Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy (Read 3531537 times)

picowatt · « **Reply #6060 on:** November 02, 2015, 05:21:40 PM »

Quote from: tinman on November 02, 2015, 04:03:48 PM

And how would any cable inductance or capacitance play a roll in the results shown,as we are measuring at the CVR with both scope probes. We are looking at what the HTT is receiving from the FG at the HTT,and what is coming back out of the HTT at the HTT. What the lead's are doing from the FG or what the FG it self is doing,has nothing to do with what the HTT is doing.

The scope is showing us the voltage and waveform on either side of the CVR. We dont want to include any losses there may be withing the FG's cables,as that is not looking at what the HTT is doing. You dont see the power companies trying to meter your home's power consumption from the power station -do you ?.

Second-- most of you may think that the 1 ohm 10 watt cement resistor i was using is inductive,well turns out it is not-->it is actually slightly capacitive,not inductive. When i tested it by putting it in series with a 10 ohm carbon resistor with my FG across the two,and use it as my CVR,the current actually leads the voltage,which means it's actually capacitive,not inductive. This is through a sweep right up to 20MHz.

Tinman,

The purpose of this test was to get an accurate picture of the FG's power contribution while your circuit was producing "negative resistance". I would trust the FG's 50R as being relatively low inductance.

Also, as suggested, I would perform some single cycle burst testing. I suspect that such a test you will allow you to see a lightly damped waveform that rings down over time.

PW

picowatt · « **Reply #6061 on:** November 02, 2015, 05:31:04 PM »

Quote from: partzman on November 02, 2015, 03:15:17 PM

Gyula,

OK, I must explain that I am located in Kansas, USA and that I am a Royals baseball fan so, in my haste to watch last nights game (in which they won the World Series BTW), I inadvertently attached the data for a variant of my original post that contained additional info. If you look at the scope shots one will notice the pout = 1.292w and the pin = 123mw for a COP = 10.5. Also notice the value change for C1 and C2 along with the additional components you pointed out.

I've attached a pix of the simple bifilar coil.

L3 is not coupled to L1 or L2 and I used a ceramic cored and coated rf inductor for L3 but any reasonable quality inductor will work. I used a mica for C3 but I'm sure a good quality metalized film would work as well. L3 and C3 form a series resonant circuit that is ~2x the normal fo (420Khz) of the network itself. One can experiment with the L/C ratio and see the effects so you can use what you have on hand as long as the resonance is ~840Khz to replicate what is shown.

I would like to note that I used a decoupling cap (.1mfd mono not shown) between the pulse generator and L3.

I used 50% for the duty cycle and tried variations but the optimum performance was with 50%. I am currently however experimenting with series and parallel self resonant circuits for the network source that are driven or pumped with extremely short duty cycles but that is a subject for later.

partzman

EDIT: Note that C1 and C2 did not change!

Partzman,

What wattage rating did you use for the 958R resistor? If its watt rating was low enough, did you note a temperature rise commensurate with the ca 1.3 watts being measured across it?

PW

Smudge · « **Reply #6062 on:** November 02, 2015, 06:08:35 PM »

Brad,

Here are the phase vectors for your latest set of runs done for MH. The phase you are getting at the higher frequencies is to be expected, you can see that channel 2 leads channel 1 (all vectors rotate CCW with time). So everything fits the negative resistance hypothesis.

Smudge

MileHigh · « **Reply #6063 on:** November 02, 2015, 06:36:45 PM »

Brad:

My proposed test was all based around the scope capture in Smudge's report for the "negative resistance." See the attached picture. I make specific reference to it in my posting.

The intention was to run the setup at 3.62 MHz as per the attached scope capture where it appears that power is always flowing back to the function generator as per the math trace.

Like PW stated, ideally the one-ohm resistor would be in series with the function generator output and physically located as close as possible to the panel output itself. If you wanted to make a useful jig you could use a male and female BNC with the one-ohm resistor between them. A thick ground bridge between the two connectors and a test point and some hot glue built up around the device and you would have a nice current viewing jig that you could use anywhere inline in a BNC cable setup.

