Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => Reactive Power usage => Topic started by: hartiberlin on August 04, 2014, 04:21:44 AM

Title: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: hartiberlin on August 04, 2014, 04:21:44 AM
This was posted today by Sterling D. Allan from the TeslaTech conference.

Great demo !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXno_7xXSZs


Very well done Sterling and Bill ! Many thanks for having us brought this great presentation !

It is a great device simular to the Babcock and Murray SERPS device , but without the switching...probably more related to the Heins Bitt transformer device.

Interesting would be to see the power usage of the audio amp , when the Auroratek transformer was delivering power back...

Well the Apparent power input was about 14 Watts or better said VA..

The question is , if the audio amp can use the fed back reactive power and thus reduce its needed input power from the grid...

For these kind of reactive circuits you really need the right driver circuits that can reuse the reactive power...
so the real active input power is reduced....

 Well , hooking the Auroratek transformer to a motor/generator is probably the easiest application to being able to selfpower such a system.

You have to make sure that the generator can reuse the reactive power and this way the required power to drive it,
will be hugely decreased...
Then the Auroratek transfomer output is enough to drive the motor that drives the generator...

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 04, 2014, 04:31:27 AM
We were supposed to be seeing a demonstration of a scooter that charged its own batteries. That could be driven around and around and would wind up with more charge on the batteries than it had when it started. Of course.... that claim turned out to be ... er... um.... well, let's just say it was a gross exaggeration.

I really thought that, by now, at least _some_ people would get the message about power computations and power extraction from reactive circuits. I guess not.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 04, 2014, 05:09:09 AM
I watched the whole clip.  The next step would be for someone independent to test the same setup.  The clip is too long and would require too much effort for me to check all the connections and scope settings, etc.

He measures the power into the load resistor with a voltage meter and a separate current meter.  This would be considered poor practice.  There is no need to have two instruments to compound the measurement error.  At the low frequencies being used the resistive load would have no phase shift.  Therefore the best way to measure the power into the load resistor would be with a quality true-RMS multimeter to measure the RMS voltage only.

When he has his transformer running with no load he measures negative real power.  That is highly suspicious because you can invert signals if you wanted and just looking at the setup, you know it has to be dissipating power even though there is no load.  You can take the stance that any measured phase shift that is not 90 or -90 degrees means that real power is being dissipating in the transformer without a load.  The Bill Alek transformer is just acting like a lossy inductor at this point in the clip.  So he measures about 110 degrees of phase shift and claims that power is being returned to the audio amplifier.  But to repeat what I just said, 110 degrees is not 90 degrees, and that is most likely telling you that the idle Bill Alek transformer is dissipating power and not returning reactive power back to the audio amplifier.

Bill relied on the scope to give him the phase shift readout even through it was jumping around +/- 4 degrees.  That's more bad practice.  He should have measured the phase shift on the scope display itself.

When he shorts the output he measures nearly a 90 degree phase shift on the input and makes a big deal out of that.  A shorted output means zero power to the load, so that is not surprising.

All in all, the clip looked pretty convincing for a casual observer.  To make this clip credible, the same measurements would have to be collaborated by an independent third party.  My gut feel is that is not likely to ever happen.  There are enough weaknesses in the clip such that a request for a third-party validation is necessary.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 04, 2014, 06:08:53 AM
Here is the data sheet for his Honeywell CSLA1CD current sensor.  A pretty clear indication of one of TK's Laws of the Lab: The fancier the equipment the easier it is to misuse.
Quote
MICRO SWITCH CSL series linear current
sensors incorporate our 91SS12-2 and
SS94A1 linear output Hall effect transduc-
er (LOHET TM).
The sensing element is as-
sembled in a printed circuit board mount-
able housing. This housing is available in
four configurations (as shown in mount-
ing dimension Figures 1, 1a, 2, and 2a on
page 59). Normal mounting is with 0.375
inch long 4-40 screw and square nut (not
provided) inserted in the housing. The
combination of the sensor, flux collector,
and housing comprises the holder
assembly.
When sensing zero current the output
voltage of the current sensor is approxi-
mately equal to one half of the supply
voltage (Voffset – 0.5 Vcc). CS series lin-
ear current sensors will sense current in
both directions. Current flow in one direc-
tion will cause the output voltage to in-
crease from its offset value. Current flow
in the opposite direction will cause the
output voltage to decrease from its offset
value. The output voltage range is from
25% of the supply voltage to 75% of the
supply voltage (0.25 Vcc
<
Vo
<
0.75
Vcc).
While sensing either AC or DC current,
the linear output voltage will track the
waveform of the sensed current.
The output of these devices can be ad-
justed by varying the supply voltage, var-
ying the gap cut in the flux collector, or
increasing the number of turns of the con-
ductor passing through the center of the
flux collector. Devices on page 56 are
ratiometric.

So, within that black box there must be a tightly regulated voltage supply, for the output voltage of the sensor accurately to reflect the current sensed. Other adjustable parameters must also be tightly controlled.
The fact that the other transformer was measured with the same kit is no guarantee that this current monitoring system is properly calibrated and free of artifact.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 04, 2014, 08:39:24 AM
I see that in the video, Alek assumes that his load is completely resistive and produces no phase shift and that the rms values read from the meters can simply be directly multiplied to get the real output power. This is not true.

The power resistors and their interconnecting leads have significant inductance, they are not pure resistive loads. I don't know what his inductances are, obviously but there are about a meter of interconnecting wiring and the wirewound power resistors are essentially little coils, inducting away, right there on the bench. 60 microHenry at 1200 Hz has about 0.45 ohms reactance, and at 3200 Hz has a whopping 1.2 ohms reactance. So the correct output power cannot be arrived at simply by reading the meters and multiplying, and the error is small for the control transformer and about 3x larger for the higher frequency Alek device. What does increased load impedance do to the power calculations using Vrms and Irms without the phase angle?

The phase angle relationship in the Alek device is a real Red Herring. Each transformer stage will produce a 90 degree phase shift, less some value determined by the amount of power being dissipated by the actual output. So the expected resultant phase shift, total, is hard for me to predict and this is exactly where the "overunity" can sneak in. You are supposed to  be bamboozled, and chase the phase angle, instead of asking hard questions like "what is the power input to the audio amplifier" and "what happened to the self-charging scooter demonstration?"
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: kEhYo77 on August 04, 2014, 09:37:09 AM
Tinsel,  an audio amplifier cannot use reactive power to return power to the source battery through an inverter.
Stop telling people  to use this 'solution' to prove OU.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 04, 2014, 09:51:54 AM
Tinsel,  an audio amplifier cannot use reactive power to return power to the source battery through an inverter.
Stop telling people  to use this 'solution' to prove OU.

What the heck are you talking about? Are you talking about the demonstration where Bill Alek used an audio amplifier, sucking perhaps 20 Watts from the mains, to power a couple of transformers to 3 or 6 watts output?  Or is there some other demonstration I missed, where the true inputs and outputs of his system are measured, instead of starting half-way in and calling that "input power"?


What Alek showed is a great demonstration of measurement error and misdirection, nothing more.
And an inverter is just one of the conversion strategies I may have to use if someone presents me with a device they claim makes more than 1.3 to 1 or even more than that.  If that is what you are talking about.

Now.... where is the video and measurements of the claimed self-charging battery charger system, like on the scooter? That was supposed to be demonstrated, that was supposed to wind up with more charge on the batteries after running around all day? Please tell me I missed that one too, and give me the link to THAT video, if you don't mind too much.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: pulp on August 04, 2014, 10:33:59 AM

Now.... where is the video and measurements of the claimed self-charging battery charger system, like on the scooter? That was supposed to be demonstrated, that was supposed to wind up with more charge on the batteries after running around all day? Please tell me I missed that one too, and give me the link to THAT video, if you don't mind too much.

Now they are waiting for investor or donations first...
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: tinman on August 04, 2014, 03:33:59 PM
@TK

Dosnt look that hard to make TK-you should build one of them flash transformer's!as per the specs in the video!. Only then will we get some correct measurements.
Lets not worry about what the audio amp is consuming,as it would consume power without any thing hooked to the output. Lets see how efficient the transformer itself is.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: hartiberlin on August 04, 2014, 06:35:51 PM
1. As I understand it, this quick demo was setup seperately from his speech at the conference for Sterling and a few other guys there.

2. I agree, that we don´t know how much indusctance these output resistors have, although I think at the
used output frequencies the error margin will be small.

3. At Minute 41:00 he shows the transformer current being behind the 90 degrees mark exactly with no waveform
jumping and the transformer just being shorted via the ampmeter, so if the measurement devices
are right calibrated, that really shows a negative power going from the transformer back to the audio amp !

4. The transformer getting colder than the room temperature is also NOT normal, when
at least 14 Watts Apparent power goes into it.. !

So there is something going on there.
I hope we will soon see more measurements from him or also the scooter demonstrated.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: kEhYo77 on August 04, 2014, 06:54:08 PM
Regarding the output resistor.
In the presentation Sterling says that they connected a scope across the resistor earlier (35:28 mark),
and saw no visible shift between the signals.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 04, 2014, 08:09:22 PM
Quote
4. The transformer getting colder than the room temperature is also NOT normal, when
at least 14 Watts Apparent power goes into it.. !

I have never seen any instrumental data that supports this claim. It has always resulted from someone putting their hand on the transformer and saying "it feels cool". I will happily wager all that I own, or a hundred dollar donation to a no-kill animal shelter, that this claim is untrue.

First, let the transformer truly come to room temperature by leaving it in the room for a day without disturbing it. Take a good measurement of the transformer's temperature and the ambient room temperature to start. Set up the apparatus in a draft-free location, turn it on and walk away, leave it completely alone. At the end of one hour, repeat the temperature measurements of both the transformer and the room temperature. If the device is cooler than it was when it started, and the room temperature is the same or greater, I will concede. Otherwise.....  it's just another claim without support that turns out to be false when properly tested.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 04, 2014, 08:12:30 PM
Regarding the output resistor.
In the presentation Sterling says that they connected a scope across the resistor earlier (35:28 mark),
and saw no visible shift between the signals.

I do not trust Sterling's ability to discriminate a three degree phase shift on a portable digital oscilloscope, sorry. 

Did you read the data sheet for the current monitor? Did you notice that it has a built-in 3 microsecond delay? What is the phase shift that results from a three microsecond lag at 3200 Hz?





Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 04, 2014, 08:25:31 PM
1. As I understand it, this quick demo was setup seperately from his speech at the conference for Sterling and a few other guys there.
A "stealth demo" without too many tough questions from a discriminating audience, in other words.
Quote
2. I agree, that we don´t know how much indusctance these output resistors have, although I think at the
used output frequencies the error margin will be small.
A very rough estimate is 60 uH for the resistor and the meter or so of wiring. This results in a reactance of about 1.2 ohms at 3200 Hz and only about 0.45 Ohms at 1200 Hz. It is enough to make a significant difference in the 3200 Hz output power readings taken from the DMMs, but probably not for the 1200 Hz readings of the "control" transformer. Testing at two different frequencies is a big no-no!
Quote
3. At Minute 41:00 he shows the transformer current being behind the 90 degrees mark exactly with no waveform
jumping and the transformer just being shorted via the ampmeter, so if the measurement devices
are right calibrated, that really shows a negative power going from the transformer back to the audio amp !

If you really believe that then you must also believe that my microQEG is doing the same thing: sending negative power back to its oscillator, based on exactly the same kind of evidence.
Quote

4. The transformer getting colder than the room temperature is also NOT normal, when
at least 14 Watts Apparent power goes into it.. !

See above. There has been no evidence presented in support of this radical claim, which is after all easy to test.
Quote
So there is something going on there.
I hope we will soon see more measurements from him or also the scooter demonstrated.

Regards, Stefan.
On this last part I can agree. There is something going on there: either an ignorant or a deliberate attempt to put forth measurement errors as actual evidence for overunity performance, in order to gain investment.
If Alek were sincere and actually had any real OU, wouldn't he be happy to have you test it yourself, in any way you liked? I know I would. So ask him to send you a unit for testing, and see what he says.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Vortex1 on August 04, 2014, 08:39:43 PM
You cannot use one of those infrared temperature meters to read with any degree of accuracy when the emissivity of the surfaces or distance is different. Often you will get  a difference between two readings when measuring the same surface / same distance.

Matched Thin film Platinum 100 Ohm resistance film sensors used in a differential bridge circuit would be a better choice when trying to differentiate one degree or less.

Also the cores will take quite some time to heat up as the loss is in the copper wire, which is not efficiently  coupled to the cores thermally. At this low frequency (3200Hz) with metglass, core loss / core heating  is hardly an issue.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 04, 2014, 08:47:30 PM
You cannot use one of those infrared temperature meters to read with any degree of accuracy when the emissivity of the surfaces or distance is different. Often you will get  a difference between two readings when measuring the same surface / same distance.

Matched Thin film Platinum 100 Ohm resistance film sensors used in a differential bridge circuit would be a better choice when trying to differentiate one degree or less.

Also the cores will take quite some time to heat up as the loss is in the copper wire, which is not efficiently  coupled to the cores thermally. At this low frequency (3200Hz) with metglass, core loss / core heating  is hardly an issue.

Furthermore, digital temperature sensor systems often respond erratically when there are "frequencies" being emitted by the DUT.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: steeltpu on August 04, 2014, 09:04:27 PM
trolls seen squiming in their chairs and overheard saying: there is always some little detail we can find to turn a mole hill into a mountain.   if not we'll make something up that sounds believable.

one year into the future.  tk caught in a photo riding the jetson scooter down his street while still denying this is a valid device.

 :P
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: mscoffman on August 04, 2014, 09:06:12 PM
One  could always try it.  ;)

I was thinking how easy it would be to try to make an SFT.
Then one could see if it has any anomolous gain at 50/60hz frequency.

Then one could build a box chain;

(1) -> (2) -> (3) -> (4) -> (5) -> (6) -> (7)

(1) 12vdc rechargable (acid lead) battery
(2) double throw double pole knife switch for self looping
(3) 25Watt cheapy cigarette lighter inverter 12VDC -> 120/240 50/60hz.
(4) step down transfomer 120/240VAC =>  12VAC 50/60hz & plug from RS
(5) 50/60hz SFT Split Flux Transformer see below
(6) diode bridge rectifier
(7) 12VDC incandescent parking lamp, dummy load

misc 1000Uf 25WVDC or more electrolytic cap., 560 ohm resistor, LED

Goal: to see if you can get the current into the inverter @12VDC less
then that going into the  bulb @12VDC and if voltage is ~12VDC =>  get rid of the bulb
and run wires back to the switch for self-run test. nKuf Cap across switch.
You may have to try several different inverters to get an efficient one,
small inverters are very inexpensive these days. 

---

Build a symetric SFT - Experimental Split Flux Transformer

(1) Get three spools of 24guage project wire from Radio Shack
(2) obtain both ends of the wire from spools
(3) punch some holes in the plastic spools
(4) glue and wire leads on all three coils
(5) Get three large diameter muffler hanger ferrous U-bolts with hardware from auto-supply store.
(6) Put one leg of 2 U-bolts through each coil center hole.
(7) Put on header brackets and screw down nuts,  not too tight.
[8] Mark primary and sec1,  sec2 coils
[9] Connect series sec1, sec2 considering coil phase.
[10] Done - this needs to work at Low VAC 50/60hz.

See if it will work.

:S:MarkSCoffman
 
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: cheors on August 04, 2014, 10:24:16 PM
I tried to understand and simulate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9Lxbkhz5G00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9Lxbkhz5G00)
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: ACG on August 04, 2014, 10:58:35 PM
Anyone buy the Jetson bike yet?  Steeltpu?
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 05, 2014, 01:46:01 AM
We have the most earth-shattering event in the history of the world - and the first deployment of this technology will be a small "don't ask to see the BOM" motorized bicycle!

Q:  Why not build a trial 10 megawatt free energy electrical generating station instead?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 03:28:41 AM
You cannot use one of those infrared temperature meters to read with any degree of accuracy when the emissivity of the surfaces or distance is different. Often you will get  a difference between two readings when measuring the same surface / same distance.

Matched Thin film Platinum 100 Ohm resistance film sensors used in a differential bridge circuit would be a better choice when trying to differentiate one degree or less.

