Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

[verpies]

On the subject of the flyback transformer, what is that wire like thing running through the primary coil winding and wrapping over each end of the ferrite core?

In what video and time index?

[T-1000]

@verpies

The impulse source type is not important. What is important - the timing when to break galvanic connection before resonant oscillator starts affecting input. Also in examples I am showing this is being done by shifting voltage and current by 90 degrees then giving feedback to input when to break connection as current starts to rise on output.

[Hoppy]

In what video and time index?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz0IPdPbHvA
at 2:29 / 2:30

[verpies]

The impulse source type is not important.

It would be more correct to write that source type does matter for the rest of the circuit.
However, supplying the primary of the "flyback-transfomer" (FBT) with symmetrical AC, decreases the efficiency of this source by at least 50%.

If the rest of the circuit can create sufficient O/I energy gain to compensate for this loss of efficiency then you'll achieve a self-runner nonetheless (albeit not as easily).

What is important - the timing when to break galvanic connection before resonant oscillator starts affecting input. Also in examples I am showing this is being done by shifting voltage and current by 90 degrees then giving feedback to input when to break connection as current starts to rise on output.

I don't understand what is important for the rest of the circuit, but I can write with certainty that this schematic does not show any phase or frequency "feedback" paths to the FBT in it.

The Romanov schematic - does show such feedback path, but it does not show a "flyback-transformer".

[TinselKoala]

@verpies: I have to disagree with you about the Royer oscillator not being appropriate to drive modern rectified flyback transformers. I've made all kinds of flyback drivers and the Royer oscillator is the easiest and best to use in my experience, as long as you don't need potentiometer frequency tuning. An AC driving signal is less than perfect because it's sinusoidal, not because it's AC. A square pulse works better because of the fast risetime. The "AC" or "pulsed DC" nature of the current in the primary is unimportant to the voltage rise in the secondary even if the secondary is rectified; it is the rate of change of the current that is the determining factor. I think you can prove this to yourself by using the offset function on a FG. Set up a transformer with the secondary feeding a diode, just as in a flyback. Stimulate the primary with a true sine wave, AC, symmetrical about the zero baseline. Then use the offset function to raise the signal up until it's all above the baseline, or lower it until it's all below the baseline. What happens to the output voltage of the secondary? As long as the p-p value of the driving signal is the same, the DC offset shouldn't matter to the secondary output. Up to some limit due to core saturation, of course. Now use a square pulse signal. The amplitude can be less to produce the same output voltage, because of the risetime advantage. If you are anywhere near resonance the output of the secondary will still be a sine wave (before the diode), even with the square stimulus. Now use the offset to move the input pulse up and down wrt its baseline. Does the output voltage change? Again, as long as the p-p value is the same, a little DC offset shouldn't matter to the output from the secondary.
Or so I believe, and with some empirical support.