GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 497632
  • *Total Topics: 14727
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 8
  • *Guests: 17
  • *Total: 25

Author Topic: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope  (Read 19820 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3556
Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« on: April 03, 2011, 03:33:12 PM »
Using a "switching circuit" that exhibits self-oscillation as an example, let's examine the possibility of making an accurate INPUT power measurement using only two readily available digital multi-meters set on DC Volts, and a 0.25 Ohm CSR.

The schematic multi-fet-schema04.png illustrates the 3 measurements taken for all scope shots.

The purple trace is instantaneous power p(t) taken directly from the battery as shown. In the last scope shot, the average of this trace is shown to indicate the real power supplied by the battery.

The red trace is the voltage across the CSR, including the parasitic inductance associated with it. The trace value is divided by the CSR value 0.25 to indicate the instantaneous current i(t).

The green trace is the voltage measured at the point shown. Some experimenters erroneously call this "the battery voltage", and as such it has been labeled "BAT" in the scope shots. This is the instantaneous voltage v(t) representing what is supposed to be the true battery voltage. We will see however that using this two-DMM measurement method does not appear to be detrimentally-affected by the dislocated battery voltage measurement.

The scope shots multi-fet-wave07.png through multi-fet-wave09.png illustrate the wave forms we are dealing with here; quite dynamic, high frequency components, burst-mode oscillation, trace values above and below zero. This is not necessarily a situation that is easy to nail down in terms of an INPUT power measurement. However, by examining the values shown, you will see that the averaging method is "un-phased" by the oscillatory nature of the traces, and is able to extract the correct values for both the average battery voltage and average CSR current.

Simply multiplying the average battery voltage (60V) by the average CSR current (2.8A) produces a result that is the same as the actual real power being supplied by the battery (168W), as determined by the Watt probe placed directly on the battery.

Providing this works in all cases and is not erroneous, this is good news for experimenters. It would appear that stray inductance both in the battery feed lines and that associated with the CSR resistor have no affect on the true values required to obtain the INPUT power measurement, if this measurement method is utilized.

1) Now an accurate INPUT power measurement is readily obtainable by anyone, and there is no reason not to perform this measurement.

2) In cases where excessive heat is claimed as the output, the true COP can now be calculated by comparing this INPUT power measurement with the power required to produce the equivalent output heat using a simple DC source as a control.

3) This method can be applied similarly to any circuit using an input DC voltage source.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2011, 03:34:05 AM »
Quite curious how so few seem interested in a simple, accurate and inexpensive method for measuring INPUT power.

 ???

.99

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2011, 03:40:14 AM »
perhaps they are waiting for you to provide this works in all cases and is not erroneous. ;) i know i am!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2011, 03:40:14 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2011, 04:00:12 AM »
perhaps they are waiting for you to provide this works in all cases and is not erroneous. ;) i know i am!

I will provide results. However, there are many folks on this forum, including Stefan, that ought to be showing some interest in this, and perhaps testing it out themselves as well.

15 downloads and zero responses tells me that very few are even interested in the possibility that this is viable.

Having a simple method like this at hand would readily put to rest (one way or the other) many people's claims; recent past, present and future. Perhaps that in itself is the reason little interest has been shown.

Glad you're interested Wilby.

.99

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2011, 05:23:50 AM »
I will provide results. However, there are many folks on this forum, including Stefan, that ought to be showing some interest in this, and perhaps testing it out themselves as well.

15 downloads and zero responses tells me that very few are even interested in the possibility that this is viable.

Having a simple method like this at hand would readily put to rest (one way or the other) many people's claims; recent past, present and future. Perhaps that in itself is the reason little interest has been shown.

Glad you're interested Wilby.

.99
yeah you're probably right.

true that. i noticed the same apathy at yOUR forum. just one response, from milehigh who used it as a segue to poke at rosemary. and i'll resist commenting on the irony of his irony sentence... ;)

i can't argue with that.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2011, 05:23:50 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2011, 05:28:41 AM »
Indeed,

There has been little comment there also.

Even Hum is mum.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 06:44:24 AM »
Poynty - I'M interested.  If that's any comfort.  But I can't OPEN THAT SCHEMATIC.  You know this.  I just assumed that you weren't letting me get into this discussion. 

Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2011, 06:44:24 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Groundloop

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1738
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2011, 06:56:51 AM »
Poynty - I'M interested.  If that's any comfort.  But I can't OPEN THAT SCHEMATIC.  You know this.  I just assumed that you weren't letting me get into this discussion. 

Rosemary


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2011, 07:00:11 AM »
Thank you very much Groundloop.  Very kind of you.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2011, 07:00:11 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2011, 10:50:59 AM »
Ok Poynty - I get it that your average would be the same as your instantaneous - integrated number?  Not sure.  You've not give us the full picture - or I can't follow it if you have.

Personally I'm dead against averaging.  For a whole lot of reasons.  Imagine trying to work out a Cheetah's running power based on the following.  He sleeps 18 hours out of every 24.  He walks - say - ever north - when he's not sleeping.  Then he chases his quarry - hypothetically and still due north - for another 10 minutes.  He covers a total of 80mph/60 minutes x10 minutes = 13.33 miles - during that sprint and covers a previous 6.66 miles in walk mode.  Makes a total distance of - say - 20 miles - in a straight hypothetical line so we don't take swerves or turns into account.  Therefore - I can correctly conclude that IF distance travelled is a reflection of the energy levels of that cheetah then he actually covers 20 miles in every 24.  No reflection - whatsoever - of that extraordinary velocity he can manage - when required.  Or take your tides.  High tide and low tide average at a certain fixed line in the sands.   Where does that average reflect the actual power in the tides?  The same with your attempts at average battery voltages.

I'm interested to see that your sim can produce those waveforms.  If I can find it I'll post a similar.  But you'll see entirely different results in that instantaneous analysis.  And for precisely the same reason.  The actual power delivered and returned - share the advantage of a phase shift.  Ignore - if you will - how it can be that they are at 180 degrees in antiphase - which is a chapter all on its own - albeit dismissed as very prosaic by some of your team.   The fact is that this is like an analogy of a greyhound whose speed is evaluated on the flat and then on an incline and then on a decline.  The chances are that he'll have more speed on that decline.  And the theoretical advantages of that waveform are that the currents on both source and drain rails of the circuit have that same kind of advantage.  Just that.  It's in the phase shift - and this entirely alters the 'average' which seems to be something that you need to advance.

Nothing wrong with averaging.  But if we measured the average temperature of the earth it would absolutely not show us the ice at the poles nor the baking 60 degree temperatures at some of it's deserts - nor the relatively equitable heat at it's equator.  But it would, nonetheless, be a fair account of the average.  It's valid.  And yets it's entirely WRONG to average.  Like you all determined when you were discussing this on your forum.  Remember?

Regards,
Rosemary

I'm only sorry that I didn't show the math trace on this.  But where the mean average is negative then the math trace is certainly always negative.  And then the instantaneous wattage analysis over that entire sample range show the same thing.  IE.  MORE energy returned than initially supplied by the battery.  That's what I keep trying to draw your attention to.  It would - very possibly - be hidden in an average.

ALSO.  As a point of interest.  I have NEVER found the negative spikes default as you've shown them across that shunt resistor.  It just doesn't reach down far enough.  It doubles back and then tries it again.  I'd be curious to know both how and why you showed them this way?  That may very well result in less evident benefit from that phase shift.  And could it be that you're deliberately avoiding the issue by showing it like this?




Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2011, 03:54:30 PM »
Skeptics and those that question, are most often criticized for being close-minded, ignorant of nature's true ways, and for dismissing things out of hand.

I would suggest that arguing against this proposed method before and without even trying it, is clear evidence that the "proponents" can be accused of the aforementioned just as well.

.99

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2011, 03:54:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2011, 04:28:50 PM »
Skeptics and those that question, are most often criticized for being close-minded, ignorant of nature's true ways, and for dismissing things out of hand.
Not sure what you're answering here.  I'm certainly not a sceptic.  Are you?  I'm happy that an average is a valid number - but it does not relate to an accurate power analysis.  That's always based on vi dt.  But you know this.  You had a whole thread dedicated to just this debate.  Lawrence's numbers were suspect because they were averaged.  For some reason our numbers are suspect because they're not averaged.  it's like I say.  Retrospectively you can argue just about any view point and from any vantage - and you do.  It would be so nice if you'd just stick to one argument.  Quite apart from which - I think you'd need to take up cudgels with the entire academic and mainstream community if you want to propose averaging power as a valid measurement on a switched circuit.  I think it's only applicable to currents that are NOT switched. 

I would suggest that arguing against this proposed method before and without even trying it, is clear evidence that the "proponents" can be accused of the aforementioned just as well.
Poynty - if one averages the current where the mean average is negative - then, even there one is left with COP INFINITY.  It's not to enhance the argument that I'm reommending instantaneous integral analysis.  It's because that's what's required - by mainstream - more or less for the reason that I've exposed - albeit with those rather generalised examples.  it's the best I could manage.  We both know how limited is my knowledge and my intellect.   :) 

Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2011, 07:29:33 PM »
For those interested in knowing the truth about the circuits they are working with, I would hope that you can appreciate the ramifications of achieving accurate INPUT power measurements. I would also expect you can see the simplicity and elegance of this proposed method, and that if proven to be effective and accurate, it is applicable for use in any such circuit which uses a DC supply source, no matter what.

That the wave form across the CSR is mostly negative, positive, or a mix, is irrelevant to the viability of this method. The simulation has proven that, and what needs to be tried is the application to an actual switching circuit.

Disregard any such references to the technically-nonsensical babble as seen in recent posts here. It is irrelevant to the discussion, and flat denial of the method without even trying it is evidence to suggest that it is not desired that the truth be revealed. Disregard also the nonsense about not understanding the posts; that is only to detract from the topic at hand.

I will be posting some results by the end of this weekend, if time permits. Granted, real evidence as to the efficacy of this method should be provided, and I will try my best to do so.

.99

Offline hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7820
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2011, 10:16:31 PM »
@Poynt
how did you MEASURE the
red waveform ( current at shunt )
in the
multi-fet-wave09.gif
file ?

What kind of multimeter did you use,
that can cope with these extreme spikes in realtime
or did you use an additional low pass filter  ?

Or is this just from your simulation ?

As I said, simulations might not show the real truth here
cause there might be effects here at play, that are not yet programmed
into the simulator.

As pulsed circuits can use the battery energy much better than
DC circuits you might get from a fully charge 100 amphour battery
with such a circuit an output energy of 150 amphours,
so these circuits could be really 150 % efficient...
But the ou energy then comes from within the battery delivering
more energy and not from the circuit.

Regards, Stefan.

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3556
Re: Measuring INPUT Power Accurately and with no Oscilloscope
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2011, 10:36:20 PM »
Stefan,

So far I've shown only the simulation results.

Regarding battery OU effects, how exactly do they manifest?

If it is a current going back into the battery, then the resulting power calculation will be the opposite sign of what is expected, and this measurement method will detect that.

.99

@Stefan; I'd prefer to keep this thread locked until I am able to post the results of my tests showing actual results, hopefully in support of the method being proposed here. Thanks.

 

OneLink