Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy (Read 3545022 times)

citfta · « **Reply #6045 on:** November 02, 2015, 03:38:47 AM »

Partzman,

I am still confused by something on your drawing. You are still showing RS as being .05 ohm X 2 = 1 ohm. Is it really .5 ohm X 2 = 1 ohm or .05 ohm X 2 = .1 ohm?

MileHigh · « **Reply #6046 on:** November 02, 2015, 07:56:59 AM »

Quote from: tinman on November 02, 2015, 12:05:56 AM

Will you be so quick to dismiss Smudge's findings also ?.

Why should you get an alleged negative resistance when you measure an inductive current sensing resistor in series with a transformer primary? Does that sound like something special to you? In more than 100 years of the application of electronics, don't you think that somebody else would have discovered this by now? Didn't you already agree that at frequencies of several megahertz that stray capacitive and inductive effects can possibly invalidate some measurements? Did you observe an alleged negative resistance through the whole frequency sweep or just at a sweet spot frequency? If you observed the alleged negative resistance at a sweet spot frequency only, how do you explain an ordinary resistance when not at the sweet spot frequency?

Here is a simple test: I am going to make an assumption that you will get accurate voltage readings at high frequency for this test. Only scope the direct function generator output (I am assuming that it is 50 ohms output impedance) and the far end of a one ohm non-inductive current sensing resistor that is in series with the signal line of the function generator. You can do a (Ch1 - Ch2) subtraction to only see the waveform across the one-ohm resistor if you want. Now, depending on how much current the setup is drawing, you should see a voltage drop on the far side of the current sensing resistor. If the load is reactive, presumably you will see the current change direction back and forth. What will you see at the sweet spot frequency? The scope trace in Smudge's report shows power always being returned to the function generator. Will you really see that with this simple test, power always being returned to the function generator? I suspect that at the sweet spot frequency it will still look like a reactive load with the current changing direction back and forth over a cycle. If you see that, that will invalidate your measurement that is always showing power going back into the function generator.

If my test is considered a valid test by the experts, it's worth doing. I haven't probed around a circuit being driven at 3 MHz in a generation, hence I need some confirmation that this will work. Assuming that the test is valid, then if you are looking into this with Smudge, this is the kind of self-checking that the two of you should be coming up with all by yourselves. Invent your own tests to double-check your own measurements before you arrive at a conclusion.

I think that the chances of you always seeing power going into the function generator for a full cycle like your own scope shot and associated math trace shows are nil. The caveat is that the probes must be giving you valid data with this setup and I am pretty confident that they will. One probe will be looking at a 50 ohm source, and the second probe will be looking at a 51 ohm source.

Note this test is a variation of what Picowatt said. He talked about looking at the function generator signal open circuit, and then looking at the function generator signal after it is connected to the device under test and comparing them.

MileHigh

gyulasun · « **Reply #6047 on:** November 02, 2015, 11:31:50 AM »

Quote from: citfta on November 02, 2015, 03:38:47 AM

Partzman,

I am still confused by something on your drawing. You are still showing RS as being .05 ohm X 2 = 1 ohm. Is it really .5 ohm X 2 = 1 ohm or .05 ohm X 2 = .1 ohm?

Hi Carroll,

He clarified it in his Reply# 6010 : "...I just noticed a typo in the description of the Vishay csr on the schematic that should read .5 x 2 = 1 ohm not .05 x 2 = 1ohm."

Hi Partzman,

Thanks for showing the new schematic, it includes coil L3 (44.4 uH) which was not shown or referred to earlier.
Does L3 have any magnetic coupling to T1 or it is an independent coil from T1? Is it also made of Litz wire and also air cored?

Perhaps you could show a picture of the coils?

One more question: is the duty cycle 50% for the input square wave? If yes, did you test COP with lower duty cycles?

Thanks,
Gyula

Smudge · « **Reply #6048 on:** November 02, 2015, 12:05:01 PM »

Here are some musings on magnetization.

Smudge

tinman · « **Reply #6049 on:** November 02, 2015, 02:22:16 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on November 02, 2015, 07:56:59 AM

MileHigh

Quote

Why should you get an alleged negative resistance when you measure an inductive current sensing resistor in series with a transformer primary? Does that sound like something special to you?

I guess you missed both Smudge's calculations of the inductance of the first CVR i used,and how he took that into account,and my test where a non inductive resistor was used.