Also the cores will take quite some time to heat up as the loss is in the copper wire, which is not efficiently  coupled to the cores thermally. At this low frequency (3200Hz) with metglass, core loss / core heating  is hardly an issue.
I agree that the emissivity differences make the IR measurements a joke.  I agree that a difference measurement using thermocouples, or preferably thermistors using well-shielded cables is the way to go.  Do that following TinselKoala's protocol:  Let an unpowered device come to equilibrium in a room with still air, or where the device is sheltered from air flow and record the bridge voltage.  Then set the device up to operate, give it plenty of time to reach equilibrium, and record the bridge voltage.  That will give a clear indication of which way the temperature goes relative to ambient when operating.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 03:32:32 AM
I tried to understand and simulate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9Lxbkhz5G00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9Lxbkhz5G00)
Getting the right K values without a set of measurements on each of the coils with the other two open and with each and both of the other coils shorted, could be a challenge.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 05, 2014, 04:23:30 AM
trolls seen squiming in their chairs and overheard saying: there is always some little detail we can find to turn a mole hill into a mountain.   if not we'll make something up that sounds believable.

one year into the future.  tk caught in a photo riding the jetson scooter down his street while still denying this is a valid device.

 :P

The little detail that the power supply must be included in "input power" measurements?
The little detail that a self-charging battery charger/scooter system was supposed to be demonstrated... but was not? The little detail that claims are being made without the solid evidence that should be provided along with the claims? Yeah, those little details always seem to interfere with claimants giving solid proof of their claims, don't they.

Where is a graph of temperature vs. time of the "cooling off" transformer? You may recall that I provided dozens of such time-temperature graphs for anyone to look at, for free, during the LMM debunk, all of them fully documented with raw data presented for inspection, and I wasn't even making extraordinary claims.  But Alek comes along and just tells you that a current-carrying transformer cools off when operating, and you believe him, without seeing any data at all.

OK, fine. You buy me the scooter and I'll ride it around and let you know, with 100 percent fully preserved and inspectable raw data repeatable by anyone with the skill, whether or not it needs to have its batteries ever recharged by an external charger. If it doesn't need to be recharged during that year of operation, I'll buy it from you for twice what you paid for it and make a public apology to you and Alek and everyone else on YouTube.  But if it DOES need external recharging.... I get to keep it and you are out the purchase price, AND I'll be invoicing you for my standard consulting fee. What do you say? Let's put YOUR money to the test.

You see, the reason I put forth challenges like this is because I _know_ you won't accept them. Your own belief in the reality of Alek's claims is actually not that strong.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 04:35:39 AM
What I saw in the video:

A conventional line transformer driven by an audio amplifier.
A "SFT" tranvformer that consists of:  A primary labelled as 3.07mH 1.4 Ohms, coupled to two secondary windings one labelled a: 120mH 19 Ohms and the other 122mH 15 Ohms.
A wirewound power resistor connected by patch leads to a circuit board.
An audio power amplifer connected to a function generator  where the audio amplifier drove the DUT

A measurement where the input was  ~10.75V rms @ 3200Hz, and the current ~1.466A rms, and where the oscilloscope reported a phase shift of ~78 degrees.  The output meter values were 11.39Vrms, and 0.459Arms.

The apparent input power:  15.8 VA.
The apparent (and assumed real) output power:  5.23VA and 5.23W

The real input power was calculated based on the oscilloscope's phase angle reading which varied from 74 to 81 degrees.  Bill Alek chose to use 78 degrees and got: 3.28W real.  But cosine values change proportionately very fast in this area.  The respective cosine values are:  74 deg 0.276, 78 deg .208, and 81 deg 0.156.  A small error in the phase angle measurement results in a large error in the calculated real power. 

Bill Alek later presents his demonstration of a measured phase angle greater than 90 degrees when the transformer secondary is shorted.  Under conventional thinking the resulting phase angle would approach but not exceed 90 degrees under such a condition.  Bill Alek's scope reports 102 degrees.  One way to interpret Bill Alek's data is to assume that conventional physics still holds and what Bill Alek has is a phase error that over reports phase shift by at least 12 degrees near 90 degrees.  If we apply that hypothesis to his unshorted measurement we get a phase angle of ~66 degrees, and a real input power of: 6.42W which results in a decidedly under unity device.  Another interpretation is that Bill Alek's reported phase shift is correct and modern physics has been overturned.  Given that the apparatus appears to be no more than a three winding transformer with lots of leakage inductance, there isn't anything extraordinary about the apparatus' construction that suggests extraordinary behaviors should result.

It is up to Bill Alek to show that his measurements are in fact valid, when it is almost certain that they are not.  The fact that he refers to pairs of loosely coupled single windings as bifilar, which they certainly are not, does not instill confidence in his mastery of the subject matter.  Neither does his inappropriate use of a IR thermometer, or failure to show null tests that establish the accuracy of his measurements, particularly phase-shift.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 05, 2014, 05:06:28 AM
Dead on Mark like usual.  I am surprised that I actually watched a clip that long.  I have lost a lot of the vigor to get into it these days so your comments are welcome.  If you want to be cynical, this was just a rehearsed pitch to a willing audience so he pulled it off quite well.  I was too lazy to see how much difference the variance in the phase angle would cause to the number crunching.

However, my instincts are still good.  Seeing that hunk of wire and ferrite you could just tell it was the same old story.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 05, 2014, 11:58:08 AM
 :-\ :-\

Nobody got all excited when I showed a _stable_ phase shift measurement of over 90 degrees. And I even did it in color, and you can read all my numbers, too.

 :P

But then... I don't have a Jetson scooter.

 :-[ :-[ :-[

Or even a cheezburger.

(Heck... I even have bigger lumps on the bottom than on the top.)

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 01:46:58 PM
So according to Bill Alek which represents more free energy:  90.001 degrees phase shift, or 179.999 degrees phase shift? 

The microQEG is 90.8 degrees phase shift measured.  The input power according to Bill Alek's method: Is VIN_rms*IIN_rms*cos(theta).  Efficiency is POUT/PIN, so the smallest negative value of cos(theta) should be the most advantageous, right? 
cos(90.001deg) is -17.4E-6. 
cos(179.999deg) is -.9999999998.

cos(90.8deg) = -0.01396
cos(102deg) = -.2079  = -(cos(78deg))  is that a coincidence???

Is the microQEG not far more overunity-ish than the Auroratek SFT?
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: kEhYo77 on August 05, 2014, 04:49:27 PM
I'd like to see uQEG to have 90 degrees phase shift while on load ;)  (without phase shifting loopstick measure thingy)  8)
Or with a shorted out closely coupled secondary coil.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 08:11:08 PM
A large phase shift occurs when the reactance of a series branch is much larger than the resistance.  Bill Alek's SFT is a three winding transformer with lots of leakage inductance, IE he does not have a closely coupled primary and secondary.  Shorting the secondary of Bill Alek's transformer eliminates almost all of the resistance in the secondary circuit:  the secondary impedance under this condition looks almost completely reactive. 

As pointed out above, as phase shift approaches 90 degrees, small errors in phase shift result in large proportional errors in real power calculated with those errors.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 05, 2014, 09:17:06 PM
Sweet Baby Ray's BBQ sauce TK; are you still using Win98?! Hopefully it's just a virtual machine... Thou hath dated thine self--if not used to solely run your scope software.

Ahem. Moving on, I do agree that measurement error is likely. First, never trust any "TRMS" measurements made by meters that don't use thermal methods. Admittedly, since there is low harmonic content, TRMS converter accuracy really isn't that big of an issue here. Second, I don't trust those old Fluke 90 series scope meters for serious measurement accuracy, particularly when it comes to determining phase angle.

Phase should have been measured with a two channel 100MHz+ counter (e.g. Racal-Dana 1992 / Keithley 776 / Philips 6666 or equivalent.) and the phase offset at the frequency of operation should have been determined for the current sensor: Transformer disconnected, with a resistor of known value shorting the amplifier to determine phase offset and amplitude accuracy of the measurement system (current sensor signal and voltage across R_L should have equal phase and amplitude after quantitative corrections). Second, are all the connecting cables of the same length going to the scope? Velocity factor and transmission line distance do affect phase, although subtly at these low frequencies. The offset test would compensate for this, but assuming wires are the same length and same V_f along with assuming no phase offset at the hall-effect sensor is bad measurement ethic.

I'm still open to the idea, however. I do think it is possible to maintain reflection at the primary (remaining mostly "reactive") and do work at the secondary with a lower net divergence of energy from the source than that done by the load. If you integrate the product of V_pri(t) * I_pri(t) at the primary and integrate V_sec(t) * I_sec(t) at the secondary, using the measurements taken by Bill Alek, you get a greater divergence of energy at the load than that seen by the source. Integration in this instance yields the net energy, which denotes direction of real power: positive = loss of energy, negative = gain in energy, zero = no net change. Thus power is indeed dissipated at the primary, but more is dissipated at the load.

Alek seems to believe that the secondary bucking fields are causing a material* effect in the common-mode choke section. *"material" as in material science, an effect due to the atomic and or molecular structure of a substance. Which is an interesting idea in consideration of all the odd phenomena that magnetic materials are capable of (e.g. magnetic refrigeration, spin waves and giant magnetoreistance), it seems plausible that a material effect could be taking place.

If the cooling effect is indeed real (I'm not implying that it is), it could be that ambient thermal energy (heat) is being converted into electrical energy by some quantum or atomic process. Basically a heat pump that transforms a quantity of heat into an increase in magnetism. Electrically it would appear to be seen as a negative resistance and the phase angle is directly proportional to this as arctan (X/-R) = theta. Which gives a negative angle. If you add 180 to this you get Alek's >90 angle phenomena. Both of which graph the same sine wave.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 05, 2014, 09:33:48 PM
I'd like to see uQEG to have 90 degrees phase shift while on load ;)  (without phase shifting loopstick measure thingy)  8)
Or with a shorted out closely coupled secondary coil.

And of course you will allow me complete freedom to choose whatever frequencies I want, right? So my control test doesn't have to be at the same frequency as my "experimental" test, does it.

Think about that one for a while, friends.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 05, 2014, 09:43:26 PM
@G4RR3ττ

Heh.... sharp eyes indeed!

The oscilloscope is a Link DSO2100M, 2-ch 100 MHz scope, generously donated to the lab. It was manufactured in 1997 and uses a bidirectional parallel port interface! And the only computer I have left operational with an actual parallel port is the venerable IBM ThinkPad 600e that I got in 1998 or so when I was at the Miles Davis Anomalous Jazz Propulsion Laboratory in SF CA USA. A perfect match! The 600e works perfectly with the Link and takes up not too much space in the clutter. It is a small hassle to transfer scope image and data dump files as there is no onboard ethernet and of course no radio, but fortunately it has bleeding edge tech: a single USB port!
I've been thinking seriously about upgrading the OS to Win98SE. Just in case I want audio with MineSweeper or something.

All my real boxen are Linuxes.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 05, 2014, 10:04:21 PM
I attached the spec sheet for the current sensor Alek is using a while back, and it is a Hall-effect based system said to be linear within its range, output voltage proportional to sensed current and supply voltage, with a 3 microsecond response time. At 3200 Hz, the period is 312.5 microseconds, so 3 microseconds delay is almost 3 and a half degrees of phase shift. If I did the math right. This would result in a phase lag for the measurement, and I don't know if Alek's scope can compensate for that much "probe skew".

As I believe I showed in the QEG thread, measurement of phase is tricky and accounting must be made of all the intervening stages of the measurement apparatus that introduce their own phase shifts, and the higher in frequency the more important the factors Garrett mentions become. Even in my scopeshot above, I am determining phase by manually positioning the cursors at the zero-crossings of the waveform and computing from the scope's reported times for those events. The greater-than-90 degrees may well be a measurement artifact, although I am confident that the true phase angle is very close to 90 degrees.

While magnetic cooling is a known process, used for example to cool stuff to the lowest temperature range possible, I severely doubt that it could be happening in Alek's apparatus for all the reasons that have been given before. But furthermore is the "evidence" offered. The IR thermometer reading of different places on the transformer, taking a spot reading in random conditions with a non-contact uncalibrated instrument and then citing a fraction of a degree temperature difference as data.... excuse me, I wouldn't accept that in a high-school physics paper much less an overunity claimant. I realize that the setting was informal. Fine, so present the formally collected time-temperature data taken in controlled conditions in a nice spreadsheet-generated graph. It would take perhaps an entire day of one person's attention to gather and collate such a data set, and good data on such a device and process would be invaluable for a number of reasons. Why have we not seen such a presentation of solid data supporting the cooling claim? I know why.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Acca on August 05, 2014, 10:46:13 PM
My response to Les Banki 
Thanks for the following  post as you are right Overunity dot com is infiltrated with self appointed paid “shills” to kill any idea that has a any potential of any fruition, there is NO DEBATE at all !! It’s just cut and gut the whole idea… How does one get 10,000 posts like TinselKoala or Milehigh 2900 in a short time ??
Simple that is “Their Job” 8 hours a day.. These “Shills” are the real enemy of “FREE Energy” like TinselKoala, Milehigh, MarkE.. these are the biggest negative influence here !!
 
Acca..
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Les Banki to   “MarkE” forum TROLL !!
 
 ”You may have fooled a few readers on this forum in the past with LOTS of empty words in your 2885 posts but I (for one) know who you are and what you are trying to achieve...
 
 You are NOT very good at it.... (are you still getting paid???)
 
If you want to follow the "advise" of a full time, PROFESSIONAL SABOTEUR, good luck to you but don't say I didn't warn you!!
 
 Just go back to the start of this thread and look WHO was the first to respond to Stefan's opening post!?
 

 THAT can't possibly be allowed to happen by the self-appointed CRIMINAL ruling elite controlling mankind from day one!
 
PROFESSIONAL SABOTEURS on most Forums is one.
 Their role is to first gain the confidence of the readers by giving the impression that they are "experts" on the subject and want to help.
 Those who are stupid enough to follow their "technical" advice will FAIL, get frustrated and in the end will conclude that everything is a fake and GIVE UP! 
 Mission accomplished..
 
STOP arguing and theorizing!
 Get your hands dirty instead and you might get your FREE ENERGY!
 
 Cheers,
 Les Banki”
 
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
MileHigh said:
 
“I watched the whole clip.  The next step would be for someone independent to test the same setup.  The clip is too long and would require too much effort for me to check all the connections and scope settings, etc.”
 
TinselKoala said:
 
“I see that in the video, Alek assumes that his load is completely resistive and produces no phase shift and that the rms values read from the meters can simply be directly multiplied to get the real output power. This is not true.”
 
“What Alek showed is a great demonstration of measurement error and misdirection, nothing more.”
 
“I have never seen any instrumental data that supports this claim.”
“I will happily wager all that I own, or a hundred dollar donation to a no-kill animal shelter, that this claim is untrue.”
“it's just another claim without support that turns out to be false when properly tested. “
”I do not trust Sterling's ability to discriminate a three degree phase shift on a portable digital oscilloscope, sorry.”
“ There has been no evidence presented in support of this radical claim”
“the reason I put forth challenges like this is because I _know_ you won't accept them. Your own belief in the reality of Alek's claims is actually not that strong.”
“failure to show null tests that establish the accuracy of his measurements, particularly phase-shift.”
 
Milehigh said:
 
Supporting his troll brother:
 
“Dead on Mark like usual.  I am surprised that I actually watched a clip that long.  I have lost a lot of the vigor to get into it these days so your comments are welcome.  If you want to be cynical, this was just a rehearsed pitch to a willing audience so he pulled it off quite well.  I was too lazy to see how much difference the variance in the phase angle would cause to the number crunching.”
 
 
 
Some one is pissed at the resident "Shill Trolls" !!
 
Steeltpu said:
 
“trolls seen squiming in their chairs and overheard saying: there is always some little detail we can find to turn a mole hill into a mountain.   if not we'll make something up that sounds believable.”
 
 
Quote
Sill
 
A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
"Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that they are an enthusiastic independent  of for whom they are secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology) to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services. Shills are often employed by interests. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, like intelligence organization.
Shill can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologist) for glaring flaws. In this sense, such a critic would be an indirect shill for the industry at large, because said critic's income is tied to the prosperity of the industry.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2014, 12:13:05 AM
I think that it is worthwhile to see whose advice has led to results consistent with the advice and whose advice has not yielded results suggested when the advice was offered.  Feel free to dig through my record and show any discrepancies you can find between what I have advised and what any experiment that followed that advice ultimately showed.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 06, 2014, 01:46:12 AM
Acca ,

Kiss my aura with your BS allegations.  You are probably part of the "drive-by scared free energy clueless rabbit" variety, just like SteelTPU.  You probably can't make a coherent argument to support someone's free energy proposition, or to challenge comments from people like myself or Mark or TK, presumably because you have no education or background in this subject matter. So you are reduced to drive-by nasty comments and then running away.

