
rms to peak 1/(Sqr 3)
square wave:
Multiply By:
rms to average 1
average to peak 1
rms to peak 1
"all are unity for a square wave"
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
These factors apply to current too, and so, to power.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ok ~ since as was posted here by one of our forum analyst ~ that the amount of power to heat a resistor to the same amount of heat as that of a purely DC power input is ( = ) equal to the rms value of the peak of the wave form. Well lets now consider the rms value of a square wave form?
You can see that the rms value of a square wave is the same as its peak and average values, which are all unity ( 1 ). And so. the amount of power for a 8.32 Watt peak DC square wave to heat a resistor in rms terms is the same as 8.32 Watts peak, and it is also the same as 8.32 Watts pure DC which means that the square wave is considered to do the same as the pure DC power of the same wattage level. Or else someone has some messed up equations in their books.
Yet the above equations are based upon a square wave with a half cycle of only 180 degrees. Now we have one that is 8.32 Watts for 230 degrees. +50 degrees over the half cycle and is a little more effective in duration terms at heating the resistor than the mere 180 degree half cycle.
Well you can see here that if you are analyzing these wave forms as a sine wave with sine wave rms thinking, you are way off base.
I just thought that some of you should know this.
And so, what is the peak power of 5.29 Watts DC converted to peak? If the circuit is pulling some peak sine wave power from the power supply? It will not add up to 8.32 Watts peak.
I hope none of you get confused with all of the comments about analytical views posted here.
And so, in turn post some questions to our panel of analyst here.
I just thought that you should know that a 8.32 Watt square wave will have to have 8.32 Watts DC to heat the resistor up to the same value. But we are talking about a pure non periodic input of 5.29 Watts pure DC, producing a 8.32 Watt square wave in a software circuit simulation. So 5.29 Watts DC will produce less heat than a 8.32 Watt square wave.
See?
Do the math!
Let them analyze onwards though.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Now as for the one forum analyst comment here about "what we engineers and techs call..." etc.
Ok, I have been to three schools of electronics and studied "Electronics Communications Technology ~ Associate Degree" level. And have taken advanced technical mathematics along with advanced physics in those schools. Have studied Newtons equations, and have done extra electronics circuit design studies off and on for 10 years afterwards. (1976)
I have worked in the field of radio electronics since 1980. So, lets talk electronics and wave forms if you want. Lets talk peak power, and instantaneous power, or rms, average or whatever you want. Or even rise and decay times of the positive going peaks, whats your poison?
But you really should go to Wikipedia and look up sine waves and square waves. And their rms, average and peak power equations.
And you should stop thinking that without reading the principles of my circuit that you know what part of the circuit is doing what.
My transistor current is I(V1) + I(Dx) + I(R1) and I(Dx) (diode Dx) is a restored loss back into the circuit. And you should understand that I have up to two losses in the circuit restored back into the circuit to do work with. And so, in some models I have Dx and Dx2.
And the low pass filter is not the means of additional energy. L2 is that means along with Dx. In fact the restored current of Dx is one means that the period of the half cycle is extended.
Eplanation of circuit, see below diagram and following post.
Circuit Design And Explanation
In the above graphic you see that the transistor collector current is equal to I(L1) + I(L2). You will find out now how that the better expression for this is I(V1) + I(Dx) + I(R1) where R1 equals a load resistor.
Looking at the circuit above, L1 has a very high impedance at 1 kHz and so, chokes down the portion of current that flows through the collector of Q1 and thus limits it. And yet, the induced voltage on the collector of Q1 that is offered by L1 ~ over comes that current limitation to the power supply by upping the voltage swing on the collector which is very useful. As far as the current limitation (choking down of current) that L1 offers, this is a desired thing in that we do not want to draw allot of power supply current and hence V*I ~ which equals watts is limited.
And L1 working off of the 10V (volt) power supply reference as a back board or spring board (fixed voltage reference), offers an induced voltage of a higher potential ~ that can easily reach up to twice the applied power supply voltage, and the heavy inductance value above in this circuit induces a voltage peak that nearly reaches three times the applied power supply voltage; ~ with its induced voltage peaks of around +27V in the models we have analyzed in LTspice. The way L2 and Dx is contrived to work aids the circuit in adding a branch of current to collector of Q1 that has a positive potential to the collector but is independant of the power supply V1.
