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.
 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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference  (Read 80720 times)

#### G4RR3ττ

• Newbie
• Posts: 33
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #75 on: August 07, 2014, 08:03:34 AM »
TK,

I agree with many of your points, however, I don't buy your spiel about small amplitude AC signals superimposed on a DC level as not being "AC" anymore simply because the current "doesn't alternate." This is a non sequitur at its best. According circuit theory, the superimposition of AC and DC does not change their characteristics. It is however, that certain devices such as LEDs and magnetic circuits are sensitive to the DC level, so they stop working as anticipated when saturated with a large DC bias. Thus the very small AC component has no effect as its actions cannot cause a state change due to the large bias present. This effect does not undermine the superimposition theory in the least. Your argument simply doesn't hold water, because you based it upon the definition of the common phrase used to denote a cyclic function, "alternating current." If it doesn't alternate it can't be AC. Bogus. All you need are changes in time for an AC signal to be present. The exact change in the time domain can be decomposed into a Fourier series that describes its harmonic series in the frequency domain. Thus, any minute change in level for either current or electric potential represents "AC." This is the real pedantic view of the situation.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #76 on: August 07, 2014, 08:07:24 AM »
Here's an _old_ video I made concerning the issue of AC vs DC voltages. This was before I found a better video transcoder so I apologise for the poor video quality.
Using AC-coupling on the scope would take the offset signal, and move it down to the channel baseline, allowing you to display an LED that was ON even when the scope trace says it should be solidly off. Or many other interesting effects. So if you see AC coupling being used in a situation where the _vertical measurements_ are important, I strongly advise you to make the presenter tell you exactly why AC coupling is used and what effect it has on the measurements. Ask him to switch momentarily to DC-coupled... if you see a difference in the trace, you are getting snowed.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #77 on: August 07, 2014, 08:09:55 AM »
TK,

I agree with many of your points, however, I don't buy your spiel about small amplitude AC signals superimposed on a DC level as not being "AC" anymore simply because the current "doesn't alternate." This is a non sequitur at its best. According circuit theory, the superimposition of AC and DC does not change their characteristics. It is however, that certain devices such as LEDs and magnetic circuits are sensitive to the DC level, so they stop working as anticipated when saturated with a large DC bias. Thus the very small AC component has no effect as its actions cannot cause a state change due to the large bias present. This effect does not undermine the superimposition theory in the least. Your argument simply doesn't hold water, because you based it upon the definition of the common phrase used to denote a cyclic function, "alternating current." If it doesn't alternate it can't be AC. Bogus. All you need are changes in time for an AC signal to be present. The exact change in the time domain can be decomposed into a Fourier series that describes its harmonic series in the frequency domain. Thus, any minute change in level for either current or electric potential represents "AC." This is the real pedantic view of the situation.

So it doesn't bother you at all to see a scope displaying a signal that goes below baseline, but the LED is on 100 percent of the time anyway. OK, fine, you are clearly a pro, I respect that, and I'm not, so I'll not argue the point with words... just with demonstrations. See the above video. Using an LED simply because it unequivocally indicates Current Direction. It could just as easily be done with an ammeter.

I have to admit that it chokes me to try to say "Alternating Current" when the current does not, in fact, alternate but only fluctuate.

All of this is distracting from the issue of Alek's misuse of AC coupling when making quantitative measurements involving the vertical values, probably including the phase angle measurements which the scope probably does on the zerocrossings not the peaks since the zeros are generally more precise.

#### G4RR3ττ

• Newbie
• Posts: 33
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #78 on: August 07, 2014, 08:18:59 AM »
TK,

Looking at the manual, the TRMS measurement has to be "engaged." Likely most people don't bother with it, since they generally want to know just the DC or AC level. I think it's safe to say he was only measuring the AC level on the secondary. As for the Tenma DMM across the primary I'm not too sure, but likely the same situation with the TRMS being a separate button that must be pressed.

I do agree with you about the DC-level as a possible issue, however, I will continue to reject the non sequiturs found in your explanations as to how AC stops being AC anymore. Bias, linearity and saturation effects of circuit elements are very important, that much I will unquestionably agree with, but lets not blow things out of proportion. DC on the primary would serve to make the transformer act like a diode, so it's likely not present.