Chances are you don't even understand what we are saying, all that you know is that it is "bad."

MileHigh

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 06, 2014, 01:50:36 AM
Hello Acca,

I understand that you feel threatened by certain individuals who post here, but do they really mean harm? I don't particularly think so. Instead, they, like any person who cares about accuracy and professionalism, would like to see proper testing procedures before people go hog wild on claiming they invented the piano neck tie and or "free whatever". Fluke corporation, in all their infinite wisdom, calls this "philosophy in practice," and yes, proper understanding of meteorology is a type of philosophy in understanding and avoiding error induced from both humans and machine. Personal bias is a big problem too, such as only looking a favorable data and disregarding conflicting data--this happens all the time! You may want to re-evaluate yourself, particularly your own biases and possible lack of scientific rigor and ethic. Not to say you are lacking, but retrospection is always a good thing.

Personally, I think everyone interested in FE should be more skeptical of the subject. Skepticism to an extreme is bad I agree. Separating personal bias while keeping healthy levels of skepticism is hard, but you do need to question a person's test methods and once you are satisfied that you won't waste your time, build the thing and test it for yourself. I should point out that the public isn't responsible for PROVING an inventor's claims. The inventor needs to instill confidence that they aren't fraudsters and show they actually understand their field of endeavor. As well as present their data in a professional manner using accepted test procedures in the characterization of their invention.

Sometimes people seem against you when they really are trying to help you. Maybe, just maybe, these individuals want you to think critically about the subject of interest and not be a free energy parrot who can only repeat what an inventor tells them. To be honest, thinking for ones self is rather difficult, particularly when it comes to a complex and diverse subject as free energy and all the acompanying physics involved. But once you fully understand the subject (or at least in part), these people's concerns won't strike you as odd. In particular, understanding the limitations imposed by physical relations and the mathematics that describe them, you can start to see where everyone is going in their arguments.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 06, 2014, 02:18:41 AM
You know, after having written that spiel, and then reading MH's ad hominem, I tend to regret any implied and or remote idea that he had good intentions...  Well we all can't be "gentlemen and scholars;" some people just like to argue, and to what end? It's like mental masturbation, but more sophomoric. Can't we examine an idea or invention without getting emotionally invested?

Real science isn't about attacking peoples character or even proving people right or wrong, it's about examining nature and determining if your hypothesis can explain your observations. Since there is already a strong foundation of accumulated work in place, we often unwittingly rely on it when making certain assumptions: like my voltmeter will read volts and inductance causes a lagging current etc. If someone's claim goes against these assumptions we need to examine the possibility that our assumptions are wrong and need to be corrected. General principles aside, no theory or "law" is above questioning. 
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 06, 2014, 02:36:45 AM
G4R:

My experience is that the vast majority of comments like those of Acca are drive-by comments.  They just drive by and shoot at you and then run away.  They never, ever, try to make a rational technical argument at all.  They disappear only to reappear when some other matter is being discussed that also just happens to be highly dubious with another drive-by shooting.  It's ridiculous.

Beyond that, being called a "paid shill" is not only false, but around here it is akin to being called a child molester.  Add in the fact that the proportion of mentally disturbed people is presumably much higher around here than in the general population.  That can mean the unfounded continuous allegations of "paid shill" could put people like me in danger.  There is a mentally disturbed person actively participating on this forum as we speak.

Beyond that, you have to be mentally disturbed on some level to believe that some Joe Blow playing with a silly little pulse motor that does nothing useful at all is being watched by the government.  That's a hypothetical example but I recall something exactly the same happening about five years ago.

Would you G4R like to be called a child molester nearly every day in your online backgammon gaming forum?  Would you like it?  i don't think you would because perhaps the mentally imbalanced person alleging that you are a child molester would trigger a real-life mentally imbalanced person to try to kill you at the next real-life backgammon tournament.

The most disturbing thing about this forum, and the most disturbing people on this forum, are the technically clueless fools that run around in drive-by fashion and regular fashion calling other people paid government shills just because the other people are making logical technical arguments and expressing their opinions.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Farmhand on August 06, 2014, 03:03:50 AM
I would have thought that making false allegations of specific people being paid "shills" would be against the forum rules. Or any
allegations of specific people being any nefarious entity is denigrating that person and so is abusive unless it can be proven to be
true. These people making such allegations against other persons should be moderated, warned and banned if the abuse
continues. If the accused responds in kind the entire threads end up a farce of accusations and madness.

The evidence of people being "paid shills" is just as absent as the evidence for any OU.

Basically people make crazy silly claims and others that question those claims get abuse and accusations of being a "paid shill".
Either people want to back up claims or they don't, if you make a claim you should be able to back it up.

..
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2014, 03:04:13 AM
Can't we examine an idea or invention without getting emotionally invested?
I like to think so.
Quote

Real science isn't about attacking peoples character or even proving people right or wrong, it's about examining nature and determining if your hypothesis can explain your observations.
Exactly.
Quote

Since there is already a strong foundation of accumulated work in place, we often unwittingly rely on it when making certain assumptions: like my voltmeter will read volts and inductance causes a lagging current etc. If someone's claim goes against these assumptions we need to examine the possibility that our assumptions are wrong and need to be corrected. General principles aside, no theory or "law" is above questioning.
Sure, if compelling data challenges an established belief then we need to be open to the possibility that the established belief is wrong.  The catch is: compelling data.  Poorly designed and/or conducted and/or reported experiments don't generate compelling data.  Often we see critiques of experiments, many offered with suggestions on how to improve those experiments are not countered by other suggestions on how to get good data, but on silly conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 06, 2014, 03:06:33 AM
MH,

Touché, haha. I agree that being called a paid shill is an annoyance, but to say its like being called a child molester is going a bit far... Though I do understand your frustration.

At any rate, I completely agree that most people frequenting forums like this have an alarming lack of technical understanding and an equally alarming tendency to accept almost anything as fact if it even remotely agrees with their personal bias (such as "I believe in free energy", thus all free energy devices must be real). That said, lowering your arguments to logical fallacies (i.e. ad hominem) doesn't help, but annoyance tends to bring it out--which natural.

Mark,

Thanks for the reply.

I am in 100% agreement on the requirement of "compelling data." There's no reason to change an established concept unless it can be unquestionably proven to have fault.

On the topic of conspiracy theories, I think many people (on either side of the FE debate) feel that if your not "with them your against them," so when you give helpful critiques they get mad. Equally as unhelpful are the people who deny even the possibility of an idea that contradicts their own. Particularly this is seen with parroting of conservation and thermodynamics dogma. Can't the system be "open?" There's no need for "creating" energy when we are surrounded by it.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2014, 03:21:56 AM
G4R:

My experience is that the vast majority of comments like those of Acca are drive-by comments.  They just drive by and shoot at you and then run away.  They never, ever, try to make a rational technical argument at all.  They disappear only to reappear when some other matter is being discussed that also just happens to be highly dubious with another drive-by shooting.  It's ridiculous.

Beyond that, being called a "paid shill" is not only false, but around here it is akin to being called a child molester.  Add in the fact that the proportion of mentally disturbed people is presumably much higher around here than in the general population.  That can mean the unfounded continuous allegations of "paid shill" could put people like me in danger.  There is a mentally disturbed person actively participating on this forum as we speak.

Beyond that, you have to be mentally disturbed on some level to believe that some Joe Blow playing with a silly little pulse motor that does nothing useful at all is being watched by the government.  That's a hypothetical example but I recall something exactly the same happening about five years ago.

Would you G4R like to be called a child molester nearly every day in your online backgammon gaming forum?  Would you like it?  i don't think you would because perhaps the mentally imbalanced person alleging that you are a child molester would trigger a real-life mentally imbalanced person to try to kill you at the next real-life backgammon tournament.

The most disturbing thing about this forum, and the most disturbing people on this forum, are the technically clueless fools that run around in drive-by fashion and regular fashion calling other people paid government shills just because the other people are making logical technical arguments and expressing their opinions.

MileHigh
MileHigh, I highly doubt that there is any credible risk that an unstable person will be able to identify you or anyone else who uses a pseudonym.  I also think  that if anyone were identified that it is extremely unlikely that someone would seek them out and harm them.  If you are genuinely concerned that there is a risk, then the prudent thing is to simply not post.  That may be very unfair.  But, it is the action that is within your control. 

IMO, when someone throws out serious claims or charges that they then fail to back, they discredit themselves very quickly.  IMO, they effectively squelch their own voice no matter how loud or shrill their shouts.  There is a point for anyone where such voices just don't carry influence.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 06, 2014, 03:58:01 AM
G4R:

Thank you for your comments and I basically agree with what you said.

Mark:

I am not literally afraid, it's the old cliche that you are more likely to be hit by a car than die in a plane crash.  It's the principle that is important.  How far is the gap between being called a "paid shill" and being in a place in the world where if you don't follow the "right" God, then you have to change your ways or be expelled or even killed.  The gap may seem large, but at the same time the gap is not really that large.  Think Lord of the Flies.

Being called a "paid shill" is akin to being called a child molester as it could be perceived by some people around here.  It's like sitting at a lunch counter in 1954 and someone calls you a n*gger and tells you the lunch counter is off limits to you.  As far as I am concerned there is a connection.

Being called a "paid shill" is a form of intimidation.  The implicit message is "you are not one of us and in fact you are a despicable human being."  It's just plain wrong and it goes against the forum rules and my personal principles.  I can't speak the truth based on my average-to-half-decent knowledge of energy and electronics?  No way!  As long as the forum accepts a plurality of opinion with the goal of understanding various free energy propositions, I do not want to be called a "paid shill" and all that that term implies.

As far as the issue of random acts of unspeakable violence goes, just check out the site LiveLeak if you want.  People can do the most stupid and horrible things, even if they are very rare events.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2014, 04:30:54 AM
G4R:

Thank you for your comments and I basically agree with what you said.

Mark:

I am not literally afraid, it's the old cliche that you are more likely to be hit by a car than die in a plane crash.  It's the principle that is important.  How far is the gap between being called a "paid shill" and being in a place in the world where if you don't follow the "right" God, then you have to change your ways or be expelled or even killed.  The gap may seem large, but at the same time the gap is not really that large.  Think Lord of the Flies.

Being called a "paid shill" is akin to being called a child molester as it could be perceived by some people around here.  It's like sitting at a lunch counter in 1954 and someone calls you a n*gger and tells you the lunch counter is off limits to you.  As far as I am concerned there is a connection.

I think that you need to decide whether or not the name calling is a serious issue.  If it is, then I suggest walking away is prudent.  If it isn't, then I think you are making a bigger deal of it than is warranted.  I can't compare talking on a particular message board with being denied equal use of public and private facilities. 
Quote

Being called a "paid shill" is a form of intimidation.  The implicit message is "you are not one of us and in fact you are a despicable human being."  It's just plain wrong and it goes against the forum rules and my personal principles.
That is true.  Life isn't fair.  The forum is moderated such as it is.  If the behavior is a real problem, then you can step away.  If it isn't then the name calling is a side-show.  I subscribe to the latter premise.
Quote

I can't speak the truth based on my average-to-half-decent knowledge of energy and electronics?  No way!  As long as the forum accepts a plurality of opinion with the goal of understanding various free energy propositions, I do not want to be called a "paid shill" and all that that term implies.
Lots of people want things, even reasonable things.  What we should get, and what we can get often don't line-up.  One should be able to walk in any neighborhood at night and be safe.  Most people know better and do not insist on testing their luck where a reasonable person assesses there is a real danger.
Quote

As far as the issue of random acts of unspeakable violence goes, just check out the site LiveLeak if you want.  People can do the most stupid and horrible things, even if they are very rare events.

MileHigh
Lots of things are possible if even very unlikely.  The various options of what to do are yours.  I recommend not taking any of the insults or false accusations seriously, especially as long as you remain masked behind a pseudonym.  Were your real person to ever be threatened, that would be a federal crime.  Then you might want to think about such acts more seriously.  And then you would have different recourse.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 06, 2014, 04:49:41 AM
Mark:

Your points are all well taken and they are reasonable, balanced, and wise.  I don't want to over blow this but I want to make a firm point.

Let me shift gears:

Acca and SteelTPU:  What do you have to say about the discussion that just took place over the past few postings? I want to hear both of your opinions.  I also would like to know how much technical education and knowledge you have in electronics and general energy concepts.

Please go ahead and respond to the questions above and feel free to say anything else that you want to say to the readers of this thread.

MileHigh
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 06, 2014, 08:41:07 AM
What is the material of the big core with the 2 secondary windings ?
Everyone notifies a heat dissipation loss, but a cooling effect does not get the attention is deserves.
There was a discussion about magnetostriction and profitis revealed this effect which was later confirmed by MH, if I remember correct.
For me and most other OU interested it is not obvious , why some users post so often, and I guess there is a paid team behind some users, because a single person is not able to concentrate on more than one ore two subjects at a time.
A solution to all of this would be a ignore function , that one could apply to certain users.
Or a dynamic ignore function : I ignore Users who's posting rate exceeds a certain value:
Per Day, Week , Month or
Posting rate Per Day, Week , Month in a specific thread.
And also : I ignore Users, that ignore me.
There is an example :https://forums.wildstar-online.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71701-add-an-ignore-function-in-the-forum/
Personally I have no problems being ignored, but regarding some other egos here , I think they have a problem with it.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2014, 11:38:13 AM
What is the material of the big core with the 2 secondary windings ?
Everyone notifies a heat dissipation loss, but a cooling effect does not get the attention is deserves.
There was a discussion about magnetostriction and profitis revealed this effect which was later confirmed by MH, if I remember correct.
For me and most other OU interested it is not obvious , why some users post so often, and I guess there is a paid team behind some users, because a single person is not able to concentrate on more than one ore two subjects at a time.
A solution to all of this would be a ignore function , that one could apply to certain users.
Or a dynamic ignore function : I ignore Users who's posting rate exceeds a certain value:
Per Day, Week , Month or
Posting rate Per Day, Week , Month in a specific thread.
And also : I ignore Users, that ignore me.
There is an example :https://forums.wildstar-online.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71701-add-an-ignore-function-in-the-forum/
Personally I have no problems being ignored, but regarding some other egos here , I think they have a problem with it.
The shiny appearance suggests ingot iron or mild steel, possibly with some nickel.  I did not see lines that laminations would form.  If you really want to know the exact material, contacting Bill Alek directly is probably your best bet.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 06, 2014, 12:23:14 PM
<contacting Bill Alek directly is probably your best bet> .. and so I did. I will post the response , if I get one.

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: itsu on August 06, 2014, 12:46:55 PM
What is the material of the big core with the 2 secondary windings ?
.........

At 11:28 into the video he mentions METGLAS.

Regards itsu
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 06, 2014, 12:55:28 PM
Thanks. Itsu (did not recognize it at first viewing)  ???
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 06, 2014, 01:06:39 PM
At the top of the page, under the "Overunity" banner: Select "Profile", "summary", "modify Profile", "Buddies/Ignore list" and then you will see the options to modify your Ignore List.

Then when someone on your Ignore list makes a post, you don't see it in the thread but you do see a notification placeholder that you may then click through if you want to see what people are saying about you. Which, of course, you will do.

 ;D

(People who think I have a lot of posts may forget, or not even know, that I have carried on a multi-year debunk, since 2009, of the proven liar and data-fabricator Rosemary Ainslie, which accounts for perhaps half my total. More posts were concerned with the proven and admitted fraud Mylow, the ridiculous comedy claimant Archer Quinn, and a few others who made claims they could not back up and eventually vanished, like elecar to name one particularly egregious case, and Wayne Travis, another. Time wasted, unnecessary posts? Sure, if you like. Are you still trying to "replicate" Mylow, then?)
 
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 06, 2014, 01:24:46 PM
Thanks Tk for the hint. (Did not look close enough through the menus) , but would only apply this to a few (it's to harsh). A dynamic blocker would make more sense .
And I am not looking for an award of any kind here, (what people think about me)





Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2014, 02:24:24 PM
At 11:28 into the video he mentions METGLAS.