Now if L1 were a mere choke, we could realize and induce voltage being added into the circuit to up the voltage on the collector. And so, add a little bit more voltage swing on the collector. But L1 as a mere chole would be radiating magnetic energy that is not being used for anything. So we add L2 as a secondary winding and make L1 and L2 into a transformer. As so, recapture the radiated magnetic energy to induce a current into L2 that we can do useful work with.
Now as to the action of L2 and Dx. We use L2 to recapture and conserve the magnetic energy of L1 and put it to work in a useful way so that its application adds up, into the energy equation of the circuit. And how it is meant to do this is simple to understand, though unusual in application to say the least, but you can follow it and it will make sense.
L2 recaptures the radiated energy of L1 and converts it straight down into electron motion energy, or current flow. And so, this current through an inductance of 0.5 Henry in L2 at 1 kHz has a certain level of energy and some of that energy that is added into this equation is the electro~mechanical energy of the circuit which is added into the circuit.
Now that we have an increased collector voltage being supplied into the circuit concept by the inductance of L1. We see that with respect to our collector current, we have another branch of current flow for the recaptured forces of L1 ~ directly to L2, to help move us some more electrons. Increasing the collector current of the transistor that has had its voltage swing increased by L1.
Notice Dx now, Dx as a diode will rectify a current that is flowing upwards through the collector of the transistor. And so, this direction of current flow to Dx looks like another power supply terminal since when the far end of L2 swing high in positive voltage, current is attracted upwards towards Dx which passes this current to ground. And this current does not come from the power supply but from the ground, up through the transistor emitter to collector and on up to Dx. And to keep the current L1 to V1 from being mixed with that of L2, the current of L1 and L2 are 180 degree out of phase.
The current equation then for the transistors collector current is (V1) + I(Dx) * I(R1) where R1 represent the load current of a load resistor R1.
And so, the current of Dx is an induced current from L2 that is used as a means to reduce and restore losses that a mere choke coil as L1 would loose to magnetic energy if it did not have a secondary to recapture and put the energy to work.
The comment made in a few replies back by someone posting comment here that the energy comes from the heavy power supply filter that I have between V1 and L1 in my current models. Is the place that the energy comes from is incorrect. The energy in this circuit comes both from L1 and L2, where L1 induces a higher collector voltage on the transisor and L2 induces a far end voltage at Dx to attract another branch of current upwards in the positivce direction to Dx. Making Dx look like a virtual power supply terminal of the positive potential. And this current is 180 degrees out of phase with L1 that goes back to V1 through a very heavy low pass filter section, which you do not see in the above diagram.
So the extra induced branch current for the collector current of Dx is a cleaver way to add extra current to the circuit that is independant of the current of the power supply V1, and Dx then has its own terminal voltage that is the voltage induced at the far end of L2 that is attached to Dx.
And so, this is how I can design the circuit to work in LTspice because I know the physics of the circuit and its concepts and principles.
The comments made so far here by forum analyst have nothing to do with the actual working of the circuit which I have disclosed to you here.
Ok,
Than the problem is your understanding of a square wave vs. pulsed dc.
YOUR FORMULA YOU REPEAT ALL OVER vp==vrms ONLY APPLIES TO A TRUE AC SQUAREWAVE.
Well if its AC -you should be capable of putting a big cap in series - and the signal will stay the same (after run in periode)
But your signal has a DC offset.
If you put a cap in series you will end up with a 0.64T<5.39 Watt peak + and a 0.36T>5.39 Watt peak at the negative periode - if you average that you end up with 5.39W.
Even if you have true AC - YOUR FORMULA CAN ONYL BE USED FOR 50:50 SQUAREWAVE.
If you treat the singal as a composite waveform with DC + AC component - you have to treat it with integration (as already posted in my mails).
An AC signal is DC free.
And if some electronics book tells you that a composite waveform with a pulse and a DC offset can be treated the same as a DC free squarewave with 50:50 dutycycle - than they are incorrect at that point.
I´m not interested in a further "discussion". Everyone can be wrong some time - standing in the middle of the woods without finding a tree.
There are lots of enthusiasts here in this forum - and my only motivation is to keep the confusion down.
