Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

[d3x0r]

Because L1 has an inductance of 3.02mH it means that it resists 4.6kHz AC sine wave as much as an 87Ω resistor (a.k.a. impedance).
Because W4 of Tr2 outputs a 4.6kHz rectangular wave, then this impedance is even higher because a rectangular wave also consists of many higher frequency sine waves (says Mr. Fourier).

So the question becomes: Why W4 of Tr2 cannot handle a >87Ω load?

Do you enable any other loads on your secondary windings?  If yes then disconnect them and report what happens.

At this point, it was just the neon's in series with a 1Mohm resistor, and a 22uf 12KV cap in parallel... on the once side, and L1 on the other... so the capacitor builds up and becomes high impedance...


So I got to a good tuning point for the TL949 side, and then connected the high voltage to the nanopulser and powered that up also, then the neons don't light.  The waves are all shorter, and no resonance at all is in L2 :/


I did notice the sequence of ops, which is why I started with just tuning the pulser to get the neon... but then turning on the nano-pulser shouldn't kill my neon, but it does....


87ohm resisitor, huh?  so you have a calculator for that?  I think I'm more at like 16Khz, which makes the toroid ring with 4khz... I find ferites ring with a frequency relative to their size... and I think it's been a misleading thing to use sound spectral analysis... espcially since there were harmonics at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, ...

I mean to say... if you hit the ferrite alone without anything it gives off a certain tone, at harmonics of that frequency it will be strongest, and near frequencies will be quieter and taper off, then drop an octive and increase in loudness all the while increasing frequency

[verpies]

87ohm resistor, huh?  so you have a calculator for that?

Of course I have a calculation for that.
The 3.02mH inductor behaves as an 87Ω resistor to the 4.6kHz sine wave because Z=2*pi *L*f and this calculates to Z=6.283*0.00302H*4600Hz ≈ 87.286Ω
The 3.02mH inductor behaves as an 71Ω resistor to the 4.6kHz square wave because Z_SQUARE = (16/pi) *L*f and this calculates to Z=5.093*0.00302H*4600Hz ≈ 71Ω
See Inductive Reactance.

The reason why the result for the square wave it is a little different is because a 4.6kHz square wave is composed of multiple additional sine waves:
  1f=      4.6kHz at 100% Amplitude,  Z≈87Ω   (the fundamental frequency)
  3f=    13.8kHz at   33% Amplitude,  Z≈786Ω 
  5f=    23.0kHz at   20% Amplitude,  Z≈2182Ω
  7f=    32.2kHz at   14% Amplitude,  Z≈4277Ω
  9f=    41.4kHz at   11% Amplitude,  Z≈7070Ω
11f=    50.6kHz at     9% Amplitude,  Z≈10562Ω
13f=    59.8kHz at     8% Amplitude,  Z≈14751Ω
15f=    69.0kHz at     7% Amplitude,  Z≈19639Ω
17f=    78.2kHz at     6% Amplitude,  Z≈25226Ω
19f=    87.4kHz at     5% Amplitude,  Z≈31510Ω
21f=    96.6kHz at     5% Amplitude,  Z≈38493Ω
23f=  105.8kHz at     4% Amplitude,  Z≈46174Ω
25f=  115.0kHz at     4% Amplitude,  Z≈54554Ω
27f=  124.2kHz at     4% Amplitude,  Z≈63632Ω
29f=  133.4kHz at     3% Amplitude,  Z≈73408Ω
etc...
The Z column lists the impedances of the inductor to each of these frequencies normalized by their respective amplitudes.

Now if you add all of those additional impedances as as parallel resistors (except the first one), you will get 1/786Ω + 1/2182Ω + 1/4277Ω + 1/7070Ω... ≈ 1/374Ω.
Precisely the combined normalized impedances of an inductor to all the additional harmonics of a square wave (except the fundamental) will always be 8/( pi^2 - 8 ) ≈ 4.27898 greater than the impedance to the fundamental frequency. 374Ω / 87Ω ≈ 4.29

When we add the impedance at the fundamental frequency in parallel, we can write that any inductor L resists a square wave 8/pi^2 times less than it resists a sine wave of the same frequency, yielding Z_SQUARE = (16/pi) *L*f
Percentage wise, this makes the impedance of an inductor to a square wave 81% of the impedance to a sine wave of the same frequency.

Thus, the average current flowing through an inductor L stimulated by a square wave AC voltage source will always be (pi^2/8 ≈ 1.2337) times greater than the average current in the same inductor cause by a sine wave AC voltage source of the same frequency.

I think I'm more at like 16Khz, which makes the toroid ring with 4khz... I find ferrite ring with a frequency relative to their size... and I think it's been a misleading thing to use sound spectral analysis... especially since there were harmonics at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, ...

4kHz sine wave is not a component of a 16kHz square wave.

I mean to say... if you hit the ferrite alone without anything it gives off a certain tone, at harmonics of that frequency it will be strongest, and near frequencies will be quieter and taper off, then drop an octave and increase in loudness all the while increasing frequency

I don't think so.
Ferrite "sings" because of magnetostriction - not because of their mechanical resonance.

[verpies]

Is there any reflection through a bridge rectifier?  Like is the capacitance on the other side actually part of the primary side?

No, the capacitor on the other side of the bridge rectifier does not present any load to the W3 secondary once it becomes fully charged.
...but maybe the nanopulser driver is discharging this capacitor too quickly.  Try to measure this discharge current caused by your nanopulser driver.

Also, verify with only a 68Ω resistor connected across W4 of Tr2 that this winding can really support such load at 4.6kHz square wave. (use 270Ω resistor if the output of W4 is 19.2kHz square wave).
Maybe that 1.5μF - 4μF capacitor in parallel with L2 poses too much of a load to W4 via L1's mutual inductance.

[d3x0r]

4kHz sine wave is not a component of a 16kHz square wave.
I don't think so.
Ferrite "sings" because of magnetostriction - not because of their mechanical resonance.

It's 2 octives down, every octive is a harmonic of every other octive....

I'm not arguing the cause of the ringing (magnetostriction) but the frequency is definatly a product of physical characteristics.

The first image is a capture of the ring after hitting a toroid without any windings, it has a strong frequency of 9khz
The second image is a frequency sweep from high to low and back to high, stopping where it sounded the same, and the spectrograph shows a strong frequency at 9Khz


Working on uploading the videos, but since they are high def, it takes a bit to upload and convert...  But I have both the clips from when I 'clinked' the toroids together, and from tuning, with shots of the oscilloscope from the point of view of the base of the driving transisitors...


See also  http://youtu.be/Vws7Q3K-yoc and http://youtu.be/QhyzXXUdxWE

[verpies]

@Itsu

The two schematics are contradicting each other because on the first schematic, the polarity of the pulses on W1 of Tr1 must be opposite to the polarity on the second schematic.

It looks as if somebody was trying to design a stronger nanopulser on the second schematic and failed to verify if it works at all.