Alright, I am awake and ready to run test. I will be taking numbers this time and compare the difference between series adding and bucking, from one wire to 5 wires. Also I will try to draw a picture of the series adding/bucking for yall. Will post results in a bit.
Peace
rawbush

Quote from: mondrasek on July 23, 2011, 07:34:58 PM
The Schottky I used did seem to negate the "load" effect on the readings.

The Schottky's do stabilize the readings.  Unfortunately I only have two left for the Pin circuit and need three.  But they are easy enough to move around on the breadboard.

Problem is:  The diodes have their own voltage drop.  So my readings need to be adjusted for that or I need to just start again looking for "patterns" and not be concerned with the "absolutes".

Either way, I feel I am at a dead end.  I have learned quite a bit and feel there is much more to learn.  But I have not seen any direction towards what I believe is the ultimate goal:  phase lock.

The generator anomalies we are all investigating are very interesting.  But phase lock into ZPE has eluded my testing so far.  I am only sweeping R in an RLC circuit.  That is because it is the easiest to change and test!

So if L and/or C are not anywhere near the values needed for phase lock, I am wasting my time (while still learning...).

L is an oscillator.  It changes based on the distance of the ferrite cores to the rotor magnets (inductance range oscillation change) and speed of the rotor (frequency change).  The range should also change as the gap between the ferrite cores and rotor mags changes as well as when backing magnets are introduced.  Number of turns in each coil will also change L.

WTF is C?  Is it just the Dump Cap C, or is it also the gap between the coils and rotor mags?

If anyone has the skills and desire to try and run a simulation of this system to determine the expected correct range of these variable it would be most helpful.  Turtur published his code for one of his simulations at the end of one of his papers.  Not sure if that would be a good starting point or not.

Of course, just "noodling" about what I have witnessed so far and/or experimenting more might lead me in the correct direction.  But for now I am stumped.

M.

Quote from: mondrasek on July 24, 2011, 11:32:54 AM
The Schottky's do stabilize the readings.  Unfortunately I only have two left for the Pin circuit and need three.  But they are easy enough to move around on the breadboard.

Problem is:  The diodes have their own voltage drop.  So my readings need to be adjusted for that or I need to just start again looking for "patterns" and not be concerned with the "absolutes".

Either way, I feel I am at a dead end.  I have learned quite a bit and feel there is much more to learn.  But I have not seen any direction towards what I believe is the ultimate goal:  phase lock.

The generator anomalies we are all investigating are very interesting.  But phase lock into ZPE has eluded my testing so far.  I am only sweeping R in an RLC circuit.  That is because it is the easiest to change and test!

So if L and/or C are not anywhere near the values needed for phase lock, I am wasting my time (while still learning...).

L is an oscillator.  It changes based on the distance of the ferrite cores to the rotor magnets (inductance range oscillation change) and speed of the rotor (frequency change).  The range should also change as the gap between the ferrite cores and rotor mags changes as well as when backing magnets are introduced.  Number of turns in each coil will also change L.

WTF is C?  Is it just the Dump Cap C, or is it also the gap between the coils and rotor mags?

If anyone has the skills and desire to try and run a simulation of this system to determine the expected correct range of these variable it would be most helpful.  Turtur published his code for one of his simulations at the end of one of his papers.  Not sure if that would be a good starting point or not.

Of course, just "noodling" about what I have witnessed so far and/or experimenting more might lead me in the correct direction.  But for now I am stumped.

M.

An LCR circuit does not primarily oscillate due to a change in inductance by a rotr magnet.
If you set the LCR circuit up with solid state components with a fixed L, it will also oscillate.
The change in inductance due to the passing rotor magnet is only slight, but it will slightly change the resonance frequency.

C is a series or parallel cap (plus the capacitance of the coil which is usually neglected).


If you are after resonance, then changing the resistance inside the LCR circuit is not the way to go, as you wanna keep that uncompromisingly minimal or you will have a too low "Q".

Simulators won't get you very far, they are not made to compute ZPE entering the system.

What Turtur is trying to do is very viable and has been described by Dollard and originally by Mandelstam and Papalexi.
But Romero did it without spring capacitors or spring coil cores, so it can be done much easier and i personally think that there is no phase-lock condition in Romero's set-up like Turtur is investigating.
EDIT: Just in regards to his spring experiments, his "newer" rotor-based set-up indicates that he expects a phase-lock.

@X, thanks for the insightful reply.

I think I understand the basic theory of an LCR tank, and calculating those values is pretty straight forward.  But I don't think that electrical "resonance" is what we are looking for.  But maybe it is.

In one of Dr. Turtur's papers from Feb. this year he examined the picture posted below.  In this device he was creating a resonant situation by cycling the inductance of the coil by introducing an oscillating magnet.  He abandoned this idea (in that paper) because his simulations required that the oscillation happen at so high a frequency as to require that the spring and magnet have near zero mass.

But the R-ZPEC accomplishes the same idea:  It oscillates the inductance of the coils.  It does so by passing magnets by the coil cores.  So isn't it another embodiment of the same idea?

In that paper (http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=219), Dr. Turtur was writing his own simulation program.  It is what he calls a DFEM-algorithm and is shown on at the bottom of the paper.  If I understand it, it was designed to simulate not only every physical point in the system, but also every point in every field involved in the system, while accounting for the propagation speed of the fields (Introducing Theory of Relativity into classical Electrodynamics).

It is only such a simulation that can predict the LCR values for a ZPEC.  If we are to believe Turtur, that is.

Just looking for ideas.  Hunting and pecking for L and C values without any idea if I am even in the correct order of magnitude is not very efficient use of time.

Might be time to e-mail Turtur?

M.

It is all laid out here : http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=233

He does indeed expect a phase-lock in his rotor set-up.
Since i am not too much a sucker for differential equations
i might not clearly see these conditions in the algebra presented.

So experimenting with caps to get to resonance is in line with what he does, so maybe go ahead and do it.
If you make higher inductance coils you can easily match with a low uF range cap or use high number of magnets like he does.

Then use standard non-reflective resonance extraction methods.

Turtur is right on the money when he wants his caps to have a low DC resistance. You want to shoot for highest "Q", that's where the VARs come into your system when you are at resonance peak.