If you are a rf amateur since 1976 - you can ask and discuss that with friends and other people in that scene.
In rf you have caps around everywhere - maybe thats the reason why you trapped into this pulsed-dc story.
Quote from: D.R.Jackson on May 10, 2009, 03:41:25 PM
...
My circuit supports 8.23 Watts for a period of 0.64 wavecycles [...] with only 5.29 watts in DC...
and supports 0 watt for a period of 0.36 wavecycle.
Thus the mean power is 8.23*0.64+0*0.36=5.27watts.
Quote from: fritz on May 09, 2009, 06:36:56 PM
Well,
Spice is a nice tool -
BUT
You need to understand a little bit more to use it.
I would start to _READ_ about the difference between Energy and Power. Thats essential for further investigation.
Its _NO_ OU to make a pulse with higher power out of a powersupply with less power.
Take a photo flash - during charging it takes few watts for some seconds to charge - and can release it with the power of more than 100 watts.
Your circuit increases the power and not the energy.
...
The energy you got is your 8.xxW times the dutycycle - thats 0.64 - so its slightly less than your input cycle.
Your output voltage is not rectangular - its pulsed dc - so the rms value is as above.
The "rms"=="peak" only applies on _TRUE_ AC.
Having great tools like spice doesn´t compensate the basic understanding of electricity.
You are perfectly right, Fritz.
D.R.Jackson is confusing instantaneous and average values, AC and DC...
He should learn electricity and electronics basis.
Time is too precious to be wasted in blah.
:-)
... The graphical approach:
Print your input power trace and your output power trace using the same scale.
Take a scissor and cut out your input power "block" with the length T.
Than cut out your output power block - which has the length of 0.64 T.
You will find out that if you cut the ouput power block to the heigth of the input power block - the remaining piece will fit to your input power block.
-> Both blocks have different shape but same area.
Well thats graphical integration.
You can even print out on mm paper and count the dots under both curves.
This method works for every signal. In the case you have real AC you can sum up
positive and negative dots.
So we don´t need your formula here which is kind of dumb-rule and works only within quite narrow circumstances.
So if you don´t know if you´re right - take a scissor - instead of describing what you think might be - over and over.
Quote from: fritz on May 11, 2009, 04:24:23 AM
... The graphical approach:
Print your input power trace and your output power trace using the same scale.
Take a scissor and cut out your input power "block" with the length T.
Than cut out your output power block - which has the length of 0.64 T.
You will find out that if you cut the ouput power block to the heigth of the input power block - the remaining piece will fit to your input power block.
-> Both blocks have different shape but same area.
Well thats graphical integration.
You can even print out on mm paper and count the dots under both curves.
This method works for every signal. In the case you have real AC you can sum up
positive and negative dots.
So we don´t need your formula here which is kind of dumb-rule and works only within quite narrow circumstances.
So if you don´t know if you´re right - take a scissor - instead of describing what you think might be - over and over.
Ok that sound interesting, also I am downloading all the replies so I can read and make sure I know what things to reply too. So,I will try to get to every post made here.
But your suggestion is an interesting idea I will work on today.
Quite frankly the replies here are pretty interesting to examine from every angle, and so, I need to answer as many of them as I can as we go along. And if they make me discover something then thats good.
Oh no, that awful thing called coil series resistance and series loss!
Here are the ways to reduce real world component losses, in such things as coils.
Well, I am sure that some of you can think in dimensional terms when it comes to fundamental driving frequencies and reactances. If you want to work around coil series resistance losses.
Which means that as we increase our sonic resonator driving frequency from 1 kHz up to 10 kHz, the coil windings decrease 10 times too. And so, the wire length decreases and so does the series resistance loss. Thus this is one way we can over come the series resistance of the coil by moving the fundamental sonic resonator frequency to 10 kHz. Or as high as 100 kHz.
At 100 kHz the coil dimensions have decreased considerably to obtain the same reactance at 100 kHz and the series resistance has dropped too. The ratio of series resistance to inductance decreases in inverse proportion as we go higher in frequency.
Since a good transformer core can make up for the number of coil turns, and so reduce the turns by the permeability factor of the core, we can make a transformer of a good core material to reduce losses. And at 10 kHz and 100 kHz we can use a low loss toroid core.