The intention is simple: The scope shot in Smudge's report is showing power almost always being returned to the function generator for a "negative resistance." Will the current viewing resistor always show power being returned to the function generator or not?

When I talk about current direction I am using shorthand. If you drive a resistive load at low frquencins then it's taken for granted that the current is changing direction and there is always going to be a voltage drop across the one-ohm resistor showing that everything is normal. Even though the polarity of the voltage across the one-ohm resistor changes, in either direction it is still a voltage drop. Even though the current is changing direction through the AC cycle, that is a "normal change of current direction." But if you look at the cases of driving an inductive or a capacitive load, then the current changes direction at a 90 degree phase angle relative to when you are driving a resistive load. So using shorthand, that's what I meant by "current changing direction each cycle."

The gist of the test is this: Smudge shows a scope capture at 3.62 MHz showing "negative resistance" with power almost always being returned to the function generator. So, if you do the one-ohm test inline with your function generator output, will the detected current direction validate that measurement or not?

MileHigh

partzman · « **Reply #6064 on:** November 02, 2015, 06:43:46 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on November 02, 2015, 05:31:04 PM

Partzman,

What wattage rating did you use for the 958R resistor? If its watt rating was low enough, did you note a temperature rise commensurate with the ca 1.3 watts being measured across it?

PW

PW,

The 958 ohm Rs is a carbon film series combo of an 820 ohm 1/4w and a 150 ohm 1/4w which measure 811 ohms and 147 ohms respectively. Running a test for say 10 seconds or so produces heat in the resistors (811 primarily) that is painful to touch. Any longer test time produces the familiar "somethings hot" smell! I haven't done a temp measurement with an IR probe so don't have any more to give you at the moment but the power out does appear to be real.

partzman

gyulasun · « **Reply #6065 on:** November 02, 2015, 10:29:15 PM »

Hi Partzman,

Thanks for all the details and the photo on the coil for T1.

Let me notice that the COP of 10.5 you got from the scope shots is in fact less than that if we consider the power consumption of the driver IC (MAX4429) at 420 kHz from a 15 V DC supply. I figure this consumption to be 400-500 mW or so (worst case) from the data sheet. This means the COP reduces to 2.5 - 3 but this is still very good of course. And to get rid of the function generator, a one or two transistor low power (a few mW) 420 kHz oscillator could easily drive the input of the MAX4429. Also, I am sure there should be improvement possibilities in reducing the power consumption by using a more proper driver so this is not a real issue and I mention all this to preconsider a possible looping. A low power DC-DC converter driven from the rectified output of an extra winding wowen into T1 could serve well as a stabilized 15 V DC supply for the oscillator and driver stages. (Even the driver stage can be eliminated which is the main issue in full input power consumption.)

Would like you to clarify a "bug" in your Reply# 6098 this morning. In the first part of your post you wrote:

"Also notice the value change for C1 and C2 along with the additional components you pointed out."

And then at the end of your post you wrote: "EDIT: Note that C1 and C2 did not change!"

When you kindly shared the first schematic in Reply# 5984 (Oct. 27), the values for C1 and C2 were indicated as 4.7 nF for each and this did not change in your schematic you showed as correct last night.

Thanks,
Gyula

shylo · « **Reply #6066 on:** November 03, 2015, 12:08:05 AM »

To Smudge,
Magnetic fields can defy gravity.
They also control electric field if manipulated
I think bouncing back and forth will just result in rundown.
Back and forth with a gain on one side ,has to out weigh the lose on the other.
Eliminate one side. Or at least reduce it.
In control of the flux , whether it be lines or force, It's there, learn how to use it.
artv

tinman · « **Reply #6067 on:** November 03, 2015, 12:19:16 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on November 02, 2015, 06:36:45 PM

Brad:

My proposed test was all based around the scope capture in Smudge's report for the "negative resistance." See the attached picture. I make specific reference to it in my posting.