As for your point about the LED... If the current fluctuates there's AC, and current absolutely does not need to change direction for this to happen. The lowering and raising of the DC current amplitude is all that is required. This is because the vector sum of the two signals is what you observe: if the DC level is greater than the P-P excursions of the AC signal, current will never change direction. So you still get your alternating current cake and can eat it too... Your real complaint is that the DC bias has shifted the sensitivity of the transducers output (light emitted vs current input) to a nonlinear operating point, thus changes in light appear non existent. But are in fact present, just at minute levels undetectable to the human eye.

You may want to re-evaluate your personal definition of AC with that used by electrical engineering.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #79 on: August 07, 2014, 08:55:24 AM »
Grr. Of course I know what you mean. This is my own personal bugbear and I can come up with demonstration after demonstration in support of my position, but of course I agree with your statement of the standard position. I do not agree that the standard position uses the words properly, whatever it might actually mean, and I am quite certain that there is a lot of confusion caused in the unwashed masses because of it. For example we will encounter people here who believe that AC coupling is for measuring AC signals, according to your standard definition of AC, and DC coupling is for DC signals. Whatever they may be, because according to your def, any oscillating signal that can be displayed on the scope is AC, I think. So people will use AC coupling all the time. Even though it is almost never appropriate.

For example I invite you to measure my massively OU circuit below. You must keep your scope set to AC coupled, though. Read the current and the "AC" voltage, AC coupled, and then tell me why my brake light bulb is so darn bright.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #80 on: August 07, 2014, 09:05:25 AM »
@Garrett: I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but it strikes me that you might be kind of easy to fool with a fake FE/OU device, if I don't let you do ad-lib measurements but restrict you in some way, like making you use AC coupling, or omitting a certain particular test.

Honest scientists are often the easiest people to fool, because they are trusting and they have strong preconceptions about what is happening. They have a tendency, as we all do, to focus on the Red Herring and not to consider possible alternative explanations for what they are seeing.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #81 on: August 07, 2014, 09:20:07 AM »

#### G4RR3ττ

• Newbie
• Posts: 33
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2014, 09:38:20 AM »
I never did give my "def." as to what constituted "DC," simply as it would require calculus and integrals. Why, you might ask? Because we can still measure an "effective" DC level from pulses or random signals which statistically have a "bias" favoring one direction. DC can be reduced to a special case of AC. Integration is your friend in these instances. Which brings me to my next point. The "DC" setting on the scope lets everything through unfiltered. You would have to be pretty dense to think that it only lets "DC" signals through: as that would defeat the point of an amplitude vs time plotting machine--ideal DC, in theory, is in variant. So you know "who" your dealing with if they believe the shenanigans you've outlined. Which makes it hard for me to believe there is any significant number of people who could be as ignorant as you claim, which forces me think you're using logical fallacies. In this case either a false analogy (which was the LED argument for sure) or straw man argument.

As for my gullibility, indeed I am likely to actually listen to what someone says and carefully examine their work without prejudiced. Why? Because I'm not emotionally invested in maintaing a status quo of orthodoxy or have Super Man syndrome thinking I'm going to save the world with FE. I'm just a honest and curios dude who likes the subject of alternative science, but more so mainstream science. In particular I'm a working towards a double masters encompassing physics and chemistry in the hopes of becoming a "material scientist." Although I've always like playing around with electronics and building circuits particularly obscure things like home made transistors, plasma triodes, home brew photo detectors and the like. Another hobby involves repairing and collecting vintage test gear, particularly HP and Keithley equipment from the 80s (mainly because that's all I can afford--stuffs dirt cheap).

All that said, I do feel confident in my ability to scrutinize while at the same time being open and receptive to new ideas. Becoming dogmatic and indifferent doesn't sit well with me.

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #83 on: August 07, 2014, 02:21:22 PM »
Here's an _old_ video I made concerning the issue of AC vs DC voltages. This was before I found a better video transcoder so I apologise for the poor video quality.
Using AC-coupling on the scope would take the offset signal, and move it down to the channel baseline, allowing you to display an LED that was ON even when the scope trace says it should be solidly off. Or many other interesting effects. So if you see AC coupling being used in a situation where the _vertical measurements_ are important, I strongly advise you to make the presenter tell you exactly why AC coupling is used and what effect it has on the measurements. Ask him to switch momentarily to DC-coupled... if you see a difference in the trace, you are getting snowed.