So in transforming our fundamental frequency to 10 kHz we can choose a coil or transformer for the same reactance but yet, the series resistance has dropped 10 times. At 20 kHz it will drop 20 times, and at 50 kHz it will drop 50 times. And so at 100 kHz it will drop 100 times as compared to the resistance of the coils and transformer at 1 kHz.
So these are the work around's to the problem of internal series resistance in coils and transformers. And thus is the means to over come the series resistance losses of the windings.
Also, we now have 60 Hz power supply transformers made of highly efficient toroid cores. And we have such cores for audio also. And so, from 10 to 100 kHz we can have us a fairly efficient coil or transformer with reduced series resistance losses via more efficient core materials that cut down on the number of coil winding turns which in turn reduces the length of wire needed for the windings. And we can also opt to choose a wire diameter that will provide us with a low resistance that when modeled in the sonic resonator will not result in allot of loss.
Now as for capacitors, in my ARRL handbook it is stated that a capacitor is considered to be a lossless device in that in AC circuits the energy stored in the capacitor is all returned back into the system. And as far as dielectric leakage current goes, the amount of leakage current is in the uA range and is so low that its effect is grossly masked by the much larger operating currents of the circuit and so, barely even effects the circuit in a noticeable way.
So, given the above considerations, and kinds of thinking we can work around such things as coil series resistance losses merely by upscaling the fundamental frequency of operation of the circuit. If your an engineer or a technician you should have know this is how it works.
Anyways, given the right wire diameter for our coil, and a good transformer core, along with the right frequency we can get to a design where the transformer series resistance in around 1 ohm or less.
So, this is the kind of thinking that you can view things by if you work with radio frequencies over a spectrum of operation.
We do not have to be limited to the losses that we might realize in a real circuit at 1 kHz, simply by upscaling the frequency higher.
And this makes the awful topic of coil series resistance somewhat tamable don't you think?
Things are not as bad as some might wants us to think. Since there are more options than one.
Now to answer a few more things questioned in these post here.
The circuit if left unfiltered will allow AC current to flow into the power supply and LTspice will show you that the power supply power plot will have AC power wave forms in the power supply. So the filter after the power supply filters out these power wave forms so that the power supply then will have a pure DC current flowing. And there are no instantaneous pulses of wave form peaks that appear in the analysis given the right amount of filtering.
Next, as to the period of the out put wave forms. The output is constant at the fundamental driving frequency in the circuit of 1 kHz. And so, the period of the wave form is constant for every wave cycle produced at output.
So that is the conditions of the power supply. If you do not filter the energy of L1 from entering into the power supply then you will have AC dissipation occurring in the power supply and that is not at all efficient. All periodic information must be filtered out of the power supply so than no sine wave or pulsed information enters into the power supply.
Also, having explained the actions of L2 and Dx in a previous posted reply here. We want to look at the effects of resonance and how it equates to enhancing the circuit concept once some losses have been returned back to the circuit from L2 and Dx where the returned losses via Dx are = to, the Voltage at the far end of L2 times the current of Dx. Which mean that we have some power added back to the circuit that was recaptured from L1.
The electromechanical resonance of the circuit is a momentum factor. Since, in real circuits when you turn off the power. The resonant circuits will power down in a slower way than the rest of the circuit, in Milli second terms, since the resonant circuit tends to try to oscillate on its own for a small period after the power is turned off. What this equates to is a storage of energy like that of a fly wheel. However as compared to a fly wheel the resonant circuit will loose its momentum fairly fast in Milli second terms.
In this way it can be seen that the resonant circuit is an inertial momentum component that tends to want to remain in motion following the laws of inertia for things in motion. Now while the power is on, the inertia stays in motion and adds that energy to the circuit. And will tend to obey the laws of inertia. And so, since the coils of the resonant circuit are adding into the circuit an induced higher voltage, we can see some reasons for having an unusually high square wave output for an extended period of the wave cycle. The period of the half wave cycle being extended to 0.64 wave cycles seems to be an indication of the momentum of the output also wanting to stay in motion and resist wanting to go to the negative half cycle by as much as +50 degrees past 180 degrees. Now this does not mean that the momentum of the resonant circuit is extending the power wave cycles half cycle in terms of momentum. But the timings of events that occur in the circuit effect the output period more than anything.
