Bifilar pancake coil overunity experiment

[ayeaye]

Let's say you have two weights that you need to compare, and your only measurement tool is a two-pan balance scale. So you put weight A on the left pan and you put weight B on the right pan, and sure enough, the scale deflects with weight A being lower than weight B. Do you immediately conclude that A is heavier.... OR DO YOU DO THE CONTROL EXPERIMENT of swapping positions and putting A on the RIGHT pan and B on the LEFT pan to see if the "heaviness" follows the A weight or stays on the same side with the SCALE itself being out of kilter some how....?

With weights yes. With oscilloscope... Sure what goes through the different circuits there, can be different, though it mostly isn't. I calibrated my oscilloscope to the inverted channels too, as much as i remember. Or then was it written in the manual, i did everything written in the manual.

But about programming. It should really not be an unsurmountable obstacle to take samples from the oscilloscope and write some simple code to do calculations from these. The results of these calculations can be trusted too, they are reality, telling what really is there. Or it can be found out how much they correspond to the reality. More than that, when taking samples from the oscilloscope, it's more precise, as samples are precise.

Even with an analog oscilloscope, like look at the screen image of the collector voltage above, you cannot very exactly see where it goes, right? But after drawing it with Inkscape on the image of the oscilloscope screen, and plotting the obtained samples, one can easily see the particular values of the voltage.

Like as my mathematics teacher once told, computer is a tool of perception  And this is what it really is, computer is for modeling reality.

What concerns all kind of finding an area, etc, this is making simpler the things that don't need to be made simpler. As when there are samples, it's not difficult to do all kind of calculations from these, area is the most trivial.

The following are scripts that calculate from lists, also put in ideone. With i don't know what lists, just that you can see that it works. There is unfortunately no other way, that i know, to change the code, than to go to main page, and paste the code and input again. Not really the best, certainly not for python, but it is most widely used. Why so, it's more like a paste board for code, that then runs it too.

Input.

https://ideone.com/KpnQoU

Output.

https://ideone.com/gZVrj5

Is it really so complicated? Like run the following in ideone. Write any sequence of numbers in stdin, run it, and in stdout will be all these numbers multiplied by 1.2. In that case no lines in stdin should be empty, including the last one. In every iteration, the string s is the next line in the standard input, and float(s) converts it to a floating point number. If there is something that can be converted to a number. There must be : after the for statement, and say 4 spaces before every statement in the loop. Assigning like 0.0 to variable, creates a floating point variable. Then it should be no problem to do any calculations from the list. import sys imports the sys module, to read the standard input. That's all.

import sys

a = 1.2
for s in sys.stdin:
   print(float(s) * a)

There is also a python interactive shell, at the following link. Code can be pasted there. I tried the input script, it worked when i pasted all  bout the last two sentences, and pressed enter. Then pasted the list, then pressed ctrl-d, this ends the input. Then pasted the last two statements, and got the right result. It's very nice to play, to learn python.

https://www.python.org/shell

[ayeaye]

One small problem that i encountered, some versions of python require parentheses after print, some don't. So the Inkscape script should better be the following for it to work with all versions.

import sys

def next(separator):
    global pos
    begin = pos + 1
    pos = str.find(separator, begin)
    if (pos == -1): pos = len(str)
    return int(round(float(str[begin : pos])))

str = ""
for s in sys.stdin:
    begin = s.find("d=\"m ")
    if (begin == -1): continue
    begin = s.find(" ", begin)
    end = s.find("\"", begin)
    str = s[begin : end]

pos = 0
list = []
next(",")
next(" ")
list.append([0, 0, 0, 0])
while (True):
    x = list[-1][0] + abs(next(","))
    y = list[-1][1] - next(" ")
    list[-1][2] = x
    list[-1][3] = y
    if (pos == len(str)): break
    list.append([x, y, 0, 0])

n = 0
for j in range(list[-1][2]):
    while (j >= list[n][2]): n += 1
    lx = list[n][2] - list[n][0]
    ly = list[n][3] - list[n][1]
    ratio = float(j - list[n][0]) / lx
    if (j): print(list[n][1] + int(round(ly * ratio)))

I played with online shells, in the  python shell i had to right click at the bottom right and select open frame in the new tab, as otherwise in my browser the last line was rather half. There are other shells like the following, and all worked for me.

https://trinket.io/console

There is also the following online compiler that also enables to edit code. It is perhaps the best onine compiler, but rather difficult to use.

https://repl.it

Python, some say no, spreadsheet. I showed before that spreadsheets are not precise enough when many numbers need to be calculated and added. Sometimes they may be good enough. But that spreadsheets are overall good for electronics calculations, i don't quite agree, but opinions may vary.

I think i now told everything. For this experiment it's necessary to somehow calculate power from samples for the input part and output part. Thus all the python scripts and such. No matter what one prefers for that. I hope that i at least provided enough information to show what calculations have to be done, and how to do them. I think that i have nothing more to say, ask if anything is not clear.

[ayeaye]

No, i'm sorry, the trinket shell doesn't work when pasting the scripts. The python.org one however does. Go to the following link.

https://www.python.org

And there click on the > in the big yellow square. This launches the interactive shell. And when doing it like that, the last line was not half in my browser, it worked fine.

You cannot paste code beyond the for loop that reads the standard input. You can paste up to and including that loop and then press enter, this indicates that you entered the loop, and it will be executed. Then paste the input, then press ctrl-d, this ends the input. Then paste the rest of the code, it will be executed right away, and the result will be printed. One can even run the Inkscape script in that way, pasting all the content of the svg file. In the input loop it just finds that string of the path. You can write print(str) and see that it's there. Then paste the rest of the code, and it will output the list made from that string.

There is Trinket online compiler that enables editing. A text file can be created there, it is not so good though that it cannot be used as standard input. So to solve that, name that file always input.txt, and it is used the same as input. The following are the scripts in there, and they can be run and edited.

Inkscape.

https://trinket.io/python/bcebcac99c

Input part.

https://trinket.io/python/3b8301221e

Output part.

https://trinket.io/python/249128ab54

PS Rigol DS1052E has seemingly in its samples 25 units in one y scale and 50 samples ("points") in one time scale. In run mode it gives 600 samples that should correspond to one screen  https://rigol.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2269119-how-do-i-format-the-data-returned-from-a-ds1000e-d-series-scope- . This can be tested. There the raw value is subtracted from 240, then the value corresponding to the center of the screen is subtracted.

[ayeaye]

The inherent error of Rigol DS1052E is by that +/- 2% of the voltage scale. Which is two times more than the error of the analog oscilloscope like mine, by its calibration requirements. By the specifications the precision of my oscilloscope is +/- 3%, but this doesn't correspond to the rest of data, and is thus likely artificially too low, as i said.

When the traces of the analog oscilloscope are drawn with 50 units per scale, and it's done correctly, then it's thus twice the precision of Rigol, and most of the error doesn't come from the method, but from the oscilloscope. But overall one can get the Rigol precision +/- 2% of the scale, when getting samples with that method.

To estimate the error thus, calculate the input part with 2% of the voltage scale added, and the output part with 2% of the voltage scale subtracted from all samples (points). The efficiency that there is by calculating in that way, is the minimal efficiency there is considering the errors. Based on what i can say from what i know so far.

Which is one more reason i think to get the waveform data out of the oscilloscope and do calculations from that. I don't have much idea how any calculations the oscilloscope itself may do, can be altered in that way. The other reason being that about the calculations that the oscilloscope does, it is likely not known how these calculations are exactly done, and thus their possible error cannot be estimated.

[ayeaye]

I'm sorry, reading things here, get some new ideas. Or just to explain. TinselKoala thought that a coil, and a capacitor in parallel with it or something, is an equivalent of a bifilar coil that has capacitance. This is certainly not the equivalent, one thing it has not twice the inductance of the ordinary coil, as a bifilar coil has.

But i thought, what may be closer to an equivalent, is. Add capacitors between the windings, in several places of the coil. Like, the coil has the radius 100 mm, one capacitor between the bifilar windings for every 10 mm of the radius, that is, one 10 mm from the center, other 20 mm from the center, etc. Then the current doesn't have long way to go to the nearest capacitor, and maybe not so much lenz effect. That way bifilar coils can be made with a great capacitance between the windings, that cannot otherwise be made an all.

Just an idea that came to my mind, when reading some things. Don't judge me, i have not analyzed that idea, not tested, don't know whether it's right or any good. Just got an idea and put it out.

Yes, Trinket is a good online Python. Very easy to change both the code and the input data, all in one place, nothing else really provides that. Except spreadsheet, yes spreadsheet, spreadsheet is not good for all calculations.

https://trinket.io/python/403945f28d

https://trinket.io/python

I created a thread about it here.

https://overunity.com/17949/python-online-compiler

When you get the waveform data out of the oscilloscope somehow, then i may help to convert it and do any calculations from it.