Hi Mario,

I measure current on the scope with a current clamp and it is sitting on the feed to the load from the transformer, so what you see in my scope shots is what you asked for.

The discharge pulses are largely within the same period as the charge pulses, so current is definately flowing back to the source, so the load sees current in both directions resulting in 11W.

Note: this scheme is not the most efficient, as the timing of the discharge has to be set so the discharge voltage exceeds the sine falling edge voltage. The parallel/series arrangement allows the discharge to start at the peak of the sine, (their current discharge waveforms look like 3 caps in series not 2).

OK hypothetically...

My scope shot shows about 20mv RMS so 20 x 0.01A= 0.2A, close to what I measured with the meter. Divide by 2 as only half is input, (probably should do a power calculation by area).

So the input power is 0.1 x 150V 15W approx. The other half is being returned so say -13W as the discharge current waveform is less in area. So we generate 11W for 2W supplied.

How do we meter this correctly as both meters are seeing the 0.2A as regular AC sine , where as 50% of the flow is in a different direction?

Barry

Barry

@listener: I think you should discontinue the wattmeter and use scope measurements throughout. Proper phase angle measurements along with your instantaneous V and I measurements will tell you the true story of the input and output power.

The current clamp you are using should be explored carefully. Some will introduce phase shifts of their own, and digital ones like Bill Alek uses have timing delays built in that can cause erroneous phase angle measurements if not corrected. Does your scope have a "probe deskew" facility?

I don't want to get into some controversial discussion but you might want to consider my opinion on this: the idea that reactive power is somehow "returned to the source" has always bothered me. If you set up some mirrors so you get many receding images of your face, is the image being "returned to the source" when it's reflecting back and forth from one mirror to the other? There are times when reactive power indeed does get "returned to the source" and I have the exploded mosfets to prove it, and it sounds like you do too. But in an ideal reactive power system the reactive power "circulates" without being _dissipated_ in the source, it just bounces back without hurting anything or really having any effect except to exist as stored power in the reactive system. I think.

Trying to get a bunch of mosfets marching in neat rows can be very difficult. For good synchronization I've used such tricks as multifilar gate phase transformers (primary driven by mosfet driver, secondaries to mosfet gates in anti-phase) or even fully controllable H-bridge controllers by Intersil like the HIP4080AIP.

Hi TinselKoala,

Attached are scope shots of shunt monitored current versus clamp monitored current and shunt monitored current against voltage.

As you can see, my current clamp does not skew phase.

Barry

Actually I think what is needed is-

1) A voltage, current and if possible a power trace from the supply line (grid supply to setup).
2) A normal load voltage, current and if possible a power trace from directly at and across the load.
3) A Switched Voltage, current and if possible power trace from the same load measurement points as the normal load power data.

4) Capacitor values, CSR values and so forth. Circuit diagram I think we already have so that is probably taken care of.

And all done in one session at the same running condition, if possible with no (on and off testing) different things unless a certain
run or warm up time is used the same always.

That should allow a decent analysis of the powers.

Maybe a comparison between the meters and the scope measurement analysis will yield the secret.

..

For example, if we take the same "in phase" wave form in my previous post. And ignore the purple trace. I modified it by drawing
in a "theoretical" SERPS current trace, we can see that it effectively doubles the frequency of the currents for each cycle compared
to the voltage. My drawing is a bit off but the reasoning can be seen. It also moves half of the current to 90 degrees out of phase.
Well that is the general effect of it I think, my scope edit is just a visual aid.

Now what effect does this have on a meter ? And the meters on the previous devices supplying the "SERPS" setup and load.

We should be able to draw a theoretical "proper" trace and determine the power that way.

..

Well, if as Mario said on the other forum the power is just borrowed and returned, we don't need a fancy switching scheme to do
that. I think the claim is that the out of phase current does work.

Well below is a scope shot 1) showing a light globe load which is experiencing an over 70 degree phase shift between voltage
and current, so it appears that a 12 volt 3 watt rated globe has 14 volts RMS across it and is apparently experiencing
about 0,7 amp of current in a part designed for .25 amp. going by the math trace there is about 11 VA applied to the globe
and about 7 VA returned to the previous circuit element, the scope shot for the previous element
(a resonant tank "coil and capacitor") is below also, the shots are labeled "globe load" and "Tank loaded" .

The 7 VA returned from the globe load is shown in the "tank" shot as the purple power trace going under the 0 line by
about 7 VA , the second shot the Math vertical division is 20 Watts per division and the Load shot the Math trace is 10 Watts per
division. The current is sensed through 0.1 Ohm resistors. I'll add a video or drawing to show the scope probe placement.

Point is that the out of phase current does not contribute to the transfer of energy to the load. I can also unload the DC power
supply by connecting a load if tuned correctly, that's in the video. The shots are taken while the circuit is in a running condition
where the load does not affect the input power.

Note the current magnitude and phase shift is different in the load as compared to the tank supplying it. But that's another story,
shot shows the globe taking about 11 VA and returning about 7 VA to the previous circuit element. 4 Watts consumed.
I think.

Here's the videos showing the input power loaded and unloaded and the scope probe placements. Part two show the load
voltage current and power traces ect.

Video part one shows scope placement and input power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLALutgqCc

Video part two shows the load current scoped at just after 4:40 in the video. The load voltage is the same probe point as the
tank voltage, just the current sense probe needs be swapped to show load current.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDs128Q64lc

I'll photograph my circuit sketch and post it shortly, it shows better the scope placement and the entire circuit
as is open source method.

.
EDIT: Circuit drawing shows entire HF AC generator circuit but the only portion of interest here is the top right hand corner, the
output coil and the load and showing the scope probe placement.

EDITED to change "Watts" to VA in some parts of the post. People can decide for themselves what is "VA", what is "VAR" and
what is "Watts", so many different interpretations of it.
..

By analyzing the effect of loads to each previous circuit element back to the supply I can see "what gives", as far as the reactive
power goes, If I change from the power supply to a battery then I might see a reduction "net input" and get oscillations back into
the battery.  The power supply has a diode to prevent the oscillations but the input can be reduced by applying a load.

...

Hi Mario,

Attached is a scope shot of parallel charge, series discharge waveforms.

The key to obtaining this waveform was cap value versus load, and Falstad indicated that for a 200 ohn load, 6uf was about right.

My caps were originally 60uf.

I have a simulation with two inductors that basically does the same thing but suffers a similar problem of insufficient voltage maintained over the discharge perod, to obtain a discharge current the same magnitude as the charge current. The inductor provides an initial high current spike but the area under the pulse is still less than the charge pulse.

I think x 3 caps in series would be required to achieve this, so... whats the minimum switch scheme to charge 3 in parallel and discharge 3 in series?

Barry

Thanks Luc, Mario and Listener are doing great work also, they have almost perfectly replicated the SERPS wave forms, even I
hope that they will be successful, if it makes free energy then so be it. Doesn't hurt to be a bit skeptical, I still hope for some free
energy like most everyone.

Nice work Mario and Listener !

Go well all.