Regards itsu
METGLAS is very popular with free energy experimenters.  It has both a high permeability and a sharp saturation curve.  In the video the sine waves did not appear distorted, so at the levels shown the core was not saturating.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 06, 2014, 08:04:23 PM
As already pointed out, the core is tape wound and cut into a type C config using a metglas alloy; most likely type 2605SA1, which is an iron based alloy used in power transformers.

At the moment, I wouldn't be too concerned with the core alloy; though admittedly, the lower loss the core, the more likely you would be to obtain Alek's results (if they are possible in the first place).

I spent a couple of hours last night trying to figure how Alek's device could work using normal circuit theory.

After some refresher reading from Terman's Radio Engineering 3rd Ed. pgs 55-58, it would seem that the complex impedance reflected from his common mode choke segment is causing the phase angle of the primary circuit to shift in the opposite direction than would happen otherwise. Basically, Terman points out that if the secondary current is 30 degrees lagging, it will reflect to the primary to be 30 degrees leading, so that it will partially cancel out the primary's inductance. Since the coupling coefficient can't exceed 1, the best you could hope for is completely nulling out the primary inductance. That is, the primary becomes completely resistive, as you would expect. However, in Alek's transformer, the power factor decreases when the secondary is loaded, which means the reflected impedance is making the primary more reactive--which isn't normal. When shorted, the vector sum of the reflected load impedance and the primary's leakage inductance and ESR add to an angle >90, which means that not only is the secondary paying for the primary's resistive losses its also driving the AC source like a load.

Certainly sounds too good to be true. At any rate, I'm going to throw some functions together and see exactly what load impedance and coupling factor is needed to simulate his results. Which will give some insight into how the common mode choke section is performing in the circuit. No need to build something until you understand how or why it could work.

To be continued...
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Kator01 on August 06, 2014, 09:20:28 PM
Hello,

Auroatek measurement failures: see attached screenshot  edited by me.

Even Naudin had to find out the selfinductance of power-resistors.

The two black resitsors used in this demonstration are very old resistors with
resistance-wire applied on a ceramic tube -> selfinductance

Absolutly a no-go for power-measurements in the range of 3.2 KHz

Next: if my assumtion is correct then these two Digimeters at the left
are only designed for AC and never will show  correct values at 3.2 Khz

Why does he not use his scope on the output-resitors ?

So what`s the value of all this demonstration and calculations base on wrong
values measured ? A waste of time

Regards

Kator01

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 06, 2014, 09:56:01 PM
As already pointed out, the core is tape wound and cut into a type C config using a metglas alloy; most likely type 2605SA1, which is an iron based alloy used in power transformers.

At the moment, I wouldn't be too concerned with the core alloy; though admittedly, the lower loss the core, the more likely you would be to obtain Alek's results (if they are possible in the first place).

I spent a couple of hours last night trying to figure how Alek's device could work using normal circuit theory.

After some refresher reading from Terman's Radio Engineering 3rd Ed. pgs 55-58, it would seem that the complex impedance reflected from his common mode choke segment is causing the phase angle of the primary circuit to shift in the opposite direction than would happen otherwise. Basically, Terman points out that if the secondary current is 30 degrees lagging, it will reflect to the primary to be 30 degrees leading, so that it will partially cancel out the primary's inductance. Since the coupling coefficient can't exceed 1, the best you could hope for is completely nulling out the primary inductance. That is, the primary becomes completely resistive, as you would expect. However, in Alek's transformer, the power factor decreases when the secondary is loaded, which means the reflected impedance is making the primary more reactive--which isn't normal. When shorted, the vector sum of the reflected load impedance and the primary's leakage inductance and ESR add to an angle >90, which means that not only is the secondary paying for the primary's resistive losses its also driving the AC source like a load.

Certainly sounds too good to be true. At any rate, I'm going to throw some functions together and see exactly what load impedance and coupling factor is needed to simulate his results. Which will give some insight into how the common mode choke section is performing in the circuit. No need to build something until you understand how or why it could work.

To be continued...
His transformer has weak coupling:  K << 0.99.  This makes it look like most of the primary inductance is isolated, resulting in a large phase shift.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 06, 2014, 10:06:16 PM
Kator01,

FYI, I'm a test equipment nut--seriously--and if you were too, you would know that most DMMs are good up to 100kHz bandwidth... Most go to 300kHz (most hand held Flukes) or even 1MHz (high end HP/Keithley bench meters), so how does your point about 3.2kHz signal frequency have any validity? Further the harmonic content is likely less than 3% (IMD and hysteresis), so implying that there is substantial energy content in harmonics is just inane.

Further, if you knew anything about inductance, you would realize that the smaller the diameter of the former the greater the opposing mutual inductance, counter currents become closer. Also, the greater the spacing between turns the lower the aiding mutual inductance, aiding currents can't couple as well. Ceramic resistance coils exhibit both of the aforementioned phenomena: wide turn spacing, small diameter coil former. Ironically, in most cases, a straight wire has more inductance than a single loop or a loosely wound small diameter coil! Do the measurements!

Point is, the long connecting wires on the secondary side probably have equal or more inductance than the power resistors, but I never heard you point that out... But, point well taken. Inductance of the secondary circuit contributes to the total secondary load impedance.

I doubt the power factor on the load side is a major detractor here. Particularly in in light of the fact that the major component of the complex impedance is resistive. Assume the stray inductance is equal to about 5uH, at 3.2khz this equates to 100 milliohms or 0.1ohm. I'm not seeing how this materially affected the power factor. Now let's say the stray inductance a bit higher at 100uH, we get 2ohms of reactance which might start to actually have significance. When we find the impedance however, 11.39V / 0.459A, we get about 24.81ohms of impedance. Solving for R we get about 24.72ohms... The phase angle (arcsin (X/Z) = theta) should be close to  4.62 degrees... And your point was that our new correct power measurement of 5.2109W_real is significantly lower than the 5.228 as calculated by Alek. Right. Real good job on the math.

Feel free to point out any errors, or misunderstandings on my part.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 06, 2014, 10:12:47 PM
Mark,

The secondary magnetic circuit is a COMMON MODE choke, meaning it doesn't contain differential mode inductance! That is, the magnetic fields of each winding null out to leakage levels. Assuming I understand how both common mode chokes work and Alek's circuit, your point about k<<1 might be off. Of course it will be lower than a normal transformer because his windings do not completely enclose the primary core section--there is open space. BTW I've built magamps that use very similar construction to Alek's transformer and achieved rather high coupling coefficients. If you want I can take some pics and post the measurement results.'

Also, your point about the coupling coefficient is wrong, in the sense that regardless of its value, the load impedance is reflected back to the primary. Thus primary inductance MUST decrease when the secondary is loaded, thereby lowering the primary impedance and appearing more resistive--however slightly this may be due to weak coupling. Why Alek's transformer does the opposite is the real question.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: mscoffman on August 06, 2014, 10:58:29 PM
Metglass Cores;

I noticed that none other then J. Robitelli of QEG fame, his store seems to be selling Metglass Inc. AMCC 320
Metglass cores. These cores were made famous in the Tom Bearden's MEG affair. These advanced technology
cores were then selling for $$$ in those years. Note, that there are no prices listed and I believe however
they were used they probably still retain their magic material specs. That high voltage insulation coil wire
looks good too.

As usual; Buyer Beware, especially in this case.

Web Link:

http://teslaenergysolutionsllc.com/store/


:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 12:35:48 AM
Mark,

The secondary magnetic circuit is a COMMON MODE choke, meaning it doesn't contain differential mode inductance!
A CM choke is just a transformer. If the K factor is high, then the effective inductance seen by each side is twice that of either single winding in isolation.  Bill Alek's windings have low coupling coefficients:  K
Quote

That is, the magnetic fields of each winding null out to leakage levels. Assuming I understand how both common mode chokes work and Alek's circuit, your point about k<<1 might be off.
I think that you don't understand them well.  The idea is that the reactance of the magnetizing inductance in each winding is much greater than the impedance of the external circuit.  Current impressed from the dot end towards the non-dot end of one winding induces a voltage across the other winding that will ideally result in a matching current from the non-dot end towards the dot end of that second winding.  In a perfect world this results in nearly equal currents flowing in opposite directions, reducing the net common current in one direction or the other out of the choke to be very small compared to the original individual currents.  A common mode choke that has a low K factor performs badly.
Quote
  Of course it will be lower than a normal transformer because his windings do not completely enclose the primary core section--there is open space. BTW I've built magamps that use very similar construction to Alek's transformer and achieved rather high coupling coefficients. If you want I can take some pics and post the measurement results.'
I always like to see interesting data.
Quote

Also, your point about the coupling coefficient is wrong, in the sense that regardless of its value, the load impedance is reflected back to the primary. Thus primary inductance MUST decrease when the secondary is loaded, thereby lowering the primary impedance and appearing more resistive--however slightly this may be due to weak coupling. Why Alek's transformer does the opposite is the real question.
Take an ideal transformer and drive an inductive load.  The inductive load reactance reflects right back at the primary.  Shorting the secondary of a transformer with a low K has the same effect:  the leakage inductance becomes the load.  In a weakly coupled transformer, the primary current phase shift gets very close to 90 degrees for either condition:  open or shorted secondary.  Low phase shift is possible with a tightly coupled transformer such that the magnetizing reactance is much greater than the load plus winding resistance and the leakage inductance reactance is much lower than the load resistance. 

Bill Alek's windings are labelled:  120mH / 122mH for the secondaries, and 3.07mH for the primary.  Let's assume that those values were obtained with an LCR bridge one winding at a time with each of the other two windings open.  Using K values of 0.8 and loading with 0.01 Ohms, the phase shift at 3kHz in the primary is 84.6 degrees.  Loading with 1E9 Ohms (open) the phase shift is 88.6 degrees. Up the K to 0.99 and the 0.01 Ohm condition gets much better due to the winding resistance: 28.2 degrees phase shift, while the open circuit case remains unaffected.

I think that what we see is just a combination of weak coupling and poorly conducted measurements.  That seems to be the legacy of over unity transformer claims.


Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 07, 2014, 02:36:26 AM
Look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddj85px00lM&list=UULuDKTNDFfat7iO7KGE7fQA

Russ was there!

Quote Russ:

Quote
ok, well there is nothing new here if you ask me, this has been demonstrated in the past in different ways.

but looks fun to play with..

note @ 42:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddj85px00lM&list=UULuDKTNDFfat7iO7KGE7fQA#) i ask the right question and the answer was " im probably just a few weeks away from finishing it" how Manny time have i heard that...

I am pretty sure the question Russ posed at 42 minutes was about the magic bike!  I was dead tired when I watched it, perhaps someone can confirm.

Bill backpedaled!   Ouch!  lol

MileHigh
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MileHigh on August 07, 2014, 02:37:35 AM
And not a single response from Mr. Drive-by-Shooter Acca.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 03:13:58 AM
Well Mark you can have high coupling factor indeed!

But first I want to point out, measuring magnetic circuits employing ferrite is a b*tch: changes in temp, slight mechanical shock and differing drive level (changes in applied H-field due to changes in number of turns) add much experimental error.

Now on to my little saturable reactor / magamp. Note that, for this circuit, tight coupling was intended for experiments exploring parametric variation (such as frequency conversion and AM modulation of an RF carrier). The tighter the coupling the less control winding current is needed to cause a change of inductance in the anti-series connected secondary circuit. Fundamentally the circuit is a variable load inductance programmed by a voltage controlled current source. All that said, the magnetic circuit closely resembles the primary half of Alek's transformer. At a later date, I'll put up some measurements of a full equivalent circuit, when I can find a CM choke to use for the other half of his secondary arrangement.

What's interesting about this circuit is that the primary winding is shared across two separate and isolated cores, which is exactly how Alek's primary circuit is wound. The only major difference is that of winding style and obviously the lack of the CM secondary arrangement--which I still feel doesn't contribute to large secondary inductance as you propose.

On to the measurements and Pics. First I want to say that both methods of determining k (shorted secondary and measured mutual inductance) were undertaken with the utmost care, all values are derived from measurement and not calculation, unless required. As is generally know to be the case, the mutual inductance method gives erroneous values, this is due to the greater number of ampere-turns that excite the core which shifts the incremental permeability to differing values, in this case greater u_i. Thus k is calculated as being greater than one, which is an invalid result. The arguably better shorted secondary test gives a a very high coupling coefficient of 0.99879.

Concluding, I think we can safely say his primary circuit isn't a major contributor of leakage inductance. However, large leakage in the secondary extraneous circuit is still on for debate. I'm thinking it's not going to be very large though, seeing as how the split secondary fields oppose one another and have the same turns ratio, they will likely have very low (possibly <200uH) leakage inductance.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 03:50:44 AM
Both channels of the scope are AC-coupled.

 ::) ::)

Is there a scoposcopist in the haus?

 :o :o :'( :'( :'(
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 03:55:36 AM
Well Mark you can have high coupling factor indeed!

But first I want to point out, measuring magnetic circuits employing ferrite is a b*tch: changes in temp, slight mechanical shock and differing drive level (changes in applied H-field due to changes in number of turns) add much experimental error.

Now on to my little saturable reactor / magamp. Note that, for this circuit, tight coupling was intended for experiments exploring parametric variation (such as frequency conversion and AM modulation of an RF carrier). The tighter the coupling the less control winding current is needed to cause a change of inductance in the counter wound secondary circuit. Fundamentally the circuit is a variable load inductance programmed by a voltage controlled current source. All that said, the magnetic circuit closely resembles the primary half of Alek's transformer. At a later date, I'll put up some measurements of a full equivalent circuit, when I can find a CCM to use for the other half of his secondary arrangement.

What's interesting about this circuit is that the primary is shared across two separate and isolated cores, which is exactly how Alek's primary circuit is wound. The only major difference is that of winding style and obviously the lack of the CMM secondary arrangement--which I still feel doesn't contribute to large secondary inductance as you propose.

On to the measurements and Pics. First I want to say that both methods of determining k (shorted secondary and measured mutual inductance) were undertaken with the utmost care, all values are derived from measurement and not calculation, unless required. As is generally know to be the case, the mutual inductance method gives erroneous values, this is due to the greater number of ampere-turns that excite the core which shifts the incremental permeability to differing values, in this case greater u_i. Thus k is calculated as being greater than one, which is an invalid result. The arguably more useful shorted secondary test gives a a very high coupling coefficient of 0.99879.
I am good with determining K by measuring the inductance of a given winding first with all other windings open and then successively shorting one winding at a time. 

.999 coupling is a very high number especially with as few turns as are visible in your photos.  0.96-.99 seems more plausible to me.  Your structure is quite different than Bill Alek's.  In the case of your structure all windings closely hug one or the other of the toroids.  In Bill Alek's case, each winding extends far beyond any of the given cores.  I expect that to result in substantial leakage inductance and therefore K way below .99 that is achievable by tightly wrapping all windings tightly around a single core.  Flux transfer between the various cores is by way of induced currents in each of the windings, including through the copper losses of each.  To me the resulting reluctance will be much higher than where the flux couples onto a single closed high uR core such as a toroid of appropriate material.  The only way to really know for certain is to either build up 3D field model, or measure the device properly.  I submit that if you were to lay your two toroids flat with the openings facing up and wind one winding on each core and a third winding shared between them that you would be much closer to Bill Alek's arrangement, and your leakage inductance would sky rocket.
Quote

Concluding, I think we can safely say his primary circuit isn't a major contributor of leakage inductance. However, large leakage in the secondary extraneous circuit is still on for debate. I'm thinking it's not going to be very large though, seeing as how the split secondary fields oppose one another and have the same turns ratio, they will likely have very low (possibly <200uH) leakage inductance.
A few tens of uH in the clipleads and WW resistors at 3kHz is still small compared to the stated winding resistances.   I think that is potentially an error source of a few degrees but do not believe that it is the elephant in the room.  I disagree with your conclusion that his windings are tightly coupled for the reasons stated above.  I expect that the coupling is weak and that is the major source of phase shift.  Of course Bill Alek could measure his device properly and then we would know what the situation is without dispute.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 03:57:57 AM
@Garrett: Isn't a coupling constant in excess of unity one of the ways that "OU" can sneak into a circuit? By dismissing this result as invalid you are semi-circularly rejecting the possibility that the measurement that leads to the "anomalously" large K is actually telling you that the FE is coming in here.

