1850 Watts free energy power ? New GEGENE circuit by JL Naudin shows COP = 2.8

[broli]

I don't know if this is right or wrong; I don't know how the original data were gathered or how the scope was set. There have been power computation errors introduced by incorrect use of AC coupling in some other cases.....

I must say this is indeed wrong, you can't just alter negative power like that HOWEVER this has opened my eyes to something. Negative power is important as it's an indication of a capacitive/inductive load. Doing Irms*Vrms will give you the APPARENT power. Since Naudin is using a resistive load only, at least assumed to be, he's using that value as the power output of the system. However doing avg(I*V), the method I prefer, will give you the REAL power irregardless of the load you have attached.

And another note on the negative power part now that we are on the subject. This is definitely a big anomaly, whereas the previous more fine grained data from Test #2 resulted in RMS = AVG and showed no negative power whatsoever. Test #5 however shows quite a bit of negative power, in fact you can see on the graphs that the sampling isn't very clean and quite erratic resulting in big differences between RMS and AVG.

On the graph of Test #5 you can easily see that the signal wave is enveloped by a 100Hz carrier wave. Perhaps this information can be used to apply a power correction on the more fine grained data from Test #2.

In the below sheet I did exactly that. I enveloped the data with one period of a 100Hz sine wave which takes 0.01s, since the original data does not go to that length I had carefully copy and paste the data over a few periods to reach that duration. Now please note this assumes that Naudin's Test #2 data is taken at its maximum readings inside of the envelope, if this is not the case then the power correction calculated in the spreadsheet is underestimating the true value.

So to sum things up:
- Data from Test #5 shows sampling anomalies due to larger scale; results in big differences between RMS and Average power
- Data from test #2 is much cleaner; almost no difference between RMS and Average power but disregards 100Hz carrier wave
- Data from test #2 can be corrected with a 100Hz carrier wave; assuming the data was taken when the carrier wave was at maximum or else the calculated power from this is underestimated

You can view and download the sheet as an excel file here as Google spreadsheet couldn't process it with its 400,000 cell limit; https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2hyDBPbnYWuVmFCc1l6clJNRDg

[FatBird]

Could Woopy or somebody try placing a DIODE (not a bridge) in SERIES with one of the wires coming
from the Bifilar Coil.  Perhaps a minimum of a 10 Amp Diode should do the job just to try it.

I am wondering if the Pulsed DC output will set up a ROTATING MAGNETIC FIELD
in the circular Bifilar Coil, thus MAGNIFYING THE OUTPUT.

I don't have an induction cooker so I can't try it.

[broli]

Could Woopy or somebody try placing a DIODE (not a bridge) in SERIES with one of the wires coming
from the Bifilar Coil.  Perhaps a minimum of a 5 or 6 Amp Diode should do the job just to try it.

More like 20A-50A if you don't want to see something smoke.

[TinselKoala]

@broli: Thanks for that analysis. I thought that simply taking the AVERAGE(ABS(instPowerVals)) wasn't exactly correct. Interesting how closely it matches the figure determined from the RMS values though.

I found this, which is a pretty complete teardown and analysis of a typical low-cost induction cooker. It includes an LTSpice circuit sim for the power section of the circuit.

http://openschemes.com/2010/11/11/1800w-induction-cooktop-teardown/

It includes a schematic and waveforms. It also makes the point that there is a lot of current circulating in the coil/caps/IGBTs, so Broli's point about needing a high-current diode is a good one.

I am also learning about induction lighting....
http://sound.westhost.com/lamps/induction.html
http://www.inductionlamps.com/pages/All-About-Induction.html

Anyhow...... it's pretty clear that the 50 or 60, or 100 or 120 Hz envelope modulation is fooling both the DMMs and the scope (since the scope is only sampling the peak values and not the entire envelope).

[TinselKoala]

There is a difference in the "quality" of the light produced by incandescent bulbs driven at high frequencies. The light seems brighter than it should for the power consumption.... but in my experience the glass of the bulbs darkens fairly quickly. This has been explained to me as tungsten/metal vapor deposition on the glass, essentially sputter-coating the glass with boiled-off metal from the filaments. Some of the bulbs I use for my wireless power receivers (much higher frequency than these cookers) are almost black from this deposition, after only a relatively short time in use (minutes to hours).
I'm wondering if the bulbs powered by the cookers thru the bifilar pickup coils also darken quickly.