Lenzless resonant transformer

[MileHigh]

Itsu:

In the case of the high resonance frequency and high resonance voltage you have this:

L1 and L2 are connected to cancel each other's flux through the toroid (wires crossed), hence you measure very low inductance from the "outside"  (the inductance meter).
However, funky L3 produces "clockwise" flux in L1 and "counter-clockwise" flux in the toroid at the same time.  This produces opposite EMFs in each coil, but since the wires are crossed the EMFs match each other (they don't cancel each other out).
So you end up with a situation where L3 can induce large EMFs in the cross-wired L1 and L2 (the toroid is effectively split into two by L3) and at the same time from the perspective of measuring the inductance from the "outside" you have the flux cancellation (the toroid is a single contiguous toroid.)

Effectively, you have lost the "Big L" do to the toroid.  It is split into two "small L's" by funky L3 and you get a high resonance frequency.

In the case of the low resonance frequency and low resonance voltage you have:

In this case L1 and L2 are wired correctly so when seen from the "outside"  (the inductance meter) you measure high inductance.  Note again that in this case the toroid is seen as a single contiguous toroid and there is no flux cancellation.
However, funky L3 is still splitting the toroid into to halves.  The EMF induced into L1 is the opposite of the EMF induced into L2 and as a result they nearly completely cancel each other out.

Here is where it gets a bit subtle and perhaps Verpies can comment in case I am wrong.  It appears that you still have a "Big L" and a low resonance frequency, but the EMFs from L1 and L2 cancel and you get almost no voltage output.

I will do my rant again:  The way L3 is set up is completely and totally nonsensical.  Likewise every second transformer or magnetic circuit that you see on the forums has a bloody magnet or magnets as part of the magnetic circuit.  This is also completely and totally nonsensical.  Magnets produce "DC" magnetic flux and magnetic circuits and coils ONLY RESPOND TO AC excitation.  The only thing the magnets do is degrade the performance of the cores.  There may be be some tiny niche applications for magnets in this context but I am not talking about that.  Whenever you see some free energy proposition with a magnetic component with magnets in the circuit to "compress the fields" or whatever you can consider it to be B.S.

MileHigh

[itsu]

Here is where it gets a bit subtle and perhaps Verpies can comment in case I am wrong.  It appears that you still have a "Big L" and a low resonance frequency, but the EMFs from L1 and L2 cancel and you get almost no voltage output.

Ok, so the very low voltages (500mV pp) at this low frequency which inhibits the output bulb ( see video below) to even glow comes from this L3 canceling the EMF's.
I could test this by using another coil (L4), but now normally wound like the secondary coils and use that as injector coil for the FG.


Just before your comment, i did some measurements with the both secondary coils in aiding parallel.
They now resonate at 174Hz, but with very low signals and the bulb is not lit.

When i now want for L3 also to resonate at 174Hz, it means i have to add 830uF of (bipolar) capacitance to L3 (1mH).
I don't think this is a practical way so this means to me that Jack did test his setup with the both secondaries in opposing parallel
setup like i had yesterday.

Jack did mention in post #167 something about adding another 1000nF cap, but this was when he was using opposing (10KHz resonance) parallel coils.
Adding more capacitance in aiding mode only lowers the resonance frequency even more.

So opposing parallel is the way to go?

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v77XLg__nPw&feature=youtu.be

Regards itsu

[itsu]

My idea of these low voltages on this low frequency is that it is caused by the low inductive reactance of this 1mH L3 coil at 174Hz which according to:
http://www.electronics2000.co.uk/calc/reactance-calculator.php is:   XL = 1.093 Ohms

This seems to be confirmed by the low input voltage from the FG as can be seen in the clip above.

I guess i will have to hurry up on my build on these EL2009's verpies mentioned or use an imt (impedance matching transformer) to transform the 50 Ohm of the FG to the 1 Ohm of the L3


Regards Itsu

[MileHigh]

Itsu:

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

In clip #17, you are stating that there is a huge voltage drop across the function generator output when it drives the setup.  As you know the L1 and L2 are in an aiding configuration from point of view of the inductance meter, but when driven by L3 the EMFs are opposite at they create a short.  So I am assuming that a somewhat high current is flowing through the L1-L2 loop.  Note that L1 + L2 alone forms a big resistor.  That current may be higher than the current going through the capacitor.

So that represents a big load on L3, which then causes a big load on the signal generator output.  That's an impedance mismatch with the 50-ohm output of the function generator so not much power is flowing.

What surprises me how much of a load (low impedance) the circuit represents.  I was figuring that the L3 coupling might not be that good, but thinking about it again, perhaps better than I thought.  L3 looks like a regular coil with a cylindrical core.  The "cylindrical core" is the toroid of course.  That volume of magnetic material may store enough energy to create that heavy load, even though the return flux path has to go through the high reluctance air.  Perhaps measuring some of the currents would be interesting.

If you added a "normal" L4 you would indeed see much different results.  The L1 and L2 would work together from both sides of the coin, as seen by the inductance meter, and also as 'seen' by L4.

All in all, it looks like the setup is a very low impedance AC load.  More power is being burned off in the function generator resistor than the circuit.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Note that you have the voltage drop in in the function generator no load vs. load.  That gives you the data to measure the AC impedance of the circuit as a whole.  How does that compare to the reactance calculation?

P.S.:  On second thought I am not sure what I said above is a valid comparison.  The pure reactance of the inductor is a different thing than the inductor driving a magnetically coupled load.  In the former case you will see the 90 degree phase lag in the current because of the pure inductance.  I believe in the latter case you would see a much smaller the phase shift between voltage and current because of the resistive load being coupled back to the source and dominating.  I am thinking that the resistive load from the wire resistance in L1 and L2 is what dominates.  Then there is the cap to consider.