Quote

In more than 100 years of the application of electronics, don't you think that somebody else would have discovered this by now?

One would also think that after 200 year's plus of research,they would have figured out how they managed to build the pyramids all those years back as well-->but they still only have theories,none of which they can all agree on.

Quote

Didn't you already agree that at frequencies of several megahertz that stray capacitive and inductive effects can possibly invalidate some measurements?

I did

,which is why we are carrying out various types of experiments on the HTT-->to eliminate the !!possible!!.

Quote

Did you observe an alleged negative resistance through the whole frequency sweep or just at a sweet spot frequency?

The effect is clearly seen from 700KHz through to 9MHz.

Quote

If you observed the alleged negative resistance at a sweet spot frequency only, how do you explain an ordinary resistance when not at the sweet spot frequency?

Well 9.3MHz is a wide range for a sweet spot. When not in the (very large) sweet spot,i would think that the magnetic harmonics are not at play. I believe with a larger HTT,the sweet spot frequency would be a lot lower.

Quote

Here is a simple test: I am going to make an assumption that you will get accurate voltage readings at high frequency for this test.

One would hope so,as the scope is a 100MHz scope,and we are not above 10MHz.

Quote

Only scope the direct function generator output (I am assuming that it is 50 ohms output impedance) and the far end of a one ohm non-inductive current sensing resistor that is in series with the signal line of the function generator.

Well it can be if you like. My FG has the option to either have the 50 ohm impedance,or not.

Quote

Now, depending on how much current the setup is drawing, you should see a voltage drop on the far side of the current sensing resistor.

Assuming that i have interpreted your instructions correctly,then no,the voltage after the 1 ohm CVR is always above the FG's voltage-->see 1st scope shot for circuit and scope placement.

Quote

If the load is reactive, presumably you will see the current change direction back and forth.

As the current is AC,then one would think that it will change back and forth.

Quote

If my test is considered a valid test by the experts, it's worth doing. I haven't probed around a circuit being driven at 3 MHz in a generation, hence I need some confirmation that this will work. Assuming that the test is valid, then if you are looking into this with Smudge, this is the kind of self-checking that the two of you should be coming up with all by yourselves. Invent your own tests to double-check your own measurements before you arrive at a conclusion.

As has it,i did this very test a week back,but had to wait to confirm my results once i got my non inductive CVR's. I had forgotten to do that until you reminded me with your post. So below are the results of the test,as carried out on the circuit in scope shot 1.

Quote

What will you see at the sweet spot frequency? The scope trace in Smudge's report shows power always being returned to the function generator. Will you really see that with this simple test, power always being returned to the function generator?

Not quite through 100% of the cycle. But as you will see in the scope shot's,the transformer/inductor is still heading towards it peak voltage after the FG's voltage has peaked.
I will leave the math trace out for this post,as i will be doing a video on that latter this week.

Quote

I suspect that at the sweet spot frequency it will still look like a reactive load with the current changing direction back and forth over a cycle. If you see that, that will invalidate your measurement that is always showing power going back into the function generator.

I am lost with this !current changing direction!! thing,as we are dealing with an AC current,so why wouldnt it change direction?.

Quote

I think that the chances of you always seeing power going into the function generator for a full cycle like your own scope shot and associated math trace shows are nil.

I think maybe you will have to have a rethink MH.

Quote

Quote
Note this test is a variation of what Picowatt said. He talked about looking at the function generator signal open circuit, and then looking at the function generator signal after it is connected to the device under test and comparing them.

At some specific frequencies,i can get a voltage greater than that of which the FG can deliver at maximum VPP. The effect is seen right up until 10MHz,when the magnetic field cannot collaps fast enough in the transformer core. We then start to see a phase lag start around 9MHz. At 10MHz,the voltage before and after the 1 ohm CVR even out.

P.S-i forgot to mention that throughout the test,there was a 100 ohm load across the inner secondary,which is also dissipating power,where the amount varies with frequency. It is very little,but it is there.

partzman · « **Reply #6050 on:** November 02, 2015, 03:15:17 PM »

Quote from: gyulasun on November 02, 2015, 11:31:50 AM

Hi Carroll,

He clarified it in his Reply# 6010 : "...I just noticed a typo in the description of the Vishay csr on the schematic that should read .5 x 2 = 1 ohm not .05 x 2 = 1ohm."

