Lenzless resonant transformer

[itsu]

Yes, by blocking I meant minimum input current.


Can you verify that input is not affected if you disconnect the output ?
Now can you test the same setup using the other signal gen that gives 30 volt signal ? The one on the vid used 5 volts, right ? At least this is seen on the scope.


If there would have been bulb in the L3 coil to 'measure' input then that bulb would have been more lit than the output bulb ? If so, then there is still some difference compared to my setup...........................

Jack,

i normally set my FG to the max. amplitude, which is 20V pp for the one i used yesterday.
The other FG with 30V pp i use if for some reason this 20V pp is not enough, which was not the case yesterday.

I can do some further testing with this setup (including crossing the parallel coil wires again) and insert an input bulb in L3 to show the current there etc.

Regards Itsu

[verpies]

I don't know what you mean by "local inductance field." 

Neither do I 

More importantly, there is essentially no "influence of a wire to a neighboring wire."  That sounds like an old wives' tale.

I think in this scenario he just means capacitive coupling between closely spaced wires.

There is a culture of experimenters neglecting or being afraid to correct each other on the forums.  That leads to stagnation, people don't learn because nobody corrects them and it becomes a vicious circle.

Indeed, there is.  It is pathological and unscientific.
When I make a mistake people send me apologetic private messages with their valid objections instead of just dishing it out on an open forum.

Edit:
I noticed in the subsequent message that Jack's "influence of a wire to a neighboring wire." is explained by him as the Amperean induction of two parallel wires.

[verpies]

I normally set my FG to the max. amplitude, which is 20V pp for the one i used yesterday.

Rigol specifies 20V only for loads greater than 10kΩ. For heavier loads the 20V amplitude cannot be maintained.  Rigol will display the real output amplitude if the Load's impedance is set accurately in its Utility menu.

The other FG with 30V pp i use if for some reason this 20V pp is not enough,

That old SG outputs not only higher voltage but it has a built-in low impedance amplifier that prevents its output voltage from dropping as much as Rigol's output for heavy loads.

If you had that EL2009 amplifier working, then its output voltage would be even less prone to dropping under heavy loading. 
Its output impedance is an astonishing 1Ω at 90MHz !!!

P.S.
If you'd measured the V_P-P amplitude of these SigGens with a 10Ω 100Ω and 1kΩ resistors as loads, then you'd get an exact picture how their output voltage sags under load and we could even calculate exact output impedances of these SigGens.

[itsu]

Yes, by blocking I meant minimum input current.


Can you verify that input is not affected if you disconnect the output ?
Now can you test the same setup using the other signal gen that gives 30 volt signal ? The one on the vid used 5 volts, right ? At least this is seen on the scope.


If there would have been bulb in the L3 coil to 'measure' input then that bulb would have been more lit than the output bulb ? If so, then there is still some difference compared to my setup.


From this test I now I remember what happened when I first tested this. I had 1000 nf cap in the output and I was about to quit testing, 'just one more sweep and then I dump these cores in the ocean' and as sweep was about to end at 19 kHz my output bulb started to light up. Not very bright though, so I added second 1000 nF cap and then I got better result as frequency dropped to 11 kHz. I could not add more because then my L3 started to leak as the frequency went down and not very easy to find resonance in L3 using caps for me.


So now I am thinking that one way to increase output power is to add more caps in the output side and at the same time keep L3 in the resonance as you already did. The second way could be to increase input voltage, I am not sure but now you can test this easily with your current 18 kHz setup.


If these two options give positive results then next step is to see how increasing the resonant F by spreading turns, using less turns, using thicker wire etc. affects this. Then bring it down by adding more caps in the output. But lets not think about this at the moment, better to keep variables as few as possible for now.

Ok,  answering these questions:

Can you verify that input is not affected if you disconnect the output ?

Disconnecting the output i understand as disconnecting the caps and bulb from the seondaries.
The change is in the current (which flatlines now) and the power which is much less. The resonance frequency of L3 stays around 18KHz

Now can you test the same setup using the other signal gen that gives 30 volt signal ? The one on the vid used 5 volts, right ? At least this is seen on the scope.

I did the same test with the other SG at 30V, but the 5 V you saw on the scope yesterday was a RMS value wich equals 14v PP.
The rms value now was 8.45V which equals 24V pp.  input Power increased and output bulb was brighter.
Installing an input bulb showed a slight detune from the 18KHz in L3, but at resonance input bulb was never brighter then output bulb.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIy0SSh77SM&feature=youtu.be


At this point i stopped as i think we first should agree on how to connect the both secondaries together.
According to MileHigh, now (high resonance point) the both secondaries are wrongly connected.


Facts:

when all coils are open (nothing connected), the both secondaries measure each:

713mH
1.2 Ohm
Shorting L3 does not make any difference.

When both secondaries are paralleled the way i had yesterday (high resonance frequence around 10KHz) they measure:

260uH   as in micro henries!!   
0.6 Ohm
Shorting L3 decreases inductance to 180uH

When both secondaries are parelleled the other way (low resonance frequency around 175Hz) they measure:

713mH!!  SHOULD THIS NOT BE HALF?
0.6 Ohm
Shorting L3 does not make any difference.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p03S3qmDBzU&feature=youtu.be   

So my question is:

what is the correct way to hook up the both secondaries?


Regards Itsu

[verpies]

713mH!!  SHOULD THIS NOT BE HALF?

It should be so only if you are connecting two separate inductors in parallel (on two separate cores). 
Note, that winding direction is not an issue for completely separate inductors.

However, if there is any flux sharing between two inductors and/or any mutual inductance, then their relative winding direction becomes an issue and formulas for Mutually Coupled Inductors in Parallel should be used instead.

Shorting L3 does not make any difference.

Of course, because L3 affects only the leakage flux that closes outside of the core through the air (bar core saturation).

When L1 & L2 are connected in parallel then the leakage flux is minimal, however if L1 & L2 are connected in antiparallel then their fluxes oppose ("fight") each other and it is much "easier' for them to close outside of the core (through the air ) than go through the core. 
This situation creates a large leakage flux outside of the core ...and this leakage flux can be easily affected by L3.

what is the correct way to hook up the both secondaries?

"Correct" to maximize what parameter?