 ;)

Great work by the way, mucho respeto.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 04:02:00 AM
"I am far less concerned by the clip leads than others. "

Ah, but you are a professional, or at least do a good job of acting. SO you have professional-grade clipleads. Many cheap Chinese clipleads look great on the outside but if you examine them closely they may have only one tiny strand of wire inside a big sheath of plastic insulation, and a crimp that doesn't even bother to strip the plastic, so it can be high-resistance or even intermittent. The tiny strand of wire probably has higher inductance than, say, a fully populated length of #20 stranded copper of the same length.

And the alligator clips suck, especially after you step on them a couple of times.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 04:30:51 AM
"I am far less concerned by the clip leads than others. "

Ah, but you are a professional, or at least do a good job of acting. SO you have professional-grade clipleads. Many cheap Chinese clipleads look great on the outside but if you examine them closely they may have only one tiny strand of wire inside a big sheath of plastic insulation, and a crimp that doesn't even bother to strip the plastic, so it can be high-resistance or even intermittent. The tiny strand of wire probably has higher inductance than, say, a fully populated length of #20 stranded copper of the same length.

And the alligator clips suck, especially after you step on them a couple of times.
I try to keep the clip leads away from the stampedes.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 04:59:26 AM
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.

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. 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.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 06:03:23 AM
Is there anything in the way of circuitry on the "support board"? Sure seems like an expensive way to make a simple support for another part if there isn't any circuitry involved.


I realize that in this particular case it probably doesn't make much difference, but here is a question I would like to see asked, every time a demonstration of power happens and a scope channel is observed to be AC-coupled.

"Mister Alek, I notice that both your scope channels are set to AC-coupled. This removes any DC component in the signal, doesn't it? It is the equivalent of putting a capacitor in series with the probe tip as you measure, blocking any DC from reaching the scope's electronics, isn't it? So really, there could be literally any amount of DC power flowing in the system and your scope measurements would not show it. Is that right?"
Follow up:
"The AC coupling setting also moves the displayed trace up or down so that its average is on the channel baseline, doesn't it? What exactly does this do to the _values_ measured for peak voltages, the baseline zero crossings, and math that is done on the vertical values of the AC-coupled traces?"
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 06:39:30 AM
What, people don't think this is an issue, or that I am making it up? AC Channel coupling is by far _THE_ most misunderstood aspect of scoposcopy. Here is an excellent white paper from National Instruments that describes the issue, with waveform examples.

http://www.ni.com/white-paper/14753/en/
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 07:04:24 AM
TK,

Interesting point about the PCB. However I disagree with the AC-coupling at the scope, it would show everything but the DC-offset. Are you implying that a DC-offset is doing some magic in the background? It's entirely possible that the secondary and primary aren't galvanically isolated and the PCB may be involved in some underhandedness. Certainly not out of the question. To be honest I played around with what I felt was an "equivalent circuit" and proved many of Mark's points wrong regarding both coupling efficiency and the phase angle at the primary, but nothing was observed that paralleled Alek's SFT effects. Fundamentally the effect--if real and not a bunch of smoke up everyone's ace--must be one to do with physics of the core material. Otherwise I'm just not seeing how the effect can be had through classical lumped elements and transmission line theory.

All I see the NI article pointing out is basic high-pass filter phenomena when the AC-coupling is engaged, particularly important with rectangular waveforms where large harmonic content is prevalent (mostly affects the LF spectrum of the signal). Outside of this it's not that big of a deal in my book, and I stare at scopes all day long. But maybe I'm desensitized...

Evidence against the DC-offset theory is the fact that "TRMS" measurements really aren't taking place. Most DMMs do not compute the true RMS of both the DC and AC component at the same time ("AC+DC"). That is to say, only the DC or the AC values are being reported. Few meters actually compute the AC+DC or TRMS, one in particular is the venerable HP 3403C, which uses thermal methods and is good up to 100MHz. So I think its safe to say any DC-offset isn't being measured even if it is leaking into an un-isolated secondary winding.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 07:25:33 AM
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.

Quote
So I think its safe to say any DC-offset isn't being measured even if it is leaking into an un-isolated secondary winding.

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 (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?)
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ 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.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg2_yE5dEQg
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ 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.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala 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.

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
 :P
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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I6TlPjYIpE

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
 ;)
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ 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.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: tinman 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg2_yE5dEQg
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).
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3Olkd_5EI
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: tinman 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frp03muquAo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr3Olkd_5EI
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY97yCxU_OI&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala 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.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNAAxVKWPAbaZiB90_kjDJw (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNAAxVKWPAbaZiB90_kjDJw)
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell 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.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE 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.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE 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 (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.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 08:40:16 PM
TK,

Scholasticism in this instance is appropriate, I would think. Considering you initiated a debate about the definition of an abstract term (alternating current). Your theatricality in making a mountain out of a mole hill seems to be the real issue. I've repeatedly agreed with you that any DC-offset is a real concern. I've also pointed out that AC measurements ignore its presence and the fact that magnetic circuits become non-linear due to it causing saturation. Which means you would see its affects on the oscilloscope as distortion--regardless of coupling. Yet you pull another AC-coupling argument out of your magicians hat, that doesn't compare with the actual argument (Alek's transformer), and demand that I address it and say that I'm some how wrong on all my points. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Tinman,

As for the DC current and ripple on the voltage topic. The magamp/saturable reactor produces this. Its basically the effect of a voltage source or current source producing a "counter wave" that subtractively adds to the ripple produced by a load. For instance, take a reluctance motor and connect it to a DC power supply with a CC current limit of 1A. Since the supply is shorted by a few hundred milli ohms it goes straight into CC mode of 1A. Now rotate the rotor as fast as you can and observe both the voltage across the motor and the current through the motor. You will see that the voltage is proportional to I_cc*dL/dt or the derivative of the change in inductance with time (there is no generator action taking place). Current remains a constant 1A. What's happening, is the current source is raising and lowering its voltage to maintain a constant current against a changing load impedance, in this instance a reactive one. So the effect, as far as I'm aware can only be seen when a constant voltage source or current source is used to power a time-variant impedance.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 08:45:42 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.
A valid measurement is one that responds to all significant features of the quantity being measured.  A scope that is AC coupled with a cut-off frequency that is much lower than the signal being measured captures the excursions well.  If there is signal information that is significant that is outside the pass band, then as in TK's bulb experiments the measurements will miss that information.  Bill Alek's choice to AC couple was likely one of convenience.  I do not see high risk of an error due to AC coupling.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 08:52:11 PM
TK,

Scholasticism in this instance is appropriate, I would think. Considering you initiated a debate about the definition of an abstract term (alternating current). Your theatricality in making a mountain out of a mole hill seems to be the real issue. I've repeatedly agreed with you that any DC-offset is a real concern. I've also pointed out that AC measurements ignore its presence and the fact that magnetic circuits become non-linear due to it causing saturation. Which means you would see its affects on the oscilloscope as distortion--regardless of coupling. Yet you pull another AC-coupling argument out of your magicians hat, that doesn't compare with the actual argument (Alek's transformer), and demand that I address it and say that I'm some how wrong on all my points. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Tinman,

As for the DC current and ripple on the voltage topic. The magamp/saturable reactor produces this. Its basically the effect of a voltage source or current source producing a "counter wave" that subtractively adds to the ripple produced by a load. For instance, take a reluctance motor and connect it to a DC power supply with a CC current limit of 1A. Since the supply is shorted by a few hundred milli ohms it goes straight into CC mode of 1A. Now rotate the rotor as fast as you can and observe both the voltage across the motor and the current through the motor. You will see that the voltage is proportional to I_cc*dL/dt or the derivative of the change in inductance with time (there is no generator action taking place). Current remains a constant 1A. What's happening, is the current source is raising and lowering its voltage to maintain a constant current against a changing load impedance, in this instance a reactive one. So the effect, as far as I'm aware can only be seen when a constant voltage source or current source is used to power a time-variant impedance.
When the power supply is in CC mode the terminal voltage across the motor varies directly as the generator voltage.  If the motor spins fast enough in a direction where the BEMF opposes the power supply, then the power supply will drop out of CC mode and go into CV mode.  If the motor is spun fast enough that the generator voltage exceeds the power supply CV setting, then what happens depends on whether the supply is a one quadrant or two quadrant device.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Farmhand on August 07, 2014, 08:52:58 PM
A CM choke is just a transformer. If the K factor is high, then the effective inductance seen by each side is twice that of either single winding in isolation.  Bill Alek's windings have low coupling coefficients:  KI think that you don't understand them well.  The idea is that the reactance of the magnetizing inductance in each winding is much greater than the impedance of the external circuit.  Current impressed from the dot end towards the non-dot end of one winding induces a voltage across the other winding that will ideally result in a matching current from the non-dot end towards the dot end of that second winding.  In a perfect world this results in nearly equal currents flowing in opposite directions, reducing the net common current in one direction or the other out of the choke to be very small compared to the original individual currents.  A common mode choke that has a low K factor performs badly.I always like to see interesting data.Take an ideal transformer and drive an inductive load.  The inductive load reactance reflects right back at the primary.  Shorting the secondary of a transformer with a low K has the same effect:  the leakage inductance becomes the load.  In a weakly coupled transformer, the primary current phase shift gets very close to 90 degrees for either condition:  open or shorted secondary. Low phase shift is possible with a tightly coupled transformer such that the magnetizing reactance is much greater than the load plus winding resistance and the leakage inductance reactance is much lower than the load resistance. 

Bill Alek's windings are labelled:  120mH / 122mH for the secondaries, and 3.07mH for the primary.  Let's assume that those values were obtained with an LCR bridge one winding at a time with each of the other two windings open.  Using K values of 0.8 and loading with 0.01 Ohms, the phase shift at 3kHz in the primary is 84.6 degrees.  Loading with 1E9 Ohms (open) the phase shift is 88.6 degrees. Up the K to 0.99 and the 0.01 Ohm condition gets much better due to the winding resistance: 28.2 degrees phase shift, while the open circuit case remains unaffected.

I think that what we see is just a combination of weak coupling and poorly conducted measurements.  That seems to be the legacy of over unity transformer claims.

Hi Mark, In the video linked below I use my little resonant setup to show a phase shift in the output coil (tank) from about
30 degrees to almost 90 degrees when the DC output is loaded by a motor which I stop the shaft of with my fingers to load it.
The unloaded input power is small and the loaded input power is larger, when the motor is stopped the "power" the tank
becomes almost all reactive. but before that it must be something else as well when the phase is about 30 degrees.

My arrangement is as you may have seen it in the QEG thread. I must add that I tuned the HV tank so that this would happen
I can also adjust it so that there is maximum power input with no load, but that's another video clip.

Now if I was to show only the HV tank power and the output tank power with the motor shorted and got a 90 degree
phase shift between voltage and current in the output coil 'some' people might think that was OU.  ;D Or some other load might
do it if I make the correct adjustments.  ;) As long as I don't show the input from the wall, only from somewhere after the wall
and maybe after another transformer. I think it can be done, shown and explained why it appears so.

Anyway I agree with you as my experiment tells me too.  ;)

It costs input power to make "reactive power". If we look back far enough we will see the cost.

Phase shift to almost all reactive on loading resonant tank output.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1_llp5QUSM

..
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 08:54:20 PM
I have proposed an experiment that you can try with your materials.

That sounds rather convenient for you, seeing as how you want me to do all the work. Quite one sided, when you think about it. In reality neither of us has any respectable "authority" on the subject of discussion, or do you claim to have written a book, be a professor, or some other position (a working scientist?) that actually possess any sense of mastery of the subject? And I don't buy "I'm a working engineer," they aren't the people who write in journals or publish books that everyone else uses as reference material. Experience is one thing, but it doesn't convey complete authority that you are above doing your own work and showing it. Also, lighten up man, your writing style is borderline Aspergers.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: poynt99 on August 07, 2014, 08:55:58 PM
ALL power measurements performed using an oscilloscope with AxB capability, must use DC coupling in order to guarantee a true measurement of power, whether it be input or output power.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 09:02:29 PM
When the power supply is in CC mode the terminal voltage across the motor varies directly as the generator voltage.  If the motor spins fast enough in a direction where the BEMF opposes the power supply, then the power supply will drop out of CC mode and go into CV mode.  If the motor is spun fast enough that the generator voltage exceeds the power supply CV setting, then what happens depends on whether the supply is a one quadrant or two quadrant device.

Markymark,

There is no GENERATOR VOLTAGE. It's a reluctance motor: there is no rotor coil or brushes or magnets! It has an asymmetric rotor made of iron laminations and uses the same stator as a series-wound motor. Did you catch all that? Thus the effect I wrote about, and you poorly understood, is indeed related to the RELUCTANCE changing in time... Geez man, are you really that dense and are you seriously debating this very basic and well documented point? It involves parametric variation of inductance and is just the rearrangement of L*di/dt and there is no mutual induction. Get your facts straight, lest you make yourself look more like a fool.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 09:35:34 PM
Markymark,

There is no GENERATOR VOLTAGE. It's a reluctance motor: there is no rotor coil or brushes or magnets! It has an asymmetric rotor made of iron laminations and uses the same stator as a series-wound motor. Did you catch all that? Thus the effect I wrote about, and you poorly understood, is indeed related to the RELUCTANCE changing in time... Geez man, are you really that dense and are you seriously debating this very basic and well documented point? It involves parametric variation of inductance and is just the rearrangement of L*di/dt and there is no mutual induction. Get your facts straight, lest you make yourself look more like a fool.
Sorry but you are wrong.  SRMs act like generators and have been employed as such.  See for example:  http://www.engr.uky.edu/~radun/ResearchInfo/SRgenerators.doc (http://www.engr.uky.edu/~radun/ResearchInfo/SRgenerators.doc)
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 10:41:02 PM
Sorry but you are wrong.  SRMs act like generators and have been employed as such.  See for example:  http://www.engr.uky.edu/~radun/ResearchInfo/SRgenerators.doc (http://www.engr.uky.edu/~radun/ResearchInfo/SRgenerators.doc)

Markie,

Once again you have  misread everything I've written.

Synchronous reluctance motors were NOT what I described, nor did I ever bring them up. You continue to debate on things you do not understand. I gave a very clear and concise description of what my "reluctance motor" was (note the lack of the synchronous adjective). Reluctance motors do not posses generator action, as they cannot induce mutual induction by rotation. And for your information, I've actually built one, probably why I actually understand how they work and you don't. I take it you have very little experience in actual experiment and real life engagement with other humans involving technical topics. I honestly feel bad for any human who would have to work with you on an engineering project.

For your consideration is my own home made reluctance motor, which exhibits all the properties, both electrically and physically, that I've stated over the last few posts, which you feel is some how "wrong."

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 10:42:37 PM
Some more pics.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Nali2001 on August 07, 2014, 10:42:45 PM
Yes although the rotor is just steel, it carries a good amount of residual magnetism after each attraction cycle over to the next pole alignment. Making the rotor more or less act as a rotating permanent magnet.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 10:49:55 PM
Yes although the rotor is just steel, it carries a good amount of residual magnetism after each attraction cycle over to the next pole alignment. Making the rotor more or less act as a rotating permanent magnet.

Assuming there is some small residual magnetism in the rotor, one would think that to be the result. However, experiment shows this to be incorrect. Just rotate the rotor with a voltmeter across the stator windings and see what happens. You will not observe any induced voltage with the EXACT circuit I have described and shown. I've done the experiments have you? If you hook the rotor windings up to a current source and turn the rotor by hand, you will observe that the changing inductance causes a voltage drop across the motor that is due to the path reluctance varying in time: V_drop = I_cc * dL/dt + I_cc * R_series. THIS HAS BEEN MY POINT THIS ENTIRE TIME. Why people seem to think I'm wrong, when they haven't actually done the test for themselves, is absolutely astounding.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Nali2001 on August 07, 2014, 10:57:57 PM
Yes I have some commercial reluctance motors and made some as well
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 11:14:03 PM
Nail,

Well, I happily stand corrected on calling you out for not building! Thank you for the awesome pics, very good builds!

Since you have actual experience with these types of magnetic circuits, have you not seen the affects of the parametric voltage drop I * dL/dt? This was literally what MalarkE has been trying to refute, and I have been trying to point out is a real effect. Otherwise the rest of the specifics are off point.

On a side question, what's the efficiency for mechanical input to electrical output for your generator setups? I only ask as that looks to be what you were going for. My setup was made purely for mechanical work, not generator action using magnets. Also I did test the theory of hooking up a capacitor and getting parametric oscillations, which was very, very cool! It will only work at very specific frequencies, so it throws the whole residual magnetism out the window, since you would see an increasing voltage per speed of rotation which isn't present in the tests I've recorded.