Hi Partzman,

Thanks for showing the new schematic, it includes coil L3 (44.4 uH) which was not shown or referred to earlier.
Does L3 have any magnetic coupling to T1 or it is an independent coil from T1? Is it also made of Litz wire and also air cored?

Perhaps you could show a picture of the coils?

One more question: is the duty cycle 50% for the input square wave? If yes, did you test COP with lower duty cycles?

Thanks,
Gyula

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!

picowatt · « **Reply #6051 on:** November 02, 2015, 03:19:32 PM »

Tinman,

In your test using the 1R connected to your FG, where/how did you connect the 1R to the FG?

Also, I would have thought that the measurement would have been made with your circuit connected, functioning, and measuring exactly as it was in a previous scope shot. Otherwise, a new set of scope data is required. Try to change only one variable at a time.

PW

tinman · « **Reply #6052 on:** November 02, 2015, 03:33:15 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on November 02, 2015, 03:19:32 PM

Tinman,

In your test using the 1R connected to your FG, where/how did you connect the 1R to the FG?

Also, I would have thought that the measurement would have been made with your circuit connected, functioning, and measuring exactly as it was in a previous scope shot. Otherwise, a new set of scope data is required. Try to change only one variable at a time.

PW

OK,maybe it's time to start talking english here. Is the setup depicted in scope shot 1 not what MH was refering to?. Also,the circuit was connected-as in scope shot 1.
The 1 ohm CVR is connected via FG lead's.

We seem to be running around in circles here. All the time the likes of MH insist on schematics,and yet they them self seem quite happy to just use words to describe test to be carried out,and we are left to decipher those words,and carry out the tests.

As far as i can work out from MH's word's,i have set up the DUT as he describes,and carried out the tests.

tinman · « **Reply #6053 on:** November 02, 2015, 03:36:58 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on November 02, 2015, 03:19:32 PM

Tinman,

In your test using the 1R connected to your FG, where/how did you connect the 1R to the FG?

Also, I would have thought that the measurement would have been made with your circuit connected, functioning, and measuring exactly as it was in a previous scope shot. Otherwise, a new set of scope data is required. Try to change only one variable at a time.

PW

How can it be measured exactly as it was in previous test when MH wants one probe either side of the 1 ohm CVR?,where as in other test,we had 1 channel measuring current,and the other measuring voltage.

picowatt · « **Reply #6054 on:** November 02, 2015, 03:42:43 PM »

Quote from: tinman on November 02, 2015, 03:33:15 PM

OK,maybe it's time to start talking english here. Is the setup depicted in scope shot 1 not what MH was refering to?. Also,the circuit was connected-as in scope shot 1.
The 1 ohm CVR is connected via FG lead's.

We seem to be running around in circles here. All the time the likes of MH insist on schematics,and yet they them self seem quite happy to just use words to describe test to be carried out,and we are left to decipher those words,and carry out the tests.

As far as i can work out from MH's word's,i have set up the DUT as he describes,and carried out the tests.

Tinman,

I thought my question was English.

Where and how was the 1R connected to the FG?

For example, did you make a special fixture using BNC's to position the 1R directly at the FG output or did you just connect it at the far end of a BNC cable or use clip leads?

Also, is this your non-inductive 1R?

The whole point of performing the measurement DIRECTLY at the FG's BNC was to eliminate cable inductance/capacitance from that measurement.

PW

partzman · « **Reply #6055 on:** November 02, 2015, 03:46:42 PM »

Quote from: Smudge on November 02, 2015, 12:05:01 PM

Here are some musings on magnetization.

Smudge

Smudge,

Just read this paper and find it most informative. I would like to quote your statement-

"That a collection of passive components could be a source of energy is not accepted by the scientific
community, they would claim this to be a math artefact. The question to be asked is whether an inductive
component containing ferromagnetic material is really passive when it derives its characteristics from
things that actually move. There is the possibility that with the correct system architecture energy can be
transported from the quantum forces that drive that movement."

This could certainly apply to Tinman's device with his cored transformer.

partzman

tinman · « **Reply #6056 on:** November 02, 2015, 04:03:48 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on November 02, 2015, 03:42:43 PM

Tinman,

I thought my question was English.

Where and how was the 1R connected to the FG?

For example, did you make a special fixture using BNC's to position the 1R directly at the FG output or did you just connect it at the far end of a BNC cable or use clip leads?

Also, is this your non-inductive 1R?

The whole point of performing the measurement DIRECTLY at the FG's BNC was to eliminate cable inductance/capacitance from that measurement.