Always has been a good question this one. But are we talking current or voltage TK ?,because as we know in some situations,a current can remain flowing in one direction,but the voltage polarity can change. So using your analogy in the video,there are some situations where we have a DC current,but an AC voltage-it gets all so confusing

As far as current go's,it would depend on what you see as alternating. Is it AC when the current changes in amplitude,or in direction of flow?.If we are to go by Tesla,AC is the change in current flow direction. then in regards to voltage,well the opposite seems to apply. When we have say 12 volts DC,there is no alternating of the voltage-it is 12 volts DC.But if the voltage rises and falls between say 6 volts and 12 volt's,we then have an alternating voltage,although the voltage dosnt change polarity.

So i think you need to seperate the two(current and voltage),as there are situations where current can flow in one direction (DC),but voltage can change polarity.

On my forum,we came up with a solution,so as all there would know what we were talking about.
If we had a DC current that altinated in amplitude,we simply called it ADC (alternating direct current).

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2014, 02:43:19 PM »
Garrett, you are engaging in a rather extreme degree of scholasticism, I think.

Are you seriously trying to get me to believe that you would do a power measurement on an unknown circuit using an AC-coupled oscilloscope? That is the point of my entire discussion.  I don't much care how you define your terms, I do care what your approach to measurement is going to be. I have illustrated a very simple case where the "real output" the brightness or power dissipation _by the bulb_ is much greater than you will measure on the scope as being supplied to the bulb, IF you use AC-coupled channels. Is this or is this not true? If you think that is some kind of "straw man" then I submit that I could indeed fool you with a black box device.

Now suppose you were confronted with the Black Box version of a more complicated circuit that is being demonstrated to produce excess dissipation in the load -- Kapanadze or Akula or Gmeast or Ainslie or such, and the evidence shown to you included data from AC-coupled scopes to tell you power and phase. Would you accept it, or not? Remember, you do not know the exact circuit so you have no rational basis for choosing one or the other coupling setting. Would you accept the AC coupled data or would you in fact want to see _all_ the power that is being supplied to the DUT?

@TinMan.... Alternating DC.... yah, that will be very helpful. Let me ask you something: Have I helped you at all in your understanding of oscilloscopes and their use? Have I led you wrong in any way, so far? Would YOU accept data from an AC-coupled scope in the situations I have described above?

Just for amusement purposes only:

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #85 on: August 07, 2014, 03:26:37 PM »

@TinMan.... Alternating DC.... yah, that will be very helpful. Let me ask you something: Have I helped you at all in your understanding of oscilloscopes and their use? Have I led you wrong in any way, so far? Would YOU accept data from an AC-coupled scope in the situations I have described above?

Just for amusement purposes only:
Indeed you have been very helpful TK,and no,i wouldnt use AC coupling on the scope,as you will see in all my scope video's.
Now,how about a neon rectifier-just a little something i was playing with over a year ago-back in the days of the CRT,and my youthful scope talk lol.Just thought i would post it,as there was some talk of neons.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #86 on: August 07, 2014, 04:35:13 PM »
That was a very nice and thorough demonstration. You answered all the questions and addressed all the issues that came up in my mind during the demo. I've used neons since forever to check field shapes, polarities, spark gaps, limiters, voltage regulators, all the rest... even as power indicator lamps, actually! But I never thought to use them as actual pickups or converters like you do there. Neat idea, and something I'll be trying myself with the miniSlayer after breakfast.  I think I know what's going on... a common theme is running through a lot of different threads here lately. Who needs huge mercury plasma rectifier tubes when you've got Neons!

You should check out this man's work, it is amazing. Not that it actually is related to what you are showing, just that it shows some possibilities of tuned circuits.

#### TheCell

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 285
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #87 on: August 07, 2014, 05:01:51 PM »
If the output from the amplifier is coupled by a capacitor (in most cases it is, cause you don't want a bias dc current through your load ; for example a speaker box) what's wrong with measuring  input power having a ac - coupling setting in the scope. The ac frequency in the kHz-Range, that's way beyond the cut-off frequency of the scope. A scope can render mains frequency with no problem using AC-coupling .
If you lower the   amplifiers frequency under the cut off freq. of the scope the internal cap in the scope attenuates the signal, but with a frequency in the khz Range this effect is negligable.
A leakage current from the secondary to the primary due to bad insulation results in additional power consumption on the meter.
In fact in the kHz Range there could be a inductive component in the Load Resistor , but Bill says there were no phase shift . So it's our choice to believe him or not.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #88 on: August 07, 2014, 08:23:58 PM »
Mark,

As I pointed out, the saturable reactor circuit is a close approximation of the first half of Alek's circuit--and by no means did I imply it was exactly the same to its entirety. As for my results, they demonstrate that coupling between secondary windings placed on isolated cores to a commonly wound primary winding can be very high. Nothing you've said refutes this. I want to point out that I didn't claim my circuit was exactly the same, only that certain elements are very similar.
The logical fallacy is that because some thing A can have a characteristic that we should infer that some other thing B also has this characteristic.  It is an invalid inference.  I have pointed out the real physical differences between your set-up and Bill Alek's.  I have suggested a test you can perform by altering your set-up to try and further your argument.
Quote

I agree that his transformer would have a worse k factor than my circuit due to reasons I've already stated as well as the ones you have pointed out. We both agree that his exact arrangement will give a less than satisfactory k value. What we don't agree on is the exact amount of coupling physically possible.
What matters is what he has in-hand.  A different arrangement should lead to different measurements.
Quote
Obviously we both have our own experience and assumptions to support our arguments. Therefore, both of us need to prove our point more conclusively, either using a 3rd party authority (e.g. a texbook) or physical experiment.
I have proposed an experiment that you can try with your materials.

#### MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
##### Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
« Reply #89 on: August 07, 2014, 08:33:57 PM »
as I said it is probably not an important issue _in this case_ as far as the measurements per se go, but it indicates a certain non-expertise in measurement and scope use, which is why I would like to see the question posed just as I have presented it. Here we often deal with claims of OU that are close to the noise floor, and cases of  OU indications have been tracked down to improper use of channel coupling. This is a very easy way for someone to inject lots of power into an input if they want to be deliberately  misleading, or to deliberately under-read an output power. Whenever I see AC coupling used for anything other than examining small signals on top of large known DC offsets, I want to know exactly why the channel is coupled that way, and I want to know that it does not affect the math that is performed on the traces.
It has even come to my attention that some qualified professionals don't even know what AC actually _is_. The NI white paper is an example. The writer refers to a sinus signal that is 100 percent above baseline as "AC". It isn't, though. It is a fluctuating level of current that always flows in the same direction. It does not become AC until there is current reversal happening, and this will not happen until the voltage signal actually does dip below the zero baseline and become negative at the measurement point. IOW, if the DC offset is _greater_ than the amplitude of the ripple, you don't have any AC at all because the current does not alternate, it simply rises and falls in magnitude in the same direction. It is only correct to speak of "AC with DC offset" when the offset is smaller than the ripple and zero-crossing actually happens.
This is overly pedantic and I generally know what people mean when they speak about AC with DC offset, etc. but it's easy to prove what I'm saying, if you don't believe or agree, with an LED, the scope, and an FG that has adjustable offset and can put out a 1 Hz sine wave. You can display the same sinus signal and have the LED on 100 percent of the time, off 100 percent of the time, or anywhere in between depending on the DC offset setting of the FG. LED on 100 percent of the time: NO ac! And if the scope is AC-coupled the signal will look exactly the same _vertically_ and appear as the identical AC signal no matter whether the LED is on 100 percent, off 100 percent or anything in between. You will be able to report and demonstrate all kinds of strange behavior if you just keep your scope on AC-coupled.

That is exactly  my point wrt the scope but I don't know about the meters. DC offsets could be contributing to the actual power IN without being measured on the scope. However I think they would show up on the output DMMs, being included in their math. This is an interesting issue and I don't know the answer wrt the DMMs. I wonder if Poynt99 or MarkE can speak to this issue.

ETA: both of Alek's output DMMs are Flukes, one is a 187 TRMS I believe and the other is more modern but also, I believe, a TRMS meter, possibly a 175. I refer you to page 3-4 in the manual:
http://assets.fluke.com/manuals/187_189_umeng0200.pdf

If it works... it's a FLUKE!

(also... we know that a ripply DC signal applied to a primary of a transformer will, unless the core is saturated by the DC, produce an AC output in the secondary, with an amplitude that is determined by the p-p amplitude of the original ripple on the DC input. Right?)
MetGlas cores have very square BH curves and high permeability that make them suitable for use as magnetic amplifiers.  The oscilloscope waveforms do not show obvious distortion that would result from saturation so I do not think that DC bias is a concern.  The operating frequency of 3kHz is far above the AC cut-off frequency for the scope probes and therefore should not contribute much phase shift at all.