Also, couldn't you have just cut your stator core on one side and placed your magnets in the cut? This seems more effective than the circuit you've shown for generator action: would produce a larger delta in flux change.

Finally, if your still into building these, the best rotor design appears to be Jim Murray's elliptical rotor:
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 11:28:03 PM
That sounds rather convenient for you, seeing as how you want me to do all the work. Quite one sided, when you think about it. In reality neither of us has any respectable "authority" on the subject of discussion, or do you claim to have written a book, be a professor, or some other position (a working scientist?) that actually possess any sense of mastery of the subject? And I don't buy "I'm a working engineer," they aren't the people who write in journals or publish books that everyone else uses as reference material. Experience is one thing, but it doesn't convey complete authority that you are above doing your own work and showing it. Also, lighten up man, your writing style is borderline Aspergers.
It should be convenient to everyone.  You have what you tested.  You have suggested that it reflects what is going on with Bill Alek's arrangement.  I suggest that it does not, and that a specific change in your arrangement to make it more like Bill Alek's physical set-up will show that the behavior changes to much more like what I contend is the behavior in Bill Alek's arrangement than you do.  You have complete control over the experiments.  And, since you are using the same materials it would be an apples vs. apples comparison.  My suggestion implies that I trust you would be honest in your measurements and reporting.  If I conduct the experiments with cores here, then to be fair, we have to start with an arrangement like yours, establish that it does or does not reproduce your results, and if not why.  Then we could move to reproducing something more like Bill Alek's three core, three winding set-up.  If there is some good reason why you don't want to take your transformer apart, then just say so.  I am interested in getting at the truth, and if that means that my expressed opinion is mistaken, it will be no skin off of my nose.

I have not attempted to argue from authority.  Reject arguments that I haven't offered to your heart's content.  If you enjoy slaying men of straw, then so be it.

I have suggested direct experiment to resolve what is real and what is not. 

I am afraid that I am not a student of Asperger's as a writing style.  If there is something that you find inappropriate about how I write, then I am afraid I will need you to be more specific and direct as to what it is before I could possibly address it.

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 11:46:01 PM
Markie,

Once again you have proven yourself to either be an "armchair debunker" who continues to misread everything I've written or are a complete fool who relies on web searches for answers because he doesn't already know through experience and schooling.

Synchronous reluctance motors were NOT what I described,

Actually, quoting you verbatim, you said: 
Quote
Quote
For instance, take a reluctance motor ...

 nor did I ever bring them up. You continue to debate on things you do not understand. I gave a very clear and concise description of what a "reluctance motor" was (note the lack of the synchronous additive). Reluctance motors do not posses generator action, as they cannot induce mutual induction by rotation. And for your information, I've actually built one, probably why I actually understand how they work and you don't. I take it you have very little experience in actual experiment and real life engagement with other humans involving technical topics. I honestly feel bad for any human who would have to work with you on an engineering project.
That's quite a load of ad hominem attack and appeal to your own authority. 

Now back to the physics:
A VR device such as a solenoid or SR motor does exhibit very measurable BEMF as the reluctance gap changes.   This is readily visible in something as simple as a common solenoid by driving from a voltage source and monitoring the current.  After the initial current build-up, the solenoid will start to move and as it accelerates, the current goes down as a result of the BEMF.  When the solenoid bottoms out, the current jumps up.
Quote

For your consideration is my own home made reluctance motor, which exhibits all the properties, both electrically and physically, that I've stated over the last few posts, which you feel is some how "wrong."
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: G4RR3ττ on August 07, 2014, 11:56:45 PM
Mark,

I agree that there was some against the man verbage in many of my comments. And I do apologize for that, it's just that I get the feeling you are intentionally trying to create annoyance by stepping around the fact you that you keep saying I've been talking about "SYNCHRONOUS reluctance motors" and consistently continue to ignore that I'm not. This entire time I've only described a simple home built "reluctance motor" (NOT a "synchronous reluctance motor") as shown through diagrams and actual photos. The two devices while similar in name are like bananas and apples, both fruit, but total different.

If you can admit to that I think we can both be more productive in our arguments. Otherwise you are off point in saying I'm wrong, because we are both talking about different things.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Nali2001 on August 08, 2014, 12:20:32 AM
I have build Murray's rotor setup.

Will comment a bit more tomorrow.


Nail,

Well, I happily stand corrected on calling you out for not building! Thank you for the awesome pics, very good builds!

Since you have actual experience with these types of magnetic circuits, have you not seen the affects of the parametric voltage drop I * dL/dt? This was literally what MalarkE has been trying to refute, and I have been trying to point out is a real effect. Otherwise the rest of the specifics are off point.

On a side question, what's the efficiency for mechanical input to electrical output for your generator setups? I only ask as that looks to be what you were going for. My setup was made purely for mechanical work, not generator action using magnets. Also I did test the theory of hooking up a capacitor and getting parametric oscillations, which was very, very cool! It will only work at very specific frequencies, so it throws the whole residual magnetism out the window, since you would see an increasing voltage per speed of rotation which isn't present in the tests I've recorded.

Also, couldn't you have just cut your stator core on one side and placed your magnets in the cut? This seems more effective than the circuit you've shown for generator action: would produce a larger delta in flux change.

Finally, if your still into building these, the best rotor design appears to be Jim Murray's elliptical rotor:
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 12:23:43 AM
Those are nice builds.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2014, 01:11:20 AM
ALL power measurements performed using an oscilloscope with AxB capability, must use DC coupling in order to guarantee a true measurement of power, whether it be input or output power.

Thank you. And you and I and some others here know that we can come up with literally thousands of technical references that support this point. Some people just seem to want to argue.

It is easy to demonstrate, as I have done, that the use of AC-coupled channels destroys all of the quantitative vertical information in the trace except for peak-to-peak amplitude.  If we had not been distracted by a display of unnecessary detail and one-upmanship, we might have been able to answer whether or not phase relationships determined by _zerocrossing_ measurements rather than peak point measurements are also affected by this. I don't know the answer to that. Certainly Alek's point about whether the positive lobe or negative lobe is larger IS affected by the use of AC instead of DC couplings.

I maintain still that the use of AC coupling on Alek's scope, and also on the QEG FTW scopes, and others I have seen displayed, indicates a lack of knowledge of proper metrology or even a deliberate attempt to alter the presentation of data so that it appears more favorable to the claims made.  If you want to think that current that does not change direction is "alternating" that is fine. My math works out just as well as yours does, even if you call DC "blue" and AC "red" current.

Just don't bring me data on an overunity device from a scope that is AC-coupled, without presenting a good reason, and without doing the simple test TinMan did in his demonstration: change the coupling from AC to DC, live, and show that the trace vertical parameters do not change.

I respect Garrett's knowledge and his general approach but I think this past discussion has been more of a personal attack on me, than what I originally intended it to be: A simple discussion of the FACT that AC-coupling is rarely appropriate for scoposcopy but is used inappropriately far too much, and the reason for that inappropriate use, as in Alek's case, is probably because people actually ARE confused about the nature of what they are measuring, how to measure it and what effect the actual controls on the scope have. Does Bill Alek realise that the AC-coupling function of his scope does nothing at all except switch a 0.1 uF capacitor into series with his probe before the attenuator? I seriously doubt it.  And I even wonder if some of the present discussants know that.  And I strongly believe that much of this confusion arises from well-meaning, overly technical discussions that are tangent to the main point, as we have seen from Garrett the past hours. Note that I am not saying Garrett is wrong about his definition of "AC"... but he is wrong to challenge the fact that the use of AC coupled scope channels is generally inappropriate for power determinations in unknown devices that are presented with extraordinary claims of super-efficiency. And the reasons for why it is wrong are, or should be, clearly evident in my video demonstrations that show when "AC" becomes "DC" and what they look like on the scope, with and without the use of AC-coupled channels.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2014, 01:31:14 AM
Channel coupling hardware, old and new:

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 02:14:49 AM
Thank you. And you and I and some others here know that we can come up with literally thousands of technical references that support this point. Some people just seem to want to argue.

It is easy to demonstrate, as I have done, that the use of AC-coupled channels destroys all of the quantitative vertical information in the trace except for peak-to-peak amplitude.  If we had not been distracted by a display of unnecessary detail and one-upmanship, we might have been able to answer whether or not phase relationships determined by _zerocrossing_ measurements rather than peak point measurements are also affected by this. I don't know the answer to that. Certainly Alek's point about whether the positive lobe or negative lobe is larger IS affected by the use of AC instead of DC couplings.

I maintain still that the use of AC coupling on Alek's scope, and also on the QEG FTW scopes, and others I have seen displayed, indicates a lack of knowledge of proper metrology or even a deliberate attempt to alter the presentation of data so that it appears more favorable to the claims made.  If you want to think that current that does not change direction is "alternating" that is fine. My math works out just as well as yours does, even if you call DC "blue" and AC "red" current.

Just don't bring me data on an overunity device from a scope that is AC-coupled, without presenting a good reason, and without doing the simple test TinMan did in his demonstration: change the coupling from AC to DC, live, and show that the trace vertical parameters do not change.

I respect Garrett's knowledge and his general approach but I think this past discussion has been more of a personal attack on me, than what I originally intended it to be: A simple discussion of the FACT that AC-coupling is rarely appropriate for scoposcopy but is used inappropriately far too much, and the reason for that inappropriate use, as in Alek's case, is probably because people actually ARE confused about the nature of what they are measuring, how to measure it and what effect the actual controls on the scope have. Does Bill Alek realise that the AC-coupling function of his scope does nothing at all except switch a 0.1 uF capacitor into series with his probe before the attenuator? I seriously doubt it.  And I even wonder if some of the present discussants know that.  And I strongly believe that much of this confusion arises from well-meaning, overly technical discussions that are tangent to the main point, as we have seen from Garrett the past hours. Note that I am not saying Garrett is wrong about his definition of "AC"... but he is wrong to challenge the fact that the use of AC coupled scope channels is generally inappropriate for power determinations in unknown devices that are presented with extraordinary claims of super-efficiency. And the reasons for why it is wrong are, or should be, clearly evident in my video demonstrations that show when "AC" becomes "DC" and what they look like on the scope, with and without the use of AC-coupled channels.
To be fair:  Bill Alek as deluded as he is, has not issued anything along the lines of a formal test report.  He has demonstrated some tinkering.  If he turns around and claims that his tinkering is proof of his claims of OU then such false claims are readily refuted with what has already been discussed here.  In the meantime, if he wants to measure what look like reasonably clean 3kHz sine waves using AC coupling, chances are that the AC coupling is immaterial to the fidelity of the results.  The flip side is that he could easily show as much by switching to DC coupling. 

I do not see any good reason to AC couple.  But, I really don't think that AC coupling is contributing to the fundamental errors here.  I also think that we are dealing with self-delusion on the part of Bill Alek, and not intentional deception.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2014, 03:19:31 AM
Is there anything in the way of circuitry on the "support board"? Sure seems like an expensive way to make a simple support for another part if there isn't any circuitry involved.


I realize that in this particular case it probably doesn't make much difference, but here is a question I would like to see asked, every time a demonstration of power happens and a scope channel is observed to be AC-coupled.

"Mister Alek, I notice that both your scope channels are set to AC-coupled. This removes any DC component in the signal, doesn't it? It is the equivalent of putting a capacitor in series with the probe tip as you measure, blocking any DC from reaching the scope's electronics, isn't it? So really, there could be literally any amount of DC power flowing in the system and your scope measurements would not show it. Is that right?"
Follow up:
"The AC coupling setting also moves the displayed trace up or down so that its average is on the channel baseline, doesn't it? What exactly does this do to the _values_ measured for peak voltages, the baseline zero crossings, and math that is done on the vertical values of the AC-coupled traces?"

However, if you watch the video carefully you will (perhaps) note that part of one of his arguments has to do with how much of a sinusOIDAL trace is above and how much is below the zero reference line. Since the use of AC-coupled input brings the _average_ of any reading down, or up, to the channel's zero reference line... the data from an AC coupled scope channel cannot be used to support such arguments. But Alek is using AC coupled channels and is making those arguments. Relevant? Irrelevant? Whatever. To me it indicates some _very relevant_ information: This free energy claimant either doesn't  know how to make proper power measurements on the scope in spite of his explanations and drawings (unlikely?) OR he is deliberately using the AC coupled setting because it yields data that support his argument. Either way... it is wrong.



"Hey, I'm going to show you some live power measurements in an audio-frequency circuit. But first, let me put these 100 nanoFarad capacitors in series with my measuring kit. You don't mind, do you?"

If someone told you that while trying to sell you a battery charger or a self-charging scooter, you'd laugh him out of the room. But that is exactly what Bill Alek is doing.


OK, enough said, I hope. Now that the novice scopeusers are completely confused and put off by this whole discussion.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 08, 2014, 03:44:49 AM
TK:

I am a novice scope user and I am learning a great deal from this discussion.  I just wanted to state that for the record.  It is like a lot of other things...learning what not to do is equally, if not more important than learning what to do.

Thanks for the information.

Bill
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 03:53:21 AM
However, if you watch the video carefully you will (perhaps) note that part of one of his arguments has to do with how much of a sinusOIDAL trace is above and how much is below the zero reference line. Since the use of AC-coupled input brings the _average_ of any reading down, or up, to the channel's zero reference line... the data from an AC coupled scope channel cannot be used to support such arguments. But Alek is using AC coupled channels and is making those arguments. Relevant? Irrelevant? Whatever. To me it indicates some _very relevant_ information: This free energy claimant either doesn't  know how to make proper power measurements on the scope in spite of his explanations and drawings (unlikely?) OR he is deliberately using the AC coupled setting because it yields data that support his argument. Either way... it is wrong.



"Hey, I'm going to show you some live power measurements in an audio-frequency circuit. But first, let me put these 100 nanoFarad capacitors in series with my measuring kit. You don't mind, do you?"

If someone told you that while trying to sell you a battery charger or a self-charging scooter, you'd laugh him out of the room. But that is exactly what Bill Alek is doing.


OK, enough said, I hope. Now that the novice scopeusers are completely confused and put off by this whole discussion.
There is enough in the videos to show that Bill Alek's mastery of the subject matter is very poor.  I think that he is convinced that he has found free energy from transformers just like he thinks a slanted room near Santa Cruz exhibits gravitational anomalies.  He can keep coding and recoding his firmware until the cows come home and he won't be able to recharge his batteries for free.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 08, 2014, 08:06:33 AM
<However, if you watch the video carefully you will (perhaps) note that part of one of his arguments has to do with how much of a sinusOIDAL trace is above and how much is below the zero reference line. Since the use of AC-coupled input brings the _average_ of any reading down, or up, to the channel's zero reference line... the data from an AC coupled scope channel cannot be used to support such arguments. >

He means the sinusodial of the POWER curve which is a product of volts and amps. And this Power-curve can be above zero or below zero whether real power is being consumed or produced.
You can have an induction motor used as generator, and coupled to the mains with using a capacitor in series.
Driving the motor over its rated rpm will serve power into the net, while loading it with a resulting rpm lower than the rated rpm will consume power. During the whole process the amps average is allways zero. Both parts voltage and amps can be DC avg=0 while the product has a value !=0
And you will only start lying to yourself if the operating frequncy is lower than the cut off frequency of your scope.So his measure method may not be used by professionals, but to judge the facts it is sufficient.
While it is not beneficial to put any dc-offset voltage into his device (I think he knows that)
If you measure the voltage trace of the coupling capacitor in your scope (perhaps with another scope) and observer only pure DC there , than your measurement method is ok and the measures values are right.
Or there can be a small ac ripple on this cap. Now you can calculate the error in the power measurement produced by this effect. But this is only the case when going below the cut off frequency of the scope.
The DC-part is get lost when the signal of the amplifier passes through is internal cap (built in the amp).
When a DC offset were there the amps would shift to a value I_DC_MAX = U_OFFSET / R_PRIMARY within a small time . Flux would go to the limit, the transformer unable to operate .
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 08:33:42 AM
The power is not a sinusoid even though he describes it as such.  If there is zero phase shift then the power waveform is a sine squared wave at twice the operating frequency.  At exactly +/-90 degrees phase shift the energy absorbed in one quarter cycle exactly matches the energy released in the complementary quarter cycle. 