I see you still don't address the points I and others have made. I will point out here that I have not called anybody names and I am addressing only the issues you have brought up. Nevertheless, stalkers want to flame ME, but they don't want to address the points I make in my posts. Am I wrong? If so, how? Other aliases that I may or may not have used have nothing to do with the points I make in this thread. Do they? So how am I wrong?
1) You are comparing instantaneous power when you should be comparing energy.
2) You do not seem to understand the mathematical concept of integration, or that energy is the time integral of an instantaneous power waveform.
3) You are ignoring the built-in capability of LTSpice to integrate the instantaneous power waveforms for you. Instead you complicate the issue by looking for "rms value of square wave" when your output waveform deviates significantly from squareness. As I showed with my own scope trace and your own numbers.
4) Other people are telling you the same thing.
5) You do not seem to realize that the area under the instantaneous power curve IS the energy, and integration gives you this area exactly.
6) I and others have challenged you to physically cut out your waveforms and weigh them or otherwise quantify the area, if you don't like LTSpice's integration. Why don't you do it?
7) Energy is Not Power. Your system does not output more ENERGY than it takes as input. It is NOT overunity, and it is evident from your long and complex posts that you don't understand the concepts of Power, Energy, Work, and so forth, as they are standardly defined, and as I asked you about in a much earlier post, to which you also never replied.
8 ) Your calculation of overunity power relies on your assumption of a square wave output, but your output waveform is not square at all. Compute, please, what a 62 percent duty cycle, instead of your assumed 64 percent, would do to your overunity claim.
9) You are the one who quoted long strings of impossibly precise numbers. That looks pretty silly to me, but if you want to call my insistence on correct numbers of significant digits an obsession, fine, I'm obsessed. But remember: When you say something is "8.0943785" or whatever, you are saying it's NOT 8.0943786 and it's NOT 8.0943784, and so forth...so of course I will challenge you on it, and so should anybody with an understanding of real precision and a hankering for truth.
10) You've started multiple threads on the same topic and made incredibly long posts that say basically the same things, and make the same errors. I think one thread should be enough for anybody.
Quote from: fritz on May 11, 2009, 04:24:23 AM
... The graphical approach:
Print your input power trace and your output power trace using the same scale.
Take a scissor and cut out your input power "block" with the length T.
Than cut out your output power block - which has the length of 0.64 T.
You will find out that if you cut the ouput power block to the heigth of the input power block - the remaining piece will fit to your input power block.
-> Both blocks have different shape but same area.
Well thats graphical integration.
You can even print out on mm paper and count the dots under both curves.
This method works for every signal. In the case you have real AC you can sum up
positive and negative dots.
So we don´t need your formula here which is kind of dumb-rule and works only within quite narrow circumstances.
So if you don´t know if you´re right - take a scissor - instead of describing what you think might be - over and over.
It is necessary to use a sufficient horizontal scale, so that the deviations from squareness (the slow rise and fall times) can be seen, before the cut-outs are made. 300 microseconds per horizontal division is extremely coarse, but even on that scale one can see that the rise times of the "square" wave are not vertical--hence the wave is not square. But to be fair the cutouts should be made with a horizontal scale of 50 microseconds per division--then you can see what you've really got.
I suggested weighing the cutouts but I realize not everyone has a sufficiently accurate scale. Printing out on small graph paper and counting the squares is also possible.
I should point out that the rise times seem to be on the order of 20-50 microseconds, as I computed earlier when I showed a real square wave from my oscilloscope. That makes those waves not really square, and actually is a significant deviation that will affect the results. A true square wave should have a rise time several orders of magnitude faster than that. The square wave from my oscilloscope's calibrator has a rise time of under 50 nanoseconds, and that's not even that good.
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on May 09, 2009, 04:43:32 PM
Dear D.R. Jackson,
TinselKoala, who others on this forum used to know as "Al" is a skeptic of anything O.U. and a Hoaxer. Please do not let him dissuade you or bother you too much.
Keep up the good work!
Kind regards,
Bruce
Careful there, Bruce, somebody might ask you to PROVE YOUR STATEMENTS. Like me, for instance. Let's see a link or reference to a hoax, or even to an instance where I have been proven WRONG about anything I've said on this forum.