The intention was to run the setup at 3.62 MHz as per the attached scope capture where it appears that power is always flowing back to the function generator as per the math trace.

Like PW stated, ideally the one-ohm resistor would be in series with the function generator output and physically located as close as possible to the panel output itself. If you wanted to make a useful jig you could use a male and female BNC with the one-ohm resistor between them. A thick ground bridge between the two connectors and a test point and some hot glue built up around the device and you would have a nice current viewing jig that you could use anywhere inline in a BNC cable setup.

The intention is simple: The scope shot in Smudge's report is showing power almost always being returned to the function generator for a "negative resistance." Will the current viewing resistor always show power being returned to the function generator or not?

When I talk about current direction I am using shorthand. If you drive a resistive load at low frquencins then it's taken for granted that the current is changing direction and there is always going to be a voltage drop across the one-ohm resistor showing that everything is normal. Even though the polarity of the voltage across the one-ohm resistor changes, in either direction it is still a voltage drop. Even though the current is changing direction through the AC cycle, that is a "normal change of current direction." But if you look at the cases of driving an inductive or a capacitive load, then the current changes direction at a 90 degree phase angle relative to when you are driving a resistive load. So using shorthand, that's what I meant by "current changing direction each cycle."

The gist of the test is this: Smudge shows a scope capture at 3.62 MHz showing "negative resistance" with power almost always being returned to the function generator. So, if you do the one-ohm test inline with your function generator output, will the detected current direction validate that measurement or not?

MileHigh

MH
Please draw a schematic for the test setup you wish me to try,as what you describe in the way of current direction dose not fit with the described test setup. If what i drew up in the first scope shot is correct(see pic below),then we are measuring the voltage either side of the CVR. In this case,any potential voltage difference across that CVR will determine the current flow direction through that CVR. As can be seen in all the scope shots i presented over the wide range of frequencies,the voltage on the HTT side of the CVR is always higher than that on the FG side of the CVR.

Second
Why do you think the VPP being delivered by my FG is dropping the higher this negative resistance rises?. The answer is simple. The FG is trying to push current in one direction,while the HTT is (at the same time)trying to push current in the opposite direction-->back to the FG. This can be seen in the scope shot's i posted in regards to your test. We see that the voltage is always higher on the HTT side of the CVR,which means the current flow through that CVR is from the HTT to the FG,while at the same time,the FG is trying to deliver a current that flows from the FG to the HTT.

tinman · « **Reply #6068 on:** November 03, 2015, 12:36:46 AM »

Quote from: Smudge on November 02, 2015, 06:08:35 PM

Brad,

Here are the phase vectors for your latest set of runs done for MH. The phase you are getting at the higher frequencies is to be expected, you can see that channel 2 leads channel 1 (all vectors rotate CCW with time). So everything fits the negative resistance hypothesis.

Smudge

Yes,and using the math trace,where channel B(the FG side of the CVR) minus channel A (the HTT side of the CVR) we once again see a negative result.

MileHigh · « **Reply #6069 on:** November 03, 2015, 01:48:31 AM »

Quote from: tinman on November 03, 2015, 12:19:16 AM

MH
Please draw a schematic for the test setup you wish me to try,as what you describe in the way of current direction dose not fit with the described test setup. If what i drew up in the first scope shot is correct(see pic below),then we are measuring the voltage either side of the CVR. In this case,any potential voltage difference across that CVR will determine the current flow direction through that CVR. As can be seen in all the scope shots i presented over the wide range of frequencies,the voltage on the HTT side of the CVR is always higher than that on the FG side of the CVR.

Okay I attached a marked up graphic taken from Smudge's pdf. From what I understand that is basis of the claim for the "negative resistance." The setup uses the R2 inductive one-ohm resistor, and the primary. Smudge took that data and crunched some numbers and arrived at a negative resistance. Is that the claim that you are agreeing with also? If there is another setup and another claim for a negative resistance then I am only talking about the claim in Smudge's pdf.