An oscilloscope capable of multiplication can show the power waveform.  Some more advanced scopes  can do all the math needed to display the instantaneous and cycle by cycle power.  Otherwise a scope that outputs a cvs file can be used with spreadsheet software to do the same thing.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 08, 2014, 08:53:19 AM
It does not matter whether he uses a sinusodial waveform or a distorted or other.
He can use AC-coupling as long he does not provide a DC path for the signal to his transformer, for whatever reason. And his operating freq. must be above the cut off frequency of the scope.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 05:28:27 PM
It does not matter whether he uses a sinusodial waveform or a distorted or other.
He can use AC-coupling as long he does not provide a DC path for the signal to his transformer, for whatever reason. And his operating freq. must be above the cut off frequency of the scope.
That is almost correct.  The pass band of the scope and probe combined needs to include all the signal content, and because he is measuring phase: with low phase distortion. 
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 08, 2014, 06:15:33 PM
<and because he is measuring phase: with low phase distortion. >
I don't get it. ' with low phase distortion '
Is it the measurement method of this fluke 99 scopemeter?
Has distortion any impact on the accuracy of phase measurement?
(Well I guess it has , when it's heavily distorted, but I don't see any there . Must admit I am not trained.)

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 08:11:53 PM
<and because he is measuring phase: with low phase distortion. >
I don't get it. ' with low phase distortion '
Is it the measurement method of this fluke 99 scopemeter?
Has distortion any impact on the accuracy of phase measurement?
(Well I guess it has , when it's heavily distorted, but I don't see any there . Must admit I am not trained.)
One can get phase distortion depending on the probes.  Your typical 10:1 high impedance probe has a compensation network that introduces substantial phase shift near the compensation pole ~ 1/(2pi*9Mohms*12pF) or about 1.5kHz.  This is right in the ball park of Bill Alek's 3kHz test frequency.  If one uses identical probes for both channels that are both properly compensated then the phase shifts match and there is no issue.  I believe that is not the case here as I think he goes straight from his amplified current sensor into the scope.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 08, 2014, 08:28:05 PM
The small screw at the probe, when you attach it to the built in test signal generator of the scope to get get the proper square signal on the screen (should have come to my mind)
Abusing this setting you can 'tune' phase shift results. He should have connected a resistor to see, if he gets the zero deg. or a cap to see the minus 90 .
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 08, 2014, 10:31:44 PM
The small screw at the probe, when you attach it to the built in test signal generator of the scope to get get the proper square signal on the screen (should have come to my mind)
Abusing this setting you can 'tune' phase shift results. He should have connected a resistor to see, if he gets the zero deg. or a cap to see the minus 90 .
Even properly adjusted for flat magnitude, there is a considerable phase shift near the pole.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 09, 2014, 09:55:00 AM
It is as though we are in different worlds, with access to different information. Please +watch+ the video again and note very carefully what Alek says about the vertical symmetry of the waveforms produced by an "ordinary" transformer and his "special" one.

Also, please read the data sheet for the current monitor system, which I have attached some pages back. You will see that its output voltage/current relationship is very sensitive to the unit's own power supply and other calibratable settings. Not only that but also it has a 3 microsecond response delay.

Also please see the sheet I attached from NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS on ac/dc coupling, and what they do to waveform vertical measurements.

You are being presented with an unknown device by someone who is trying to sell you a DC battery charger that is "overunity" and an electric scooter that is supposed to charge up its own batteries while running. You attend a demonstration where you bring your _own_ oscilloscope and DMMs because you are skeptical of his reported measurements. Fine. But the claimant requires you to put a 100 nF capacitor in series with all your oscilloscope probes before you do any measurements, but won't explain exactly why. And you lot are OK with that.

The mind boggles. It literally boggles.

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TheCell on August 09, 2014, 02:09:23 PM
Watching it 2times , at 41:56 there's probably the part where he's mentioning 'that curve' and explains 'that at 90deg they are perfectly balanced' . He draws a few curves , where one curve has a 'dc' bias, at what it seems to be : it is not. This bias states an additional amount of power occurring when an average power being unequal zero transfered from the power source to the load or vice versa. This curve has 2times the freq. of the applied voltage curve.
The power curve itself has no signal equivalent (which when it was there could show an offset)
The Amp Signal is delivered by the Honeywell device as voltage equivalent to the fluke.
The Volts Signal directly to the fluke. The fluke must have both to calculate the phase shift and
could indeed show a power curve .

This is the power formula:
Upeak * Ipeak * sin(w * t) * sin(w * t + Phi) =
Upeak * Ipeak * [cos(-Phi) - cos(2 * w * t + Phi)] / 2
 cos(-Phi) is a constant and stands for the power that is taken from or delivered to the device.
It is absolutely possible to make systematical errors with the measuring setup.
(And for only admitting that I chose not to read all this stuff.)
Btw. I would not accept a 100 nF capacitor in series with my probes for known reason.
http://www.arndt-bruenner.de/mathe/Allgemein/trigsimpl.htm

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: poynt99 on August 09, 2014, 04:49:36 PM
I finally viewed Bill's demo of the device, and I have to say I am far from convinced he has a COP>1.

I would hope that Bill cross-checks his measurements by removing the Honeywell current sensor and DMM's, and simply using a 2 or 4 channel scope (and employ a CVR resistor for current) with multiplication and averaging capabilities; it would be a snap to do at only 3kHz frequency.

IMO, cross-checking this way is a must. I simply can't trust the measurements performed in the way he has chosen.

"Send me your device Bill and I will perform the test with my Tek scope. ;)"
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: hartiberlin on August 09, 2014, 07:48:43 PM
TK, Who did say, that Bill Alek used the AC-coupling function on his scope ?
Is this verified ?

Surely one should only use DC coupling for the measurements, but are you shure he used AC coupling
during the demo ?
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 09, 2014, 09:26:00 PM
TK, Who did say, that Bill Alek used the AC-coupling function on his scope ?
Is this verified ?

Surely one should only use DC coupling for the measurements, but are you shure he used AC coupling
during the demo ?

Stefan:

Here is a photo that TK posted from the video earlier in the topic that appears to show ac coupling.  TK can answer any questions about this.

Bill
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 09, 2014, 10:32:10 PM
I finally viewed Bill's demo of the device, and I have to say I am far from convinced he has a COP>1.

I would hope that Bill cross-checks his measurements by removing the Honeywell current sensor and DMM's, and simply using a 2 or 4 channel scope (and employ a CVR resistor for current) with multiplication and averaging capabilities; it would be a snap to do at only 3kHz frequency.

IMO, cross-checking this way is a must. I simply can't trust the measurements performed in the way he has chosen.

"Send me your device Bill and I will perform the test with my Tek scope. ;)"
He shows an oscilloscope display with an according to conventional theory for passive devices an impossible phase shift outside of +/-90 degrees.  This leaves a couple possibilities:

1) The system is not passive, IE the circuit is generating energy itself or conducting energy from a source other than the audio amplifier.
2) The measurements are faulty.

The measurement methods were both sloppy and primitive.  No error bars were established.  I have shown that just a few degrees of phase shift from his measured 78 degrees completely eliminates his supposed over unity performance of ~5W out versus ~3W in. Incredible conclusions from sloppy measurements have virtually no likelihood of being correct.

Then he goes on to short his secondary and measure an apparent 102 degrees phase shift.  He made no effort to validate the supposed generated power by for instance measuring input power to the audio amplifier and amplifier heating, or by doing what he claims his products will do:  Collect up the free energy and deliver it to a load.

His methodology for measuring supposed cooling is not valid.

When faced with an impossible observation for the presumed set-up, the prudent action is to check all assumptions, including the validity of the measurements.  Bill Alek has instead jumped to the conclusion that physics as we know it is fundamentally wrong:  that there is some "other force" at work magically delivering energy.    Jumping to such a radical conclusions without taking great care to ensure that the observations that lead to such conclusions are in fact valid is simply foolishness. 

Something that should be considered very carefully in terms of his measurements is that they stay close to 90 degrees phase shift.  The more reactive a load is the closer to 90 degrees phase shift.  The load must become exponentially more reactive in order to close in towards 90 degrees phase shift.  For a phase shift of 80 degrees,  XL/R need be 5.67:1.  For 89 degrees that jumps up 10X to 57.3:1, for 89.9 degrees it jumps 10X again to 573:1 and so on.  This also means that the relative power circulating in the reactance similarly grows.  If there is 5W in the resistor at ~80 degrees phase shift, then there is ~28W sloshing back and forth in the reactance.  at 89.9 degrees there would be almost 3kW sloshing back and forth that the audio amplifier's real resistance would suffer I2R losses against.  In other words: there is a hard wall approaching 90 degrees phase shift, and getting there would melt Bill Alek's equipment. 
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 03:45:42 AM
Some AC versus DC coupled measurements at low frequencies:
Ch1. was set to AC coupling in the scope.  It used a properly compensated P2220 probe.
Ch. 2 had a direct coax connection from the same function generator output and was set to DC coupling.
The math trace is Ch.1 - Ch. 2.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 10, 2014, 05:13:28 AM
MarkE, Every Tek digital scope screen that I have ever worked with indicated the channel coupling by a small symbol next to the channel vertical setting indications at the bottom of the trace display.

An AC-coupled channel displays a small sine wave symbol here, and a DC coupled channel either displays nothing as your screens show, or the dotted-over-dashed DC symbol.

I can't find any channel coupling symbol on your scopescreen shots, though. How does your scope indicate the channel coupling on its display? It would be very unusual, in my experience, to find a modern scope that did not, in some manner, always show the channel coupling on the main screen somewhere, since it is so easy to make mismeasurements when AC-coupled. The operator needs to have this information "in her face" so to speak.

For example, note the sine wave symbol next to the channel vertical setting for Ch1 on the DPO4034 screen below. The AC-coupled channel shows the sine symbol and the DC coupled channels show nothing in that position, as your scopeshots show.

(Finding good screenshots of AC-coupled TEK scopes is very difficult since AC coupling is so rarely used, I guess. So I have to present you with one of my own.)

Here's the Operator's Manual for Alek's Fluke 105B scopemeter. There are some interesting details involving the use of the coupling settings, particularly in Section 8. Everything they say in the manual supports what I have been saying all along.
http://assets.fluke.com/manuals/scopemt2umeng0000.pdf (http://assets.fluke.com/manuals/scopemt2umeng0000.pdf)


In addition, your experiment, which shows ac vs dc coupled measurements that appear to be made on an input _with no DC offset_ is incomplete. Could you please repeat the measurements on a signal from your FG that includes a significant DC offset.

(By the way.... note the _decreasing_ energy integral in the Tek shot. This is the integral of the instantaneous VxI load power trace of the DUT.)
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 10, 2014, 05:50:02 AM
TK, Who did say, that Bill Alek used the AC-coupling function on his scope ?
Is this verified ?

Surely one should only use DC coupling for the measurements, but are you shure he used AC coupling
during the demo ?
Bill posted the screenshot I took from Alek's demo showing the scope channel couplings. I put a link to the Fluke 105b scopemeter operating manual in the comment above, so that anyone can check to see for themselves that I have identified the right indicators on the scope's display. There are also references to the proper use of channel coupling in the manual. Alek's Fluke 105b Scopemeter is set to have both channels AC-coupled in that video demonstration. No doubt about it. Apparently if one is in "running auto" mode and selects a measurement that is "AC" such as "RMS AC" rather than "RMS" which normally does RMS AC+DC, the scope's channel coupling auto-switches to AC coupled. In short the manual supports what I have been saying all along: the AC coupling destroys DC offset information and also most other vertical measurements made on the signal, except p-p amplitude. In MarkE's scopeshots above, the fact that the AC coupled measurements coincide with the DC coupled measurements is just that: a coincidence, caused by the fact that he truly did not have any DC offset in the input signal from his FG. Had there been waveform distortion and/or a DC offset in the input signal, the differences between AC and DC coupled would have been very plain in his data.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 10, 2014, 06:01:29 AM
Here's another Tek scopeshot showing an AC coupled channel symbol, item #11.

Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 06:20:57 AM
MarkE, Every Tek digital scope screen that I have ever worked with indicated the channel coupling by a small symbol next to the channel vertical setting indications at the bottom of the trace display.

An AC-coupled channel displays a small sine wave symbol here, and a DC coupled channel either displays nothing as your screens show, or the dotted-over-dashed DC symbol.

I can't find any channel coupling symbol on your scopescreen shots, though. How does your scope indicate the channel coupling on its display? It would be very unusual, in my experience, to find a modern scope that did not, in some manner, always show the channel coupling on the main screen somewhere, since it is so easy to make mismeasurements when AC-coupled. The operator needs to have this information "in her face" so to speak.

For example, note the sine wave symbol next to the channel vertical setting for Ch1 on the DPO4034 screen below. The AC-coupled channel shows the sine symbol and the DC coupled channels show nothing in that position, as your scopeshots show.

(Finding good screenshots of AC-coupled TEK scopes is very difficult since AC coupling is so rarely used, I guess. So I have to present you with one of my own.)

Here's the Operator's Manual for Alek's Fluke 105B scopemeter. There are some interesting details involving the use of the coupling settings, particularly in Section 8. Everything they say in the manual supports what I have been saying all along.
http://assets.fluke.com/manuals/scopemt2umeng0000.pdf (http://assets.fluke.com/manuals/scopemt2umeng0000.pdf)


In addition, your experiment, which shows ac vs dc coupled measurements that appear to be made on an input _with no DC offset_ is incomplete. Could you please repeat the measurements on a signal from your FG that includes a significant DC offset.

(By the way.... note the _decreasing_ energy integral in the Tek shot. This is the integral of the instantaneous VxI load power trace of the DUT.)
This model does not show the little AC coupling icon.  I guess Tek figured that $2200. wasn't enough to include that firmware feature.  Here is a shot with same set-up at 1 Hz but the Channel 1 settings displayed.

I do not dispute that what Bill Alek did was poor practice.  I just don't think that there is any direct evidence at this point that AC coupling is contributing to the obvious, gross phase shift error in his measurements.  Bill Alek has much to do to establish any validity to his measurements.  One of the obvious steps would be to eliminate the possibility that AC coupling is distorting the phase relationships by switching to DC coupling.  There isn't any reason I can think of that he should not DC couple.  If for example he has an unstable supply feeding the current sensor and is using AC coupling to suppress an unstable baseline, then AC coupling is masking a bigger problem.

Below I added captures per your request showing the waveforms with a +/-100% pp offset.  I had to reduce the pp amplitude so that the waveforms would fit on the screen.  As you can see there is no perceptible phase shift that results from the offset, as the math trace remains flat.  Remember that any transformer is by its nature and AC coupling device.  Bill Alek is not going to be able to increase the secondary side power by introducing a DC bias to his primary drive.  If he has some DC offset, that is just going to be power lost as I2R losses in the primary.  There are no visible signs of saturation in his waveforms.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 10, 2014, 07:25:00 AM
MarkE, Great, thank you for doing that test. That confirms that phase data for sine waves isn't affected by the coupling setting even when there is a DC offset present, which makes sense for symmetrical waveforms like sine. I wonder if this is generally true though or if it is only true for sine or other vertically symmetrical waveforms.

Do you have a delay line or some other way to delay a signal from the FG by 3 microseconds? I think Alek's Honeywell Hall-effect based current monitor has an unavoidable 3 us delay built in due to the ADC conversion circuitry.

I agree, of course, that DC power on the input to a transformer won't affect the output as long as the core doesn't saturate. This is the case for plain transformers that we know about. However, we are being presented with a "new" type of transformer with allegedly unique characteristics. It remains an untested _assumption_ (albeit on very good grounds) that DC power on the input to this device will not affect the AC output, lack of core saturation notwithstanding. In addition, there is that bit of circuit board  material, g10 or FR4 glassfilled epoxy unless I miss my guess. This seems an interesting choice for a mere transformer support board and I would like to see it displayed in full, just so I can be confident that there aren't any strange wiring twists or capacitive couplings going on in that bit of costly structural support.

Once again I would like to stress that I am not accusing Alek of fakery by hiding DC current in the input. What I am saying is that his measurement technique is faulty and if he _DID_ want to hide some additional power, using AC coupling without calling attention to it would be one technique that I would think of instantly. Later on down the line in Alek's claimed development process he will have to be making measurements on "AC" signals with DC offsets: he is building battery chargers and self-charging scooters that do have batteries in them. Will he, or has he, used AC coupled channels while working on such systems, while quoting power data to investors and supporters? Skeptical minds want to know.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 08:03:31 AM
MarkE, Great, thank you for doing that test. That confirms that phase data for sine waves isn't affected by the coupling setting even when there is a DC offset present, which makes sense for symmetrical waveforms like sine. I wonder if this is generally true though or if it is only true for sine or other vertically symmetrical waveforms.

