Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[TinselKoala]

The word "resonance" has crept in.  That's new?

Well, not exactly "new". There has been some mention of selecting a frequency that causes the output to peak.

Is this truly a resonant condition though?
Or is it just a matter of being solidly in the bandpass region of the filter? If your coils are only a few milliHenry of inductance... how are you going to get a true resonance at some low audio frequency? With no capacitors in your circuit? 

I can show some "feedback resonance" in my circuit testbed with the secondary in bucking mode and with twin LEDs for the load.. and it's in the multi-MHz frequency range, looks really cool on the scope. But it's just the op-amp oscillating when it really shouldn't.



Meanwhile, the variometer style of coil allows one to adjust continuously from aiding to bucking and back again.  There are some really cool images of variometer coils on Google images, take a look. Even one of mine is in the list, from the "australia radio" crystal set.

[MileHigh]

Cool, the YouTube guy that repairs old radios sometimes shows a variometer coil inside a radio.  I think more often in 1920s radios.

I view "resonance" for this project as a blind alley.  We all know how abused and misapproproated that term is.  The question for Chris is "Why?"

My personal update on Smudge's research:  He is now talking about "negative resistance effects between two coaxial coils spaced a certain distance apart on a ferrite bar" giving you over unity.  He has done some modelling and even looked up propagation velocities inside the ferrite bar.  It looks like he is talking about magnetic field propagation velocities.  I am not sure if he is also looking into fine-grained magnetic domain flipping propagation velocities.  He suggests it could be over unity but worries about other losses drowning out the alleged over unity effects.

Well, then please do a timing diagram Smudge.  Put your money where your mouth is and turn all of your research into a comprehensive timing diagram.  Show where the over unity manifests itself on the timing diagram.  You can even model various elements as being ideal so that the alleged over unity shows up.  I know that my comments are being worded as almost a challenge as opposed to a request.  There is a reason for that though.  How often have we seen claims of over unity and when you ask the claimant for a timing diagram explaining what they are discussing they give you strange looks.  I figure after all the talking, you either sink or you swim based on your capability to make a credible timing diagram that shows your alleged over unity process.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Conrad:

Just a few minor corrections:

used the wrong Voltage for calculating power dissipation in the primary coil H1.

It's not "dissipation" for the coil H1.  It's the power transferred into the primary coil H1.  Granted, some of that power becomes heat. The RMS current-squared times the coil resistance becomes power dissipated in the coil itself.  The rest of the power flows into the transformer secondary, etc.

I did not do the calculation Vpp * 0.7

It's actually (Vpp/2) * 0.7071

I don't think I am being picky here.  When you are reporting your results, including fundamental concepts, formulas, calculations, etc., it really should be correct.

I know that you are busy and have limited time so that is taken into account.  But, it is still worth correcting you in order to encourage everyone to get it right.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Conrad:

Okay, we are going to review the business about moving the resistor from the ground line to the AC-output line of the function generator.  You posting is quoted below and I also attached your marked-up graphic.

I did not discuss this earlier because it was not that important at the time and I did not want to interrupt your process.  Now is the time to talk about it and the reason goes back to the fundamental principles of getting a proper understanding of what is going on and also not to lead ourselves down a garden path.  These are very important principles.

Your statement:

<<<<<<
While doing the "reality check" suggested by MileHigh  (output only from one of the partnered coils)  I realised that I had a bad error in the measurement set up.

Please look at the attached drawing. The error is caused by the ground connection between my scope and my function generator.

The shunt R1 (on the input side in series with the primary coil) is in a bad place, because it lifts the potential of the primary off the ground. This would not be any trouble unless one measures the output with a scope, which has a ground connection to the mains ground and then to the ground of the function generator. The secondary is pulled down to ground and the output looks smaller that it is.

The error is not very big, the output was about halved. But because the output is so much lower than the input, this is no great thing.

I will redo the measurements with the shunt R1 in the right place (on the signal side, not at the ground side of the primary).
>>>>>>>

There is actually nothing wrong with your original configuration with R1 on the bottom connected to the ground line.  So let's examine this and find out why.

You say, "The shunt R1 (on the input side in series with the primary coil) is in a bad place, because it lifts the potential of the primary off the ground. This would not be any trouble unless one measures the output with a scope, which has a ground connection to the mains ground and then to the ground of the function generator. The secondary is pulled down to ground and the output looks smaller that it is."

You say, "It lifts the potential of the primary off the ground."  Let's say it more precisely:  When the resistor is on the ground line, the bottom of the coil gets an "AC wobble" and the top of the coil is fixed and must follow the AC voltage from the function generator.

Let's examine when the resistor is on top.   Then we can say when the resistor is on the function generator output line, the top of the coil gets an "AC wobble" on top of the regular AC signal and the bottom of the coil is fixed and must follow the ground potential.

So the main difference is that in one case the "AC wobble" is on the bottom of the coil, and in the other case the "AC wobble" is on the top of the coil.  As far as the coil itself is concerned, it makes no real difference.

You say, "This would not be any trouble unless one measures the output with a scope, which has a ground connection to the mains ground and then to the ground of the function generator. The secondary is pulled down to ground and the output looks smaller that it is."  This is related to the red text in your diagram where you say, "therefore the secondary is also offset from ground."

Here is the issue:  If there is a "AC wobble" on the bottom of the primary coil because the resistor is on the ground line, this in theory will not directly affect the potential difference you can measure across the secondary coil.  The secondary is completely floating and separate from the primary.  For example, there is no real potential difference that you can measure between the bottom of the primary and the bottom of H3 because there is no electrical connection between the two entities.  When I say this I am intentionally ignoring any possible capacitive coupling effects.

You say, "the output was about halved."  I believe you and I am not challenging your observation.  However, there is no direct link between your observation and moving the resistor from the bottom to the top.  A secondary effect may have caused this.  For example, when you made the ground connection with your cable clip lead to the secondary, the ground shield loading from the entire length of your scope cable may have attenuated your voltage measurement on the secondary.  The setup on the secondary is "weird" with the resistor between two fighting coils and the whole thing may have been high-impedance and "extra sensitive."  You know sometimes when you touch a signal that you are scoping with your fingertip and you see the signal go down in amplitude by 90%?  Perhaps something like that.   My proposed modified setup in posting #712 may work and mitigate those issues because the recommendation is to either not even use the ground clip leads of your scope cables, or to leave them connected at the central ground point.

But, to bring it all back home.  From what I see at least on paper, there was nothing wrong with having the R1 resistor on the bottom on the ground line.  In theory all of the measurements can be made with no problems with ground loops, etc.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Grumage:

This one's for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T500ecHP3pE