PW

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.

picowatt · « **Reply #6057 on:** November 02, 2015, 04:24:38 PM »

Quote from: tinman on November 02, 2015, 03:36:58 PM

How can it be measured exactly as it was in previous test when MH wants one probe either side of the 1 ohm CVR?,where as in other test,we had 1 channel measuring current,and the other measuring voltage.

Tinman,

Which is why I suggested using the FG's 50R as a CVR instead of using another series resistor.

I would trigger the scope externally via the FG's trigger out. Then connect your circuit as before and adjusted for optimum "negative resistance" or whatever parameter you desire.

Then, without changing anything else, disconnect one scope probe from your circuit. I would disconnect the scope probe being used to measure your CSR current as it would likely have the least affect on the circuit. Observe your other scope channel as you disconnect the CSR probe to see if there are any changes in displayed amplitude or phase. If not, proceed to measuring the FG output using the now free probe (using the external trigger allows you to see any effect disconnecting the CSR probe has on the other channel regarding phase)

To measure the FG output, disconnect your circuit from the FG and directly probe the FG output. Note the measured amplitude. Then, reconnect the FG output to your circuit and again measure the FG output directly at the FG's BNC connector. As previously suggested, the use of a BNC "tee" simplifies doing this.

On my older Tek and HP equipment with panel mount BNC's, I would just temporarily disconnect an unused BNC (VCO in, etc) and run a short wire from the FG's output buffer side of the 50R to that re-purposed jack. I have done so on many occasions. But on your FG, the BNC's are probably all PC mount, making that a bit more difficult.

Alternately, you could make up a fixture using a male and female BNC connected via a 1R resistor with a piece of buss wire soldered between their grounds. This can then be connected between the FG's BNC and your circuit's BNC cable. However, this will require you to have another low inductance 1R resistor. The FG's 50R output resistor is generally of low inductance.

One must keep in mind that at lower frequencies, the FG output, when considered from the end of a connected cable, appears to have an impedance of 50R. However, at higher frequencies, cable inductance and capacitance will have considerable effect. You may at some point consider performing a measurement using 50R coax (terminated with 50R) to connect the FG to your circuit to see what affect that may have on your measurements.

In your previous scope captures depicting "negative resistance", consider that between the FG's output buffer (a low impedance point) and your circuit is the FG's 50R and whatever interconnect cable inductance and capacitance that there is in that cable.

At the frequencies you have moved up to, simply drawing a symbol for the FG connected to your primary paints an incomplete picture.

PW

Smudge · « **Reply #6058 on:** November 02, 2015, 04:36:14 PM »

Quote from: partzman on November 02, 2015, 03:46:42 PM

Smudge,

Just read this paper and find it most informative. I would like to quote your statement-

"That a collection of passive components could be a source of energy is not accepted by the scientific
community, they would claim this to be a math artefact. The question to be asked is whether an inductive
component containing ferromagnetic material is really passive when it derives its characteristics from
things that actually move. There is the possibility that with the correct system architecture energy can be
transported from the quantum forces that drive that movement."

This could certainly apply to Tinman's device with his cored transformer.

partzman

Be my guest and quote it wherever you like. I have spent my entire professional life (plus 16 years being retired) firstly as an electronic engineer, then later as an electromagnetic systems engineer with emphasis on near-field phenomena where the wave impedance is reactive. When I discover that classical transmission-line theory predicts a passive system acting as a power source I look for either (a) the math is incorrect or (b) where might that power come from? And in doing this I discover problems with classical magnetic theory that hides inter-atomic magnetic field energy from view. There is considerable energy there which most learned professors would deny actually exists. Students of EM are just not taught correctly, and then don't have the insight to question what they are being taught. Any professor who puts his head above the parapet to claim that OU is possible is likely to lose his job (Prof Turtur is an example). I could go on with this rant but that won't solve things. Just carry on the good work

Smudge

picowatt · « **Reply #6059 on:** November 02, 2015, 04:57:37 PM »

Tinman,

As I suggested previously, you might consider using your FG's N-cycle burst mode, if it has that function, to excite your circuit with just one cycle, or half cycle.

PW

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy (Read 3545022 times)

citfta

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

gyulasun

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

Smudge

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

tinman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

partzman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

picowatt

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

tinman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

tinman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

picowatt

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

partzman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

tinman

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

picowatt

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

Smudge

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

picowatt

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy