Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect  (Read 779646 times)

Offline DeepCut

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #435 on: October 27, 2011, 06:48:22 PM »
Hi, today i have been doing multiple-coil tests with the device i'm using to investigate acceleration-under-load.

The point of today's tests was to investigate the acceleration effect with a group of coils, connected in series.
The results have revealed a major drawback in my rotor geometry.

(http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff437/deepcut71/th_DSC01471.jpg)

(http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff437/deepcut71/th_DSC01470.jpg)

Because i am using a single, diametrically magnetised magnet, there is no point at which a coil is not within a rotating magnetic field.
This results in some undesirable behaviour.

With three coils in series, arranged around the rotor in a circular fashion, 90 degrees apart (there is a fourth, small drive coil), one of the coils will always have part of it in the North magnetic field and part of it in the South magnetic field, during this phase in rotation, the other two coils will have either North only or South only passing through them.

With regards to power generation, am i right in thinking this means that the half North/half South coil has current trying to flow in both directions ?

If so then i have to use two larger coils or go for a multi-magnet rotor setup.

It's very annoying because my device take 6 or 7 Watts to run and two coils gets me 5.7 Watts ...

Any help with the AC aspect of this greatly appreciated, i think i've diagnosed the problem correctly   :o


Cheers,

DC.



Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5886
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #436 on: October 27, 2011, 06:59:33 PM »
Hey Deep

Try a cap in series with your load after the gen coil.

Try 1uf to 10uf   not polarized(electrolytic) and of a voltage above the coils output.

It just might take ya over the edge.  ;]

Mags

Offline DeepCut

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #437 on: October 27, 2011, 07:01:29 PM »
Not yet mate, i want to solve this, someone here must know enough about AC to confirm my theory ?

Offline CRANKYpants

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #438 on: October 27, 2011, 08:41:57 PM »
Not yet mate, i want to solve this, someone here must know enough about AC to confirm my theory ?

ARE YOU STILL DRUNK OR JUST HUNGOVER AT THIS POINT DUDE?  ;)

CAN YOU DESCRIBE YOUR UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS IN GREATER DETAIL PLEASE?

CHEERS
T


Offline CRANKYpants

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #439 on: October 27, 2011, 08:47:42 PM »
Hi, today i have been doing multiple-coil tests with the device i'm using to investigate acceleration-under-load.

With regards to power generation, am i right in thinking this means that the half North/half South coil has current trying to flow in both directions ?

NO IT MEANS THAT THE SINE WAVE IS PASSING THROUGH THE ZERO POINT ON THE Y AXIS.

Quote
If so then i have to use two larger coils or go for a multi-magnet rotor setup.
Cheers,DC.

WHAT TYPE OF COILS ARE YOU USING?

CHEERS
T

Offline DeepCut

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #440 on: October 27, 2011, 09:10:29 PM »
Hi Thane,

HV coils, each is a half-pound of 0.25mm.

L = 20+ Henries (my LCR meter only goes to 20 for inductance).
R = ~400 ohms

They are bifilar-wound, series-connected, wired in series together.

So if a coil has a South pole and a North pole cutting it at the same time then that's not a bad thing ?


Cheers,

Gary.


Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #441 on: October 28, 2011, 12:23:35 AM »
Hello everyone,

I tried to replicate Luc`s setup however I measured the real-power with this famous german Hartmann & Braun Instrument ( 1980)

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/hartmann_wattavi.html

It is a pure Power-Meter which cannot be fooled because the current to be measured is used to magnetize a closed iron-core in the center of which a electrodynamic meter-coil ( galvanometer-coil)  is turning the needle. A small current resulting from the voltage is fed into this sensitive coil.
Now current and voltage determine the real power monitored in this Instrument in a direct way - no interpretation , no calculation by pic-programms.
In all configurations I tested ( I have a torióid-transformer with two identical secondaries specified for 50 V each )
there was always real-power flowing from the grid into the system. Average efficiency was about 75 to 80 %.
Wattage was in the range from 5 to 10 Watt into a 1 Ohm-Power-Resistor. Average efficiency was about 75 to 80 %. Phaseshift was monitored across a 0,27 Ohm Power-resistor and strange enough my scope definitely showed a 90 degree phase-shift in an configurations. This result was veryfied at the same time with a standard mechanical power-meter - Ferraris-meter - we use here in germany as the main grid-meter
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/Stromzähler
The minute phaseshift-difference ( maybe 2 to 5 degrees) simply escapes these digital meters and I have to confess that I first was confused by my scope-readings until I realized that these Digi-meters can not be used in these measurements and visually I was not able to detect the small difference on my scope.
The wattavi K however can not be fooled.
Sorry folks this setup does not work.
Regards

Kator01

Offline Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 874
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #442 on: October 28, 2011, 12:39:51 AM »
Hi

here on this webside ( old measurement-techique ) in figure 2 (Abb.2 ) you can see how this closed iron-meter-ring of the watavi k was construced by the
hartmann & braun engineers way back in 1980

http://www.alte-messtechnik.de/technik/elektrodynamisch.php

on the right side you can see the feed-in-terminals for the current.


@cranky : I placed the probe directly to the primary coil and the phasesshift of 90 degrees was gone. Voltage and current was fully in-phase.

The different cap-values I used ( 15 to 70 mykoFarad) simply changed the input voltage-level- and by this of course the current.

Regards

Kator01

Offline CRANKYpants

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #443 on: October 28, 2011, 02:45:45 AM »
Hi Thane,

They are bifilar-wound, series-connected, wired in series together.

Cheers,
Gary.

DEAR GARY,

WHY DID YOU CONNECT THEM TOGETHER IN SERIES? ???
TRY SHORTING EACH OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

CHEERS
T

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #444 on: October 28, 2011, 05:34:32 AM »
Hello everyone,

I tried to replicate Luc`s setup however I measured the real-power with this famous german Hartmann & Braun Instrument ( 1980)

http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/hartmann_wattavi.html

It is a pure Power-Meter which cannot be fooled because the current to be measured is used to magnetize a closed iron-core in the center of which a electrodynamic meter-coil ( galvanometer-coil)  is turning the needle. A small current resulting from the voltage is fed into this sensitive coil.
Now current and voltage determine the real power monitored in this Instrument in a direct way - no interpretation , no calculation by pic-programms.
In all configurations I tested ( I have a torióid-transformer with two identical secondaries specified for 50 V each )
there was always real-power flowing from the grid into the system. Average efficiency was about 75 to 80 %.
Wattage was in the range from 5 to 10 Watt into a 1 Ohm-Power-Resistor. Average efficiency was about 75 to 80 %. Phaseshift was monitored across a 0,27 Ohm Power-resistor and strange enough my scope definitely showed a 90 degree phase-shift in an configurations. This result was veryfied at the same time with a standard mechanical power-meter - Ferraris-meter - we use here in germany as the main grid-meter
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/Stromzähler
The minute phaseshift-difference ( maybe 2 to 5 degrees) simply escapes these digital meters and I have to confess that I first was confused by my scope-readings until I realized that these Digi-meters can not be used in these measurements and visually I was not able to detect the small difference on my scope.
The wattavi K however can not be fooled.
Sorry folks this setup does not work.
Regards

Kator01

Thanks Kator01 for taking the time to do this test and confirm what I thought.

I wrote in a prior post that I don't think a reactive circuit would have any benefit operating on its own. It would probably need a finely tuned receiving/re-injecting timing circuit to deal with the returned reactive current which is not built in the quality meter you used. So the results don't surprise me at all.
However, I do believe this circuit is sending some current back and that's what's affecting my cheap Watts meter. Probably the meters internal measuring capacitor is being re-charged when the circuits capacitance is tuned or balanced to the Meter.

Thanks again for your tests

Luc

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #445 on: October 28, 2011, 07:11:29 AM »
At everyone,

I forgot to mention yesterday that my test using the pure sine wave inverter the Shunt resistor displayed larger peak (larger than grid tests) on the tops of the current peaks. So I reconnected everything to capture the scope shots. Please look them over and post what you think is the cause of this.

I also activated the Math function as user SchubertReijiMaigo had suggested in his post below.

Hello Gotoluc I have DSO 2090, just a tips to measure the power, use the maths function (CannelA*ChannelB) to display power, if you see a curve that have equal pulse above and bottom the zero line you have reactive power, maybe it will be much easier to read.

If this information is correct the math function seem to confirm it is reactive power.

First scope shot is of the current shunt only
Second is with the inverters sine wave input to the circuit
Third is with Math Function added
and Forth is with the probes separated on their own and Math Function

Please let me know what you think

Luc
« Last Edit: October 28, 2011, 07:49:39 AM by gotoluc »

Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #446 on: October 28, 2011, 08:27:46 AM »


some calculation with mutual inductance effect give less efficiency 444% instead of 489% (please check my calculation)



next
what is the best way to generate variable reactive power from DC reducing energy loss?

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #447 on: October 28, 2011, 11:53:22 AM »
@ Gotoluc, Thank you for posting that, but can you display MATHVVmean function, because it's hard to see (the curve contain a lot of harmonics (I wonder where it comes ?)

I have noticed if MATHVmean tend to go higher it' mean that the power is active, but if it stay around zero it's reactive (no matter the MATHVrms value)... Sorry for this late information (I'm still in the learning curve in AC oscilloscope measurement), Yesterday just finished to burn up my amplifier with tuned Resonant circuit...  :'( :'(

Offline protein_man

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #448 on: October 28, 2011, 12:53:19 PM »
Hello Luc, thanks for you're interesting experiments! Any chance you could measure the power feeding the inverter before and after applying the load of the transformer? This will give a good indication of power use after the inverter.

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4137
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #449 on: October 28, 2011, 01:15:07 PM »
...
I forgot to mention yesterday that my test using the pure sine wave inverter the Shunt resistor displayed larger peak (larger than grid tests) on the tops of the current peaks.
....

Hi Luc,

I think the larger peaks on top of the current peaks come from a starting core saturation, either in your test transformer core or the inverter inside output core or just both.  If you wish to test this, you can insert a series resistor higher than the 1 Ohm shunt to decrease the current, even though it is reactive. As Thane calculated it the reactive power in your previous setup from the mains was about 147 VAR (with 1.23A current) and if you allow  only 1A or slightly less current to flow instead, the spikes should get reduced or should disappear from the current peaks.

Quote
Something else I noticed is the 24uf Capacitance used to make my Watts meter display Zero when plugged into the Grid would display 3 to 4 Watts when plugged in to the Inverter. By reducing the Capacitance to 15uf it came back to Zero. So maybe the Capacitance is doing some kind of Impedance matching and fools the meter?
   

I think the inverter inside transformer's output coil adds its own inductance to the series LC you terminate it with and this is why you needed to reduce the capacitor to 15uF. The transformer in the inverter simply detuned your original  LC resonance.  This shows nicely that an inverter cannot really substitute the mains very low impedance, unless the inverter is designed for many kW of output power, for this would involve much lower output impedance by default.

Gyula