Do you have a delay line or some other way to delay a signal from the FG by 3 microseconds? I think Alek's Honeywell Hall-effect based current monitor has an unavoidable 3 us delay built in due to the ADC conversion circuitry.
Short of wiring up a PLL, I do not have a convenient way to make a 3us phase delay.  It would take about 700m of coax to do that as a delay line.   If I can get over to Steve's in the next couple of days, he has a deep memory scope that can skew the channels rather arbitrarily.  All that is going to show is something similar to the 10Hz waveform.  We would have to rig up some inductors to get out to 75 degrees or so, and if the idea is to deliver multiple Watts, we would need to set-up a power amp.

My handy calculator states:  3kHz = 333us/interval  3us/333us*360 = 3.24 degrees phase shift.  That's enough to screw-up the free power measurements:  COS(74.76)/COS(78) = 1.27, which is in the ball park of Bill Alek's 1.35:1 over unity calculation in the video.  Throw in another degree or two of jitter and offset, and his OU evaporates.

Sloppy measurements, plus poor assumptions, and extraordinary conclusions usually spells incompetence.

If you want to form an opinion on Bill Alek's intentions, dig up recordings of his Dr. Whodini internet radio programs.   I have a copy of an old one where he interviewed Mark Goldes.  Bill Alek is as far as I can tell a deluded true believer in a number of foolish ideas that are at best without evidence, and at worst completely refuted.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 10, 2014, 09:02:45 AM
Wait.... Bill Alek interviews Mark Goldes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJc4I6pivqg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJc4I6pivqg)

1.27 vs 1.35 leaves only a six percent "error"  just taking into account the phase shift introduced by the current monitor. This is certainly of the same order as the precision of the measurements themselves. In short, unless other data comes in, taking into account the systematic 3 degree phase shift caused by the probable 3 us delay in the current waveform... I'd say that the "OU" disappears into the error bars, lost in the noise floor.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 10:07:23 AM
Wait.... Bill Alek interviews Mark Goldes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJc4I6pivqg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJc4I6pivqg)

1.27 vs 1.35 leaves only a six percent "error"  just taking into account the phase shift introduced by the current monitor. This is certainly of the same order as the precision of the measurements themselves. In short, unless other data comes in, taking into account the systematic 3 degree phase shift caused by the probable 3 us delay in the current waveform... I'd say that the "OU" disappears into the error bars, lost in the noise floor.
That is a point I made several posts back.  It is important to understand what numbers mean rather than just blindly punching into a calculator.  Bill Alek showed phase shift value readings on his 105B varying from 73 to 81  degrees.  That is over and above the 3us reported in the Honeywell data sheet.  His 102 degrees measurement suggests phase error well in excess of 12 degrees. 

Bill Alek has walked himself out onto a short plank by promising free energy machines that he is not in a position to deliver.  Very shortly now the litany of excuses will dribble out as the months go by and he is unable to cut the power cord.


Here is a link to his Mark Goldes interview from almost six years ago:
http://intalek.com/AV/VNN/ProgressiveTechnologyHour/11-22-2008-Technology.mp3 (http://intalek.com/AV/VNN/ProgressiveTechnologyHour/11-22-2008-Technology.mp3).
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Farmhand on August 10, 2014, 07:53:42 PM
Those resistors probably have a fair bit of inductance as well. This one reads 109 uH on my meter it's a 10 Ohm resistor.

The adjustment tap is set at 58 uH which is what a globe I measured read so I might test to see if I get similar results from
powering it with the same frequency AC.

..
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 09:09:01 PM
100uH is in the ballpark but it is just a tiny fraction of the stated winding inductance which is: 102mH * 2.  At 3kHz, the winding reactance is about 3.8K Ohms total while the resistor is only about 1.9 Ohms.   The secondary resistances were listed at 15 and 19 Ohms totaling 34 Ohms.  When the secondary is shorted, the Q is a little over 100, meaning that the phase angle should be around 89.5 degrees.  Bill Alek measured an unphysical 102 degrees.  His conclusion was that he has unphysical results:  Passive components that generate net energy.  He has not stated anything that he has done to validate that extraordinary conclusion, such as check his measurements by alternate means, self-loop (which will be required of his promised products), etc.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Farmhand on August 10, 2014, 09:56:58 PM
Here's better than that. I can get those measurements as well.

The first shot is the output coil voltage, current and power feeding the resistor and the second shot is the resistor voltage, current and power connected to the output coil.

..
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 10:08:51 PM
It's a miracle!!!
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 10, 2014, 11:08:52 PM
So, everyone should now "Gofund" Farmhand then?

Sounds good to me.

Bill
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Farmhand on August 10, 2014, 11:19:01 PM
It's a miracle!!!
Hehehe, Nah, ya just gotta use the scope all funny and hold ya mouth just right.  :)

I think I inverted a phase to get that funny reading, I think when it says ie. 130 degrees then it actually means 180 degrees minus
130 degrees so 50 degrees. Not sure, I'm tired, but one thing is for sure the input was 12.7 volts at .3 Amp DC.

..
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 11, 2014, 04:18:14 AM
Your scope is doing a good job of computing the phase angle from the input data. Second and third quadrants have always confused me, too. Lag? Lead? Grr.

Anyway, the "Phase B" measurement is the same as what I get by manually computing from the zero-crossings. Nice work!
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Thaelin on August 18, 2014, 02:12:28 PM
   Well, guess there goes my old foggie scooter with the built in charger.

Was supposed to be at the demo but job went 6 days and nulled that.
Kinda wanted to at least see it and meet the guy. Had high hopes here.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Bob Smith on August 18, 2014, 06:36:41 PM
Reading the above comments, I can't help but doubt the OU claims. For the sake of fairness, I've pulled together some quotes from the presenter.
My question is: are the principles he elaborates valid despite the disputable measurements:

"The general geometry of this transformer is very different than a traditional transformer, because what we have is a primary coil wrapped around two cores. And really, we have that same type of architecture in a standard transformer...'cause what you do in a standard transformer is that you have the material going down the centre of this coil. So really, you're splitting the flux two ways, and that's what we're doing here - splitting the input flux two ways."

"The difference is that we have these two output coils that are wired in such a way that it has a bifilar configuration. ... where the output sets up opposing magnetic forces into this [secondary core] material... There's two configurations available [for the secondary]... You can wire the output in series or in parallel; in this case they're wired in series... the ratio ...is about 20 turns here [primary] and 120 turns for each secondary. So we're actually stepping up the voltage. ... They're just single wound [secondary] coils set up in an opposing configuration."

"And what that does to the behaviouur of these coils is that they lower the natural impedance on these cores, driving it overunity, where normally, you wouldn't see that on an output coil here. ...You'd see a fixed output impedance on the secondary here. But when this operates, the behavior is quite different because we have this cancellation going on, lowering the impedance on this [secondary] coils."

 In response to a question about the opposing wound secondary coils, he calls this " a key feature with building overunity devices, because we're lowering the impedance on these coils. ... There's something going on; another force involved."

 Some notes:
 - running the transformer at 3200 cycles per second for best performance
 - input side highly reactive compared to regular transformers.
- shorting the output coils shifts the phase angle to 102 deg

 More quotes:
"We're dealing with some sort of source that's all around us here, some sort of a negative energy and that's what's pushing this wave form beyond 90 degrees. there's another force at play here; this other force acts like a negative electromagnetic force; that's what's acting on the current, pushing it beyond 90 degrees."

Bob

Edit:
Please consider this as well:
Quote
I have build the same Bifilar coil into a Tesla Transformer- air core, The effects me and my cousin have seen is when there is load on the secondary coils the Transformer seems to boost its performance and not affected in the so called counter induction. So we tried to add more coils in the Transformer, we have accidentally stumble on it the other secondary is powering a load of bulb with full brightness, accidentally Short circuit the new other Secondary coils that result into a boost of brightness on the bulb being load on the other secondary.

We have tried to make more shorted Bifilar secondary coils on this Transformer it seems to boost its performance with out demanding more power from the input source.
Source:  http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg409465/#msg409465
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Farmhand on August 18, 2014, 08:27:34 PM
Bob, you should check out my last few posts in the QEG thread. I can show similar or better results. But is it really OU ? My input is
DC and the lamp is lit up pretty bright for a fluro as compared to the grid powered ones, and the lamp showed the negative
resistance of increasing current till strike when the voltage dropped and the current reduced and stabilized so it started as a fluro
does with a semi resonant starter for grid powered fluorescent Lamps I think..
I guess a lot of messing about might tell for sure, but I won't bet on it.

Cheers
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 19, 2014, 10:56:26 AM
Reading the above comments, I can't help but doubt the OU claims. For the sake of fairness, I've pulled together some quotes from the presenter.
My question is: are the principles he elaborates valid despite the disputable measurements:
Mostly no.
Quote

"The general geometry of this transformer is very different than a traditional transformer, because what we have is a primary coil wrapped around two cores. And really, we have that same type of architecture in a standard transformer...'cause what you do in a standard transformer is that you have the material going down the centre of this coil. So really, you're splitting the flux two ways, and that's what we're doing here - splitting the input flux two ways."
First he says it is different then he says it is the same. How can you lose, with an "explanation" like that?
Quote

"The difference is that we have these two output coils that are wired in such a way that it has a bifilar configuration. ... where the output sets up opposing magnetic forces into this [secondary core] material... There's two configurations available [for the secondary]... You can wire the output in series or in parallel; in this case they're wired in series... the ratio ...is about 20 turns here [primary] and 120 turns for each secondary. So we're actually stepping up the voltage. ... They're just single wound [secondary] coils set up in an opposing configuration."
Here he appears to be switching back and forth. Bifilar? Series or parallel? Aiding or opposing? The description isn't clear. There are interesting things that can be done with phase cancellation in oppositely wound secondary coils. But Alek is using this setup to muddle and confuse, that's all.
Quote

"And what that does to the behaviouur of these coils is that they lower the natural impedance on these cores, driving it overunity, where normally, you wouldn't see that on an output coil here. ...You'd see a fixed output impedance on the secondary here. But when this operates, the behavior is quite different because we have this cancellation going on, lowering the impedance on this [secondary] coils."
The idea of using a winding on a core to vary the saturation level, thus the impedance, thus the inductance of another winding on the core, is an old one and has been used for "amplification" before: Research "Mag Amps", saturable core reactors, the QEG, etc etc. "Driving it overunity"... please. Based on what, the faulty measurements and hand waving? Sure.
Quote

 In response to a question about the opposing wound secondary coils, he calls this " a key feature with building overunity devices, because we're lowering the impedance on these coils. ... There's something going on; another force involved."
He doesn't understand what is happening, therefore overunity. It cracks me up when these people try to tell you how to build overunity devices: A Key Feature, when they can't build them themselves.
Quote

 Some notes:
 - running the transformer at 3200 cycles per second for best performance
 - input side highly reactive compared to regular transformers.
- shorting the output coils shifts the phase angle to 102 deg

- this frequency is chosen to give the _most confirmatory measurements_ in an attempt to bolster Alek's claims.
- No, no valid comparison to "regular transformers" was performed and the statement is false.
- No, the 102 degree "measurement" was selected from a scope display that was unstable and was chosen for its value. It's an invalid "measurement" anyway due to the various factors affecting phase angle that have been discussed elsewhere in this thread. This is called _data selection_ and it is a mortal sin of metrology.
Quote
More quotes:
"We're dealing with some sort of source that's all around us here, some sort of a negative energy and that's what's pushing this wave form beyond 90 degrees. there's another force at play here; this other force acts like a negative electromagnetic force; that's what's acting on the current, pushing it beyond 90 degrees."
Handwaving BS, disproven by proper analysis. Why can simulators do just what his coils do, if there is some "other force" happening? Alek apparently doesn't understand B-H hysteresis or changing permeability by external applied _magnetic_ fields. Or, more likely, he does understand and is relying on being the smartest person in the room-- his contempt for his audience allows him to provide demonstrations with improperly set oscilloscope giving readings from uncalibrated sensors during a confirmatory demonstration, not a true experiment.
Quote
Bob

Edit:
Please consider this as well:
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: Bob Smith on August 20, 2014, 01:51:32 AM
Thanks for the analysis, TK.
I'd be interested in building this nonetheless to see what it does, likely with ferrite toroids.
Bob
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: TinselKoala on August 20, 2014, 08:04:03 AM
Thanks for the analysis, TK.
I'd be interested in building this nonetheless to see what it does, likely with ferrite toroids.
Bob
And I encourage you to do so. Since part of Alek's system of claims appears to depend on the behaviour of the core, it would be nice to see some _true experiments_ with different cores, driven at the exact same parameters, to see the effect on output measurements.

Alek couldn't even do that much: he drove his transformer, and the "control" normal transformer, at different frequencies.
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: mscoffman on August 30, 2014, 06:33:31 PM
>
>Aug 29 at 11:31 PM
>
>Greetings from the Land of AZ,
>
>
>Just to bring everyone up to date, I upgraded my test bench to handle
>higher power levels for testing transformers. My previous test bench
>used a 120 W audio amplifier. I can now handle about 300 W and higher.
>
>Also, I will be testing a new transformer design based on the research
>presented in my lecture a few weeks ago in Albuquerque. I just finished
>building a coil winding machine to construct the new transformers. My
>goal is to reduced the high reactive power levels needed to drive the
>primary input side.
>
>I'm still finalizing my SmartPAK circuit based on this new transformer
>design. Testing should be complete within a couple of weeks.
>
>Making excellent progress!
>
>Bill & Aurora
>


Commercial AB class audio amplifiers may not all be highly efficient at converting their
input DC supply power voltage & current to the AC output signals. But, it is very easy to
build a highly efficient "HF switching" audio amplifier out of just a few components that
are highly efficient relative to DC input power. Some slight sinewave distortions not
acceptable to super quality audio amplifiers would not present serious problems in
measurement in power applications. If one accepts small inefficiency on the side of OU then
an overunity result would easily be measured using DC standard instruments only, but with
much higher accuracies and much less questions then the caculating the power of AC signals.
Remember that one needs to continue to match output impedances to load resistance, when
making measurements to maximise transferred power readings. As a side effect of doing all
of the above the system power output will often be in a form not far from what a self looping
system will require for self-running that could be used in a highly effective and unambiguous
OU demonstration.


:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Auroratek demonstration from Bill Alek at TeslaTech conference
Post by: MarkE on August 30, 2014, 08:46:18 PM
There goes so much for product.  He is still trying to get OU.

I agree with you on everything. 

We don't actually know whether he is using a Class A/B or Class D amplifier.  Class D has become very popular with OEM's in recent years.

>
>Aug 29 at 11:31 PM
>
>Greetings from the Land of AZ,
>
>
>Just to bring everyone up to date, I upgraded my test bench to handle
>higher power levels for testing transformers. My previous test bench
>used a 120 W audio amplifier. I can now handle about 300 W and higher.
>
>Also, I will be testing a new transformer design based on the research
>presented in my lecture a few weeks ago in Albuquerque. I just finished
>building a coil winding machine to construct the new transformers. My
>goal is to reduced the high reactive power levels needed to drive the
>primary input side.
>
>I'm still finalizing my SmartPAK circuit based on this new transformer
>design. Testing should be complete within a couple of weeks.
>
>Making excellent progress!
>
>Bill & Aurora
>


Commercial AB class audio amplifiers may not all be highly efficient at converting their
input DC supply power voltage & current to the AC output signals. But, it is very easy to
build a highly efficient "HF switching" audio amplifier out of just a few components that
are highly efficient relative to DC input power. Some slight sinewave distortions not
acceptable to super quality audio amplifiers would not present serious problems in
measurement in power applications. If one accepts small inefficiency on the side of OU then
an overunity result would easily be measured using DC standard instruments only, but with
much higher accuracies and much less questions then the caculating the power of AC signals.
Remember that one needs to continue to match output impedances to load resistance, when
making measurements to maximise transferred power readings. As a side effect of doing all
of the above the system power output will often be in a form not far from what a self looping
system will require for self-running that could be used in a highly effective and unambiguous
OU demonstration.


:S:MarkSCoffman