Dissuade? Bother? How about Get your facts straight, and call a spade a spade, not an entrenching implement.
Here, once again, is the picture of a square wave from my scope's calibrator. The horizontal scale is 50 microseconds per division. I challenge "Doc" to post a shot of his square wave at this horizontal resolution, so we can compare the rise times, and see if his assumption of "squareness", on which his overunity power claim depends, is justified.
Or is that being too much of a "bother"?
Or, perhaps, is my scope trace a hoax?
Sorry, I get a little sarcastic when I'm personally attacked for no reason by someone with no chops at all.
I entered the circuit on page 1 into the circuit simulator found at:
http://www.falstad.com/circuit/
And I got a steadily increasing voltage which starts at 34.96 V.
Right click on the 100 ohm resistor and select "View in scope"
Definitely shows OU.
It puts out over 12W for less then 1W input from the 10V.
Here is the code to save you time entering it.
(This is the original circuit before the filtering was added)
Just copy everything between the brackets without the brackets
and import it into the simulator.
(
$ 1 5.0E-6 10.20027730826997 50 5.0 50
t 192 240 240 240 0 1 0.8602745009247793 0.8607420270030522 100.0
T 240 128 304 128 0 4.0 0.5 0.2641619057480187 -0.4657941860849796
w 240 224 240 160 0
w 304 160 368 160 0
w 304 128 336 128 0
w 336 128 368 128 0
c 368 128 368 160 0 1.0E-7 0.7561599451270342
w 240 128 192 128 1
w 240 224 336 224 0
w 336 128 336 224 0
c 336 224 336 272 0 1.0E-7 4.675260782729799E-4
g 336 272 336 304 0
g 240 256 240 288 0
w 368 160 432 160 0
z 432 208 432 160 1 0.805904783 5.6
w 432 160 496 160 0
c 496 160 496 208 0 5.0E-8 -0.7556924190487613
g 432 208 432 240 0
g 496 208 496 240 0
R 192 128 144 128 0 0 40.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
R 192 240 128 240 0 1 1000.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
w 336 224 400 224 0
r 400 224 400 304 0 100.0
g 400 304 400 336 0
o 22 64 0 35 80.0 0.8 0 -1
)
Quote from: AbbaRue on May 11, 2009, 08:03:52 PM
Definitely shows OU.
It puts out over 12W for less then 1W input from the 10V.
As pointed out earlier - OU - or energy ratio is derived from _ENERGY_ not power.
Only if you have input and output power as _DC_ you can compare the _POWER_ (in Watts).
In all other cases you have to calculate by other means.
If you have the same waveform on in and output - things are similar to _DC_ ....
Quote from: AbbaRue on May 11, 2009, 08:03:52 PM
Definitely shows OU.
It puts out over 12W for less then 1W input from the 10V.
Quote from: fritz on May 11, 2009, 08:51:34 PM
As pointed out earlier - OU - or energy ratio is derived from _ENERGY_ not power.
All right! Let's you and him fight!!
:P
In the end .....
I have worked with spice since the early fortran based versions missing a graphical frontend....
Spice is just a tool to simulate traditional, nonrelativistic EE on numerical basis. This means that only a tiny fraction of traditional EE is handled by it. By selecting - or "autoselecting" not useful boundary and iteration conditions - complete nonsense may happen.
If there would be OU in spice circuits - the programmers would have had to implement that.
This is the reason why its absolute nonsense to use it without understanding what you do - even more if you have no approach to basic concepts of electricity.
So are you interested into research - or are you interested in software testing - without knowing details of the application.
Hunting for OU in spice is like searching for a virgin which gave birth to 10 kids.
I have a system right here, a real one, not a simulation, that runs on 120 volts AC, draws about 10 amps, has a 20 amp fastblow fuse on the line input. It produces an output that is adjustable, between 15 and 25 KILOVOLTS at currents of as much as 1.5 KILOAMPS. This power is sufficient to shatter almost any container, to literally vaporize wiring, to puncture holes in 1/4 inch thick sheet metal. The current is so strong that it will turn a 19" equipment rack into a giant one-turn transformer and literally weld itself together at the seams. By the logic expressed in this thread, this device is WAY overunity. Waaaaaayyyyyy OU.
