Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MileHigh]

I just want to comment on PW's suggestion of using the 50-ohm non-inductive output resistor in the function generator itself as the current viewing resistor.  This method beats my method by a country mile because you then are dealing with a current sensing signal that has 50 times the amplitude.  That presumably keeps you way above the background noise and quantization noise in the signal.  At least in many cases it will, and most likely it would in this case.

It's gets a little tricky to do that and I can sketch out two possible ways:

1.  If your DSO has a waveform storage buffer, you first record the unloaded function generator output waveform.  Then you connect up your device and then record the loaded waveform.  Then, presumably you can line up the two stored waveforms by making sure that the zero-cross occurs at the same time.  Then you ask your DSO to display the unloaded function generator waveform and the (Ch1 - Ch2) waveform.  I am assuming that that might require a higher-end DSO to do all that fancy stuff.

2.  You export the two waveforms as comma separated values and you load them into two columns of a spreadsheet.   You manually offset one of the waveforms so that the zero-cross lines up.  Then you do your waveform subraction and then set up the spreadsheet to display the two waveforms.  This would require a moderate knowledge level for manipulating spreadsheets.  The beauty here is that the sky is the limit.

Either way, you would be working with a 50-ohm current sensing resistor and that really would make a difference when doing high frequency current sensing measurements on a high impedance inductor.

MileHigh

[picowatt]

I just want to comment on PW's suggestion of using the 50-ohm non-inductive output resistor in function generator itself as the current viewing resistor.  This method beats my method by a country mile because you then are dealing with a current sensing signal that has 50 times the amplitude.  That presumably keeps you way above the background noise and quantization noise in the signal.  At least in many cases it will, and most likely it would in this case.

It's gets a little tricky to do that and I can sketch out two possible ways:

1.  If your DSO has a waveform storage buffer, you first record the unloaded function generator output waveform.  Then you connect up your device and then record the loaded waveform.  Then, presumably you can line up the two stored waveforms by making sure that the zero-cross occurs at the same time.  Then you ask your DSO to display the unloaded function generator waveform and the (Ch1 - Ch2) waveform.  I am assuming that that might require a higher-end DSO to do all that fancy stuff.

2.  You export the two waveforms as comma separated values and you load them into two columns of a spreadsheet.   You manually offset one of the waveforms so that the zero-cross lines up.  Then you do your waveform subraction and then set up the spreadsheet to display the two waveforms.  This would require a moderate knowledge level for manipulating spreadsheets.  The beauty here is that the sky is the limit.

Either way, you would be working with a 50-ohm current sensing resistor and that really would make a difference when doing high frequency current sensing measurements on a high impedance inductor.

MileHigh

MH,

Or... You can simply probe the FG output with the circuit disconnected, write that measurement down, reconnect the circuit, remeasure the FG output and then write that measurement down.  Measurement done...

If desired, two separate scope captures can be used to record the two measurements.  No simultaneous view or math trace is required. 

Use of a BNC tee (or a male and female BNC soldered back to back) at the FG output can be used for a convenient test point.

I believe I have sufficiently covered the making of this measurement in previous posts (including a method to verify that removing a probe from the "negatively resisting" circuit does not affect its operation).

However, all that said, three scope captures would be ideal.  The first demonstrating that the circuit is indeed operating as desired at 3.62MHz as in previous tests, the second showing the FG output as measured directly at the FG's BNC (using the scope probe that has been disconnected from the circuit's 1R CVR), and the third showing the FG output with the circuit disconnected from the FG.  All measurements would be made with the scope triggered externally from the FG.  During FG output measurements, I would connect the probe's ground lead to the FG ground (actually, I would also pay attention to what effect, if any, connecting or not connecting that ground to the FG makes to all measurements).

PW

[picowatt]

At 10 MHz,and FG set to 20 VPP, both channels read the same,but at 20MHz i get a 4mV difference where channel 1 reads the higher RMS value by the 4mV.

Tinman,

Are the measurements also identical at your 3.62Mhz test frequency and at closer to your typical operating amplitude?

PW

[MileHigh]

PW:

Thanks for your expert advice.  I realize that I probably tripped myself up with respect to lining up the zero-cross between waveform captures because there may be a time shift in the zero cross of the waveform of the device under test.  I am simply not familiar with the equipment to know the mechanics of how to make sure separate multiple waveform captures are aligned in time but I assume that the external trigger from the FG could be used as a time stamp or something to that effect.

For real eye candy, I just love the thought of taking scope captures and passing them through the right digital low-pass filter and ending up with beautiful smooth over-sampled floating-point scope traces.  Then doing floating-point math on the various waveforms and displaying that on your monitor.  If I was an uber nerd I would be using sensing coils on various magnetic paths in some kind of transformer setup and integrating on them to produce waveforms of the actual magnitude of the flux flowing through said magnetic paths.  That would be really cool!

MileHigh

[partzman]

I have attached a paper below showing the data for a variation on the coil design used in the previously disclosed passive device which I will refer to as the Passive Power Device or PPD. This will undoubtedly raise questions for some but should also supply answers to others.

partzman