You can put Channel 1 on the top half of your scope display for the direct function generator output. On the bottom half of the scope display you can put (Ch1 - Ch2) so that it shows you the voltage across the one-ohm resistor only. Turn up the gain on your scope for (Ch1 - Ch2). You do that properly and you will easily be able to see if the current flow is in phase with the function generator output or 90 degrees out of phase or somewhere in between. You will be able to see the current direction and magnitude, and you have to relate that to the actual voltage being put out on the function generator as shown on the top half of your display and paying careful attention to what the current direction means when the function generator output is above zero volts vs. below zero volts.

Now looking at all that data, if you believe there is a "negative resistance" then that implies that power should always be flowing into the function generator, for both when the function generator output is above zero volts and below zero volts. Will you actually see that, or will you see something else? By looking at that scope display for the entire sine wave you will be able to easily say when current (and power) is flowing into the function generator and flowing out of the function generator. You have to pay attention to the instantaneous polarity of the actual function generator output the whole time.

Simple guide:

Function Generator Voltage Voltage on far side of resistor (Ch1 - Ch2) Current Direction Power Direction
Channel 1 Channel 2

+10 Volts +11 Volts - 1 Volt Into FG Into FG
+10 Volts + 9 Volts +1 Volt Out of FG Out of FG
- 10 Volts -11 Volts +1 Volt Out of FG Into FG
- 10 Volts -9 Volts -1 Volt Into FG Out of FG

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #6070 on:** November 03, 2015, 02:19:23 AM »

Quote

Second
Why do you think the VPP being delivered by my FG is dropping the higher this negative resistance rises?. The answer is simple. The FG is trying to push current in one direction,while the HTT is (at the same time)trying to push current in the opposite direction-->back to the FG. This can be seen in the scope shot's i posted in regards to your test. We see that the voltage is always higher on the HTT side of the CVR,which means the current flow through that CVR is from the HTT to the FG,while at the same time,the FG is trying to deliver a current that flows from the FG to the HTT.

It's not as simple as that. Look at the table that I just made in my previous posting. You have to account for the polarity and the current direction. If the HTT was trying to push power into the FG the positive and negative voltage swings of the FG would increase.

It would appear that higher voltages on the HTT side compared to the FG output would indicate power being pushed into the FG. However, that setup is not the same as Smudge's setup for the "negative resistance." I think it best to stick to dealing with the alleged negative resistance setup for now. I can't really comment on your scope traces. What you should consider when making these kinds of high frequency tests is to show one or more pictures of your setup along with the scope shots. People like PW and Poynt would be able to recognize how the setup affects the scope captures.

One final thing about your scope captures is that you see the FG voltage drop as the frequency increases. I don't know how much coax cable you are using or anything like that, but as a general rule of principle it is normal to see the output voltage decrease as the frequency increases when you are in the MHz range. The coax cable itself and other components will start to act like a low pass filter at very high frequencies.

MileHigh · « **Reply #6071 on:** November 03, 2015, 02:26:35 AM »

Chris:

Quote

MileHigh, you call what you're doing "analyzing"?

Really?

Chris Sykes

After putting in that time and work in a sincere effort to help Brad analyze his setup over the past two postings, and including several other postings that took more time and more work, you can kiss my ass for your stupid-ass bitch comments. I don't pretend that I know everything, not by a longshot.

You should be ashamed of yourself for acting like such an idiot. Anybody that thinks his comments are out of line please PM him and urge him to conduct himself like a normal person.

MileHigh

ramset · « **Reply #6072 on:** November 03, 2015, 02:56:59 AM »

Mh
well I'm a little sad that you stepped off the curb.. and got into the gutter.
I do agree that He seems to be goading you along ..

While some like to see that and it does sell tickets I hope there will not be 27 pages of insults and colorful metaphors coming ?

