Bifilar pancake coil overunity experiment

[F6FLT]

...
The bottom line is experienced OU experimenters know the importance of trying a self-loop any circuit setup that
you think might be showing OU.
...

I agree. It's the only way to prove OU and generally it is where we understand our previous mistakes .
The measurements are just a means to know if our matter is enough convincing to lead us to build a possible "self-runner".

[Void]

I agree. It's the only way to prove OU and generally it is where we understand our previous mistakes .
The measurements are just a means to know if our matter is enough convincing to lead us to build a possible "self-runner".

Agreed.

[itsu]

I had anticipated this difficulty. To remove it, a differential measurement could be the solution. On my old Tektronix I could choose to display channel A-B. I don't know if it's still possible with modern scopes as yours (or my Siglent, not yet searched for that).

If i do a differential measurement across R2 using CH2 blue and CH4 green, and use the Math to substract them, i get the below screenshot.

It shows that CH1 yellow, CH2 blue and CH4 green are all of the same phase and the Math calculates the difference to be 45mA (like the current probe before).

But i have still my doubts about the phase compared to CH1 yellow, i still think it should be offset about 62° like seen before.


Itsu

[ayeaye]

I agree. It's the only way to prove OU and generally it is where we understand our previous mistakes .
The measurements are just a means to know if our matter is enough convincing to lead us to build a possible "self-runner".

I strongly disagree, self-looping is not a way to prove OU at all.

All the discussion of the immense difficulties of measurement seems to be to arrive to that conclusion, a panacea to avoid all difficulties and get all easily.

All just about measuring a circuit that is quite simple and even not that difficult to measure.

No, there are no miracle solutions, there are not. One cannot escape accurate and careful measurements for doing research, cannot replace them with anything. There is no way, who say there are, want to avoid research.

Replace it with talk maybe, it is easy to talk when there is no research and no data to base the talk on, all is just conjectures. Who want to write books, sure love self-looping. Like one can talk endlessly whether the looping goes on clockwise, or counter-clockwise

I don't expect one to agree, because as i already showed, not strong in analytical thinking. If not learned meanwhile.

[partzman]

Time is difficult to find at the moment due to the holidays but here is some input in regards to the many comments I see.  I have worked with these types of bifilar circuits for the past 4 years and in fact not just bifilar (simplest form) but also trifilar, quadfiliar, and pentafilar.  Each one has it's own unique characteristics and many are counter-intuitive.

Regarding my post #292 and the varying COPs, please look at the aberrations in the CSR voltage waveform on CH4(grn) that cross the zero line.  Now calculate the sensitivity of the phase measurement based on 5M points across the 2us screen window and compute the resolution of the measurement over 360 degrees of the 685ns cycle period.  If one were to look at a CSV file of the phase measurement, these numbers would be all over the place due to these aberrations.  However, the integration of the samples taken with the same sample rate on CH1 and CH4 by the Math channel function are more absolute and more accurate IMO due to averaging.

Regarding the method of ground connections, please see the attached schematic that show the ground method I use on all these tests with or without any isolation transformer.  There is only one probe ground shield connected to this point (CH4) with all other higher voltage probes left with no ground lead connection.  This prevents ground looping into the more sensitive CH4 measurement by induction via the outer shields.  One must also have an understanding of the inner grounding scheme in the particular brand of scope being used.  They are not as you might assume as I found out from Tektronix on my MDO.

Looping!  No offense, but I really have to sometimes chuckle at the comments I see.  Oh I agree that looping is the ultimate proof of OU in any device, but if anyone reading this thread can provide or come up with a scheme to loop this particular device, we'll partner in the final product to serve mankind.  Certain types of circuit typologies are difficult to loop and this is one of them IMO so be my guest! 

Sometimes looping isn't required for proof however.  An example is negative input power measurement.  If this is encountered then the device should self oscillate under the proper conditions.

Regards,
Pm