Interesting experiment with an transformer, 2 lamps, diodes and an magnet

[GM]

Marcus,

It's good to hear you will still work on your devices. This morning I am more convinced than ever that you and Patrick Stephen's MEG are on to something big-- real potential for "free energy."  If I ever get FEMM working, lol, then I have a design that will hopefully shed some light.

Hello Pawl 
( SCNR, just kidding - really! Every time you write Marcus I have to grin and say to myself "Oh he is once again thinking of Marcus Wagner.  But it's really no problem for me. You know, I am really insightfully)

Yes, as you ascertained I will not stop my experiments. Only shifting the area/range of experimenting.
I really want to suss out the secret of Mr. Marks fascinating power device. I am heavyly possessed by
his invention and the consequences for the mankind.
But to make progress, it requires some adaptions of the strategy some times. :-)


I would be very glad if you have success with your Idea.

Bye, Markus

[PaulLowrance]

Hi Markus,

Here I am all this time thinking you were Marcus Wagner. He's not your brother is he, lol?  Marcus and Markus. ;-)

Sorry, my fault. I still like your device. It's even similar to MW's, no?

Paul

[GM]

Hello z_p_e,

at first thank you very much for sharing your worked off informations about Mr. Marks invention!
:thumbsup: I think,I have enough to read the next time, including the mega SM-thread. :-)

One thing I would check before you get too far is the compensation of your scope probes.
The small bumps seen in your picture could be caused by an uncompensated probe.

I think the probes are proper compensated, because I compansate them according to the scopes user
manual... but I can be wrong.

I am not regular trained in using a scope. During my scholing -long time ago- I unfortunately
never learned how to use a scope. And my job(s) since then were never concerned to
electronics.

Okay I read some tutorials about using a scope, when I recently bought it, but I have no
practical experiences. :-/ So I could miss some important things during my experiements.

I use probes which are switchable from x1 factor to x10 factor. By today I used the probes
in x10 factor mode because I was afraid I could destroy my scope when some really heavy kickbacks
will appear during the measurements.

But I think the actually wire-experiment would not produce to high voltage kickbacks, so I could
use the probes in x1 factor mode.

But I have a novice question :blushing:
Do I understand it correclty, that probes with a x1 factor must NOT be compensate because they
pass through the signal unaltered to the scope?
If this is the case, then this mode would be the best to measure a correct signal, right?

The other thing that could be causing the small bump, is the inductance of your wire. It does appear that there is a significant enough inductance to cause a damped oscillation when the pulse goes low. To minimize the inductance, you could try a longer piece of wire, and keep it from forming any loops.

I have done the measurement again with a 2.5 meter long wire.
The wire is approx. 0.5mm in diameter. It's a wire which is used for telephone-installations
in germany. I took care that the wire does not form serveral loops, but it is in the nature
of this setup that I will have still *one* big loop.

One other thing is: which parameter should we be looking for? I, V, or P ? With your pictures, you are monitoring voltage, but perhaps is current the one that we should be looking for? If so, then I would suggest method #1 above be tried to see any effects. I'm not sure though if it makes any difference, as the effect may show in both.

Yes, but anyway one can only measure volages with a scope.

So when I measure the voltage across the wire I would also measure a value of the current
that flows throgh the wire. Not the absolute value but the tendecy. When the voltage alternation
goes up and down (wave looks like a hill), then IMHO we can be sure that it's not an alteration
of the resitance caused by a thermal increase of the wire.

Because if the wire would show an alteration in resistance caused by getting hotter, then the
measured signal would not drop shortly after the current will begin to flow. It would stay on
the higher level of voltage.
(Sorry I had some drinks in the meantime - I hope you understand what I mean ;-) )

Judging by the output voltage of CH1, it appears your signal generator has at least a 50 Ohm output as only about 6V is appearing there. You may try eliminating the diode and repeat the measurement. There should be no harm done to your generator, as you should be able to short its output directly without damage. Diodes can have a fairly significant "ON" resistance depending on the circuit and input parameters.

No, the generartors impedance is quite exactly the internal resistance of the 9.6 Volt accumulator.
Look at the schematic, the FET will switch the the full voltage through the wire.
The specified resistance of the FET, when it is in on-state, is less than 1 Ohm.

Please have a look on the new scope shots. If there are any errors in reasoning
please let me know. I'm not sure, but maybe this are really the kicks Mr. Mark told from.

Regards, Markus

(Ouhh, *burps* I have to go to bed now... No no, during the measurement I had no drink! ;-) )


@Paul: Hello Paul, no I have no brother. :-)

I still like your device. It's even similar to MW's, no?

As far as I know Marcus Wagner invented an "everlasting Battery", not an coil arrangement. But who knows?
Edit 04.Sep.06: Paul, you're right! There is a battery charger made by Marcus Wagner. See here! And this circuit use a coil arrangement.
It was Marcus Ried who invented the "crystal battery". Ouh, so much Marcus' around me...
Sorry, this time it was my failure. But also he is not my brother.

[MeggerMan]

Hi Markus,
I see you are using a 9.6v (nicad?) drill power pack as your power supply.
You may want to put some large capacitors in your circuit, say about 20000uF to allow the Mosfet to fully switch on and to prevent the pulse circuit from losing its power during the "on" pulse.
Also I have seen circuits for PWM speed controllers use two transistors to fully switch the mosfet:
http://www.4qdtec.com/pwm-01.html#soph

You use a pnp and a npn transistor to fully turn the mosfet on and off.

I had no luck with my DC-DC circuit so I will build a pulse circuit like yours (using a 555) and test that instead.
I think the DC-DC controller is too clever for its own good and any changes introduced by the magnet I applied to the toroid was compensated for in the pulse applitude.  I did not use a scope, only 2 digital multi-meters measuring current.

Regards

Rob

[z_p_e]

Hi Markus.

Generally speaking, you can't measure the voltage across the 1 Ohm resistor that way. You are introducing a second ground in your circuit with the scope probe. This could explain why you are not measuring much voltage.

A better way to measure the voltage across the resistor (which will give you an indication of the current in the circuit) is to use both scope probes set at the same sensitivity, and in difference mode. There will be a switch somewhere that inverts channel 2 (usually) so that you can measure the difference between the two probes (CH1 - CH2). This way you do not load the circuit in any way, and your measurement will be true. So in your diagram, CH1 will be the same, but where you have the probe GND now, you will put CH2 there. You can attach one of the scope probe grounds to your circuit ground.

Your scope probe looks compensated....good stuff.

X10 probes are good when measuring high voltages, because it attenuates the signal. Also, they introduce less loading on the circuit you are measuring. Generally, X1 probes have a resistance of about 1M, and X10 probes are about 10M. For the measurement you are doing, the X1 position is more than adequate since your circuit contains relatively low resistances.

z_p_e