Obviously you are sincerely trying to contribute to the understanding of what Brad is seeing here, however it is becoming increasingly obvious that there are other possibilities which most likely will take very specific and actual experiments to properly investigate.

perhaps Chris will be doing "that" analysis here ? [ NOW _that_ would definitely sell Tickets....]

actually I don't believe the Tinman will rest until this has been properly vetted.

respectfully
Chet

MileHigh · « **Reply #6073 on:** November 03, 2015, 05:15:20 AM »

Chet:

I am just nipping it in the bud. It can stop right now and we can all just move along. As time goes on, it will become apparent that there is nothing special or unusual about Brad's toroidal transformer. It is a purely passive device. However, what's interesting and a learning experience for all is the discovery process.

MileHigh

Smudge · « **Reply #6074 on:** November 03, 2015, 11:57:01 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on November 03, 2015, 01:48:31 AM

Okay I attached a marked up graphic taken from Smudge's pdf. From what I understand that is basis of the claim for the "negative resistance." The setup uses the R2 inductive one-ohm resistor, and the primary. Smudge took that data and crunched some numbers and arrived at a negative resistance. Is that the claim that you are agreeing with also? If there is another setup and another claim for a negative resistance then I am only talking about the claim in Smudge's pdf.

You can put Channel 1 on the top half of your scope display for the direct function generator output. On the bottom half of the scope display you can put (Ch1 - Ch2) so that it shows you the voltage across the one-ohm resistor only. Turn up the gain on your scope for (Ch1 - Ch2). You do that properly and you will easily be able to see if the current flow is in phase with the function generator output or 90 degrees out of phase or somewhere in between. You will be able to see the current direction and magnitude, and you have to relate that to the actual voltage being put out on the function generator as shown on the top half of your display and paying careful attention to what the current direction means when the function generator output is above zero volts vs. below zero volts.

Now looking at all that data, if you believe there is a "negative resistance" then that implies that power should always be flowing into the function generator, for both when the function generator output is above zero volts and below zero volts. Will you actually see that, or will you see something else? By looking at that scope display for the entire sine wave you will be able to easily say when current (and power) is flowing into the function generator and flowing out of the function generator. You have to pay attention to the instantaneous polarity of the actual function generator output the whole time.

Simple guide:

Function Generator Voltage Voltage on far side of resistor (Ch1 - Ch2) Current Direction Power Direction
Channel 1 Channel 2

+10 Volts +11 Volts - 1 Volt Into FG Into FG
+10 Volts + 9 Volts +1 Volt Out of FG Out of FG
- 10 Volts -11 Volts +1 Volt Out of FG Into FG
- 10 Volts -9 Volts -1 Volt Into FG Out of FG

MileHigh

MH,

That marked up graphic suggests that the scope channels in the display were as shown in your modified circuit. They were not so I think you could be misleading people who read your post. Brad shows the channel 1 and channel 2 connections as the yellow and blue take off points, so the inductive resistor (which Brad calls CVR and I call CSR) was the imperfect current monitor. It is not clear from your post whether you are suggesting the addition of that non-inductive 1 ohm as another test, or whether you assumed that the original test was done with it and you just want the test repeated with the math channel used to subtract what you incorrectly believed to be channel 1 and channel 2. Could you please clarify.

Edit. When I wrote the above I had not seen your earlier post without the marked up circuit, so it seems you were suggesting the additional CSR. Sorry, and please ignore my request for clarification. However anyone seeing your post in isolation could be mislead by that marked up circuit attached to the scope shot.

Please note that Brad has done a series of tests with a good 1 ohm non-inductive CSR in the position you show and has displayed the two waveforms you suggest (but has not done the subtraction). There one channel is the function generator output where you could pay attention to the instantaneous polarity of the actual function generator output the whole time. If you care to look at those scope displays for the entire sine wave and do the subtraction in your head you could yourself easily see when current (and power) is flowing into the function generator and flowing out of the function generator.

Edit 2. I see in Brad's reply #6118 he does indeed use the scope math to do the subtraction.

Smudge

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy (Read 3531537 times)

picowatt

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

picowatt

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

Smudge

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

partzman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

gyulasun

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

shylo

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

tinman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

tinman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

ramset

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

Smudge

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy