OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

[CTG Labs]

Hi all,

This thread has gone a bit scew wiff?

Sandy has said that from the energy used from C1, there is more in total stored in C2 and used in R1 than was taken from C1.

So this is not about mis-understandings of 50% loss during charging with no inductive parts or differences with Switched Mode Power Supplies which can have theoretical efficiency up to %99.  Sandys test shows in the region of %147.

It is purely that according to his measurements there is more energy used in R1 and stored in C2 than was taken from C1 in the first place, but everyone is skirting around that and trying to pick out other things.

Measuring the starting energy in C1 and the energy taken from C1 cannot be at fault beacuse that is straight forward DC measurement and application of simple energy formula.  The energy stored in C2 after the test run is also a simple DC measurement and simple formula.  Just these two do not show any excess energy.

The excess shows up when you add the energy used in R1 to the energy left over in C2 and compare that to the energy taken from C1.  So the key lies in the scope measurement and calculation for energy used in R1.

It is an irregular waveform and Sandy has taken the average of the instantaneuous power in R1 over the complete test cycle.  In average measurements this may be perfectly acceptable, but here it could could be the difference between champagne and a red face.

.99 did a very nice PDF which showed how efficiency can increase (although it does not explain why the need to use more energy to charge a capacictor the more it is charged, can be over come (according to Sandy)).  But it does not explain how more energy can be used in total than was taken from the first capacitor.

The energy measurement in R1 must be confirmed.  I have performed a few tests and so far I cannot see any excess energy let alone confirm the measurement.  I have been very busy over the last few weeks but will try a few more tests before moving on.  We must not ignore things like the sampling rate of our digital scopes and the data we then exported to Excel which could give us different figures for the same test?

@.99, you mentioned that if you can charge a capacitor to a higher voltage it doesn't mean you have excess energy?  I am not sure of the circumstances, but if I have a circuit running off a cap that starts with say 10v and the circuit is able to use the energy stored in that cap and increase the stored voltage to 100v in the same cap and the capacitance value has not changed, then that would surely be excess energy would it not?  I am sure this is not what you meant when you said you had done that many times?



Regards,

Dave.

[nul-points]

Quote from: HEYDUDE on December 12, 2008, 02:57:51 AM

> ...There is no "extra" amount of joules required to do this...

> ...50% energy is lost as heat in the resistor, because in this case all of the current must flow through the resistor..

Heydude said this before I did and deserves credit. I concur 100%. Well said and succinctly put.

There are yet no rebuttals?

you concur 100%?

interesting


HD's 1st para is addressing something which hadn't been stated in the thread**

- and HD´s 2nd para was just a repeat of what i've previously been saying in the thread

so the first point was a non-issue and the second wasn't in dispute

no 'rebuttal', as you put it, necessary

all the best
s.


** i'd mentioned that the textbook position on charging a capacitor claims that, in order to do this, work is required as the cap charges, to overcome the increasing polarisation of the dielectric

HD appeared to have misread my statement as if i was saying that somehow an "extra amount of joules" were required

[nul-points]

Sandy,

You apparently have absolutely no understanding of the information you have quoted, so don't go around spouting off with stuff you do not even understand.
...
The "Perreault Capacitor" sounds like a bunch of hype about a water capacitor.

i'm pleased to see that your sense of humour is as well-developed as your knowledge of hybrid capacitors 


well, gentlemen, much as i'd like to sit down with you guys, chewing the fat, the holiday is over and i've got experiments to run

all the best
s.

[nul-points]

Hi all,

This thread has gone a bit scew wiff?
...

The excess shows up when you add the energy used in R1 to the energy left over in C2 and compare that to the energy taken from C1.  So the key lies in the scope measurement and calculation for energy used in R1.

It is an irregular waveform and Sandy has taken the average of the instantaneuous power in R1 over the complete test cycle.  In average measurements this may be perfectly acceptable, but here it could could be the difference between champagne and a red face.

welcome back Dave - as always, an incisive and apposite contribution to bring the thread back on track!   good to see


...testing continues...


all the best
s.

[Grumpy]

i'm pleased to see that your sense of humour is as well-developed as your knowledge of hybrid capacitors 


well, gentlemen, much as i'd like to sit down with you guys, chewing the fat, the holiday is over and i've got experiments to run

all the best
s.

You missed my point, but you are correct - I know nothing about hybrid capacitors.

Good luck with you experiments.