Thank goodness its duty cycle is short. It can only produce about 10 pulses like that per second, and each pulse is only microseconds long, representing the ringdown of a 3 uF 30 kV capacitor bank. But if I approximated that ringdown waveform with a square wave, according to my own private model...and then computed the RMS power, whatever that is, and equated that with energy, then I too could claim waaaaayyy overunity, and with a real device, too, not just a simulation.
(This is called a reductio ad absurdum.)
This is a perfect example of why I don't trust measurements.
I don't care what the measurements say about a device.
I won't believe a device is truly OU until it can run itself,
and have power left to run something else.
All measuring devices are calibrated to the presently known
model of the universe, and that model is probably full of error.
So the measuring devices are also unreliable.
If you get something to run itself with power to spare, then there
can be no question that it is collecting energy from somewhere.
I actually agree with you.
???
Truly amazing how a little knowledge can lead folks so astray.
I actually thought taking the bait on this one might do some good...evidently not.
.99
The output of the simulation was made up of pulses.
When pulses are involved then you are trading time for power.
Charge a cap over time and then release that power as a pulse.
This tends to mess up measuring devices too.
Quote from: AbbaRue on May 11, 2009, 10:19:56 PM
The output of the simulation was made up of pulses.
When pulses are involved then you are trading time for power.
Charge a cap over time and then release that power as a pulse.
This tends to mess up measuring devices too.
YES ;)
It would seem Mr. Jackson either does not agree with or does not understand this. A square wave is 50% duty cycle. Anything else and the duty cycle must be used to calculate the RMS value.
Also, the DC offset has to be considered as well. For example a square wave (or more correctly a pulse train with 50% t
on and t
off) that extends only from 0V to +10V has a RMS voltage of 7.07V, not 10V (and not 5V).
.99
In all fairness, I think he's attempted to account for duty cycle--at least his concept of it. In fact his claim of OU depends rather sensitively on "duty cycle", and in my mind a big problem, as I have tried to show, is that his output isn't square enough to justify his assumptions. Particularly the duty cycle calculation. Hence, even on the face of it, using his own data, the claim of OU fails.
All this, of course, ignores the issue that he can simply have LTSpice integrate the instantaneous power waveforms over a given amount of time to give the actual input and output ENERGY--as was done in the original posting of the info in this thread--by, was it .99 ? I forget, and since the original thread has vanished down the memory hole, I can't check and see.
AGAIN ....
How should a numerical machine based on traditional EE proof OU ?
Thats a quite fundamental question.
The explanations so far are that OU exists because of incomplete models, special material effects, cold fusion, quantum effects, not yet discovered magnetic effects, anomalies (....)
_ALL THIS STUFF IS ____NOT____ EMULATED BY SPICE_
(how can you implement things you dont know?)
How should a programmed numerical non OU machine exceed COP 1 if ?
The only answers are rounding and iteration artefacts.
A cow is not a dog.
This is quite fundamental issue.
What do you think ?
Can I pull myself out of the lake on my own hair ?
===== THE INTERESTING THINGS ARE WHEN SPICE PREDICTS SOMETHING COMPLETLY DIFFERENT - AS HAPPENS IN AN EXPERIMENT (taken all the usual suspects aside) =======
So using Spice to discover OU is a "Schildbürgerstreich".
For the non-germans: The "Schildbürger" (kid book) are quite famous for their creativity.
They build a town hall and forget about the windows. They try to get light in by catching the light with bags and mouse-traps - and carry them into the building (....)
Dear Friend. Here is another LTSpice circuit by some friend I have forgotten his name. I implemented it in LTspice, optimized it by slightly modifying and changing values of the components. I am attaching it here for study and analysis. I will appreciate comments by all on it. Thanks in advance. I am also attaching the actual cct by that unknown friend here, which I optimized to get more power output. You can drive the same with a 5V DC also. It was basically enlisted in Joule Thief category.
Most space time energy devices are made of conventional electronic parts each having a module.
Since custom modules can be made and used in simulation it is feasible that if you know where
the conversion is taking place you should be able to modify that module to emulate this process.
For example you believe the transformation of a wave happens in the center of an inductor then
add a sub-circuit to that inductor. If the simulator and the space time energy device both agree
then you have something useful.