Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy  (Read 2893525 times)

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6090 on: November 04, 2015, 10:48:09 AM »
I just want to comment on PW's suggestion of using the 50-ohm non-inductive output resistor in the function generator itself as the current viewing resistor.  This method beats my method by a country mile because you then are dealing with a current sensing signal that has 50 times the amplitude.  That presumably keeps you way above the background noise and quantization noise in the signal.  At least in many cases it will, and most likely it would in this case.

It's gets a little tricky to do that and I can sketch out two possible ways:

1.  If your DSO has a waveform storage buffer, you first record the unloaded function generator output waveform.  Then you connect up your device and then record the loaded waveform.  Then, presumably you can line up the two stored waveforms by making sure that the zero-cross occurs at the same time.  Then you ask your DSO to display the unloaded function generator waveform and the (Ch1 - Ch2) waveform.  I am assuming that that might require a higher-end DSO to do all that fancy stuff.

2.  You export the two waveforms as comma separated values and you load them into two columns of a spreadsheet.   You manually offset one of the waveforms so that the zero-cross lines up.  Then you do your waveform subraction and then set up the spreadsheet to display the two waveforms.  This would require a moderate knowledge level for manipulating spreadsheets.  The beauty here is that the sky is the limit.

Either way, you would be working with a 50-ohm current sensing resistor and that really would make a difference when doing high frequency current sensing measurements on a high impedance inductor.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 03:47:46 PM by MileHigh »

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6091 on: November 04, 2015, 12:22:37 PM »
I just want to comment on PW's suggestion of using the 50-ohm non-inductive output resistor in function generator itself as the current viewing resistor.  This method beats my method by a country mile because you then are dealing with a current sensing signal that has 50 times the amplitude.  That presumably keeps you way above the background noise and quantization noise in the signal.  At least in many cases it will, and most likely it would in this case.

It's gets a little tricky to do that and I can sketch out two possible ways:

1.  If your DSO has a waveform storage buffer, you first record the unloaded function generator output waveform.  Then you connect up your device and then record the loaded waveform.  Then, presumably you can line up the two stored waveforms by making sure that the zero-cross occurs at the same time.  Then you ask your DSO to display the unloaded function generator waveform and the (Ch1 - Ch2) waveform.  I am assuming that that might require a higher-end DSO to do all that fancy stuff.

2.  You export the two waveforms as comma separated values and you load them into two columns of a spreadsheet.   You manually offset one of the waveforms so that the zero-cross lines up.  Then you do your waveform subraction and then set up the spreadsheet to display the two waveforms.  This would require a moderate knowledge level for manipulating spreadsheets.  The beauty here is that the sky is the limit.

Either way, you would be working with a 50-ohm current sensing resistor and that really would make a difference when doing high frequency current sensing measurements on a high impedance inductor.

MileHigh

MH,

Or... You can simply probe the FG output with the circuit disconnected, write that measurement down, reconnect the circuit, remeasure the FG output and then write that measurement down.  Measurement done...

If desired, two separate scope captures can be used to record the two measurements.  No simultaneous view or math trace is required. 

Use of a BNC tee (or a male and female BNC soldered back to back) at the FG output can be used for a convenient test point.

I believe I have sufficiently covered the making of this measurement in previous posts (including a method to verify that removing a probe from the "negatively resisting" circuit does not affect its operation).

However, all that said, three scope captures would be ideal.  The first demonstrating that the circuit is indeed operating as desired at 3.62MHz as in previous tests, the second showing the FG output as measured directly at the FG's BNC (using the scope probe that has been disconnected from the circuit's 1R CVR), and the third showing the FG output with the circuit disconnected from the FG.  All measurements would be made with the scope triggered externally from the FG.  During FG output measurements, I would connect the probe's ground lead to the FG ground (actually, I would also pay attention to what effect, if any, connecting or not connecting that ground to the FG makes to all measurements).

PW

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6092 on: November 04, 2015, 01:22:57 PM »
At 10 MHz,and FG set to 20 VPP, both channels read the same,but at 20MHz i get a 4mV difference where channel 1 reads the higher RMS value by the 4mV.

Tinman,

Are the measurements also identical at your 3.62Mhz test frequency and at closer to your typical operating amplitude?

PW

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6093 on: November 04, 2015, 03:42:49 PM »
PW:

Thanks for your expert advice.  I realize that I probably tripped myself up with respect to lining up the zero-cross between waveform captures because there may be a time shift in the zero cross of the waveform of the device under test.  I am simply not familiar with the equipment to know the mechanics of how to make sure separate multiple waveform captures are aligned in time but I assume that the external trigger from the FG could be used as a time stamp or something to that effect.

For real eye candy, I just love the thought of taking scope captures and passing them through the right digital low-pass filter and ending up with beautiful smooth over-sampled floating-point scope traces.  Then doing floating-point math on the various waveforms and displaying that on your monitor.  If I was an uber nerd I would be using sensing coils on various magnetic paths in some kind of transformer setup and integrating on them to produce waveforms of the actual magnitude of the flux flowing through said magnetic paths.  That would be really cool!

MileHigh

Offline partzman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6094 on: November 05, 2015, 06:08:33 PM »
I have attached a paper below showing the data for a variation on the coil design used in the previously disclosed passive device which I will refer to as the Passive Power Device or PPD. This will undoubtedly raise questions for some but should also supply answers to others.

partzman

Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6095 on: November 08, 2015, 11:39:45 AM »
I have attached a paper below showing the data for a variation on the coil design used in the previously disclosed passive device which I will refer to as the Passive Power Device or PPD. This will undoubtedly raise questions for some but should also supply answers to others.

partzman

Is this the circuit you are working with Partzman ?.


Offline tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5242
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6096 on: November 08, 2015, 11:41:46 AM »
Below is a picture of the !just finished! larger inner secondary inductor.
Very low on inductance as it sit's-just .12mH

Will see what happens when i encase it with the outer core material.

Offline partzman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6097 on: November 08, 2015, 03:11:10 PM »
Is this the circuit you are working with Partzman ?.

Tinman,

Yes, the circuit shown in the schematic of the pdf using the air cored bifilar coil.

partzman

Offline partzman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 358
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6098 on: November 08, 2015, 03:18:29 PM »
Below is a picture of the !just finished! larger inner secondary inductor.
Very low on inductance as it sit's-just .12mH

Will see what happens when i encase it with the outer core material.

Tinman,

Since I'm logged on at the moment, I can't help but comment on that low inductance of 120uh! It would seem that from the physical size and number of turns that it should be higher. Hmmmmm!

I have no reason to question your measurement so it is somewhat puzzling! Surely the core material isn't diamagnetic?!?

partzman

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4136
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6099 on: November 08, 2015, 06:05:48 PM »
Below is a picture of the !just finished! larger inner secondary inductor.
Very low on inductance as it sit's-just .12mH

Will see what happens when i encase it with the outer core material.

Hi Brad,

I use a free software program to estimate the permeability and the AL values of unknown ring cores, here is a link to download the Mini Ring
Core Calculator:
 http://mini-ring-core-calculator.software.informer.com/  and the downloading file name is minirk12_install.exe what you need to install on
your computer if you wish to use it.

In its Tools Menu there is the AL and Permeability calculator when these are unknown and using your measured inductance of 120 uH for the
200 turns and your core's mechanical sizes, I got a permeability value, u=2.5 and for AL=3 nH/N2.

This means that the iron-filings are not so close to each other to form a dense ferromagnetic core volume, more filings would need to be stuffed
in to get higher permeability. However, if you made the previous core with a similar mixture ratio of the filings and epoxy (and assuming
also 200 turns and similar mechanical sizes), then the presence of the outer core will surely increase the 120 uH inductance to a higher value.

Gyula

Offline picowatt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2037
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6100 on: November 08, 2015, 06:13:32 PM »
Tinman,

Since I'm logged on at the moment, I can't help but comment on that low inductance of 120uh! It would seem that from the physical size and number of turns that it should be higher. Hmmmmm!

I have no reason to question your measurement so it is somewhat puzzling! Surely the core material isn't diamagnetic?!?

partzman

Partzman,

I as well found that low value surprisnig.  It sure "looks" like a lot more than 120uH.

I had noticed in some of Tinman's sweep tests that his xfmr seemed to saturate at fairly low amplitude levels when the applied frequency was 500Hz or less (i.e., the observed non-linearity).

I do not know what Tinman's L meter uses for a test frequency, some use 100Hz.  If I were him, I'd scope across the L meter leads while testing to check what frequency the meter is using and see what the waveform looks like.

Although I am not sure how non-linearities might affect his meter's accuracy, I think it would be wise to verify that low inductance using an alternate method.  Connecting the toroid in a voltage divider with a known resistance and applied frequency (or resonating with a cap), for example, might at least confirm that 120uH is "in the ballpark".

PW

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6101 on: November 08, 2015, 07:30:56 PM »
Hi Brad,

I use a free software program to estimate the permeability and the AL values of unknown ring cores, here is a link to download the Mini Ring
Core Calculator:
 http://mini-ring-core-calculator.software.informer.com/  and the downloading file name is minirk12_install.exe what you need to install on
your computer if you wish to use it.

In its Tools Menu there is the AL and Permeability calculator when these are unknown and using your measured inductance of 120 uH for the
200 turns and your core's mechanical sizes, I got a permeability value, u=2.5 and for AL=3 nH/N2.

This means that the iron-filings are not so close to each other to form a dense ferromagnetic core volume, more filings would need to be stuffed
in to get higher permeability. However, if you made the previous core with a similar mixture ratio of the filings and epoxy (and assuming
also 200 turns and similar mechanical sizes), then the presence of the outer core will surely increase the 120 uH inductance to a higher value.

Gyula

Hi Gyula and Brad

I have that calculator (great Help sections in there) , but I found a different, simpler one to be somewhat easier to use for this problem.

http://coil32.net/download-linux.html  (windows and android versions also available)

Using Coil32 and the "ferrite ring core" selection, Brad's dimensions, and subbing in various values of permeability until I got near 200 turns required, the calculator tells me that u=10 will reach the 120 uH inductance with about 200 turns.

I think that a permeability in the range of 3-10 is plausible for a home-made iron powder core, so I'm not too worried about Brad's 120 uH inductance measurement.

Still, it would be nice to confirm the measurement as Picowatt suggested, by resonating a tank circuit, and it also would be nice to see the frequency that his inductance meter is using for the measurement.

Keep up the good work, mates.
--TK

Offline myenergetic

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6102 on: November 08, 2015, 07:46:17 PM »
Below is a picture of the !just finished! larger inner secondary inductor.
Very low on inductance as it sit's-just .12mH

Will see what happens when i encase it with the outer core material.
Hi Tinman
From your data of primary toroid A=144mm^2, l=132mm and L=120uH, permeability ur of your core material unknown
L=uAN^2 /l and since the measured inductance is 120uH by calculating the permeability of your core will be around u=L*l/AN^2 = 2.75nH @ unknown frequency, while the inductance of free space is u0 4pi*10^-7 H/m quite strange. What type of material, compound, and or mixture you are using in your core?? Even-though I don’t know what it is but you are heading in to something!!!
jj

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6103 on: November 08, 2015, 08:13:43 PM »
Are you quite sure you've done your sums right? At least the calculators Gyula and I have used agree to within an order of magnitude and give reasonable answers.
TinMan's core material is iron filings mixed with 2-part epoxy, isn't it? Sort of like a "fortified" JB-Weld kind of stuff. Probably not really too different from a powdered-iron material toroid but with even less permeability due to the size and separation of the iron filings.

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4136
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #6104 on: November 08, 2015, 08:30:55 PM »
Hi Tinman
From your data of primary toroid A=144mm^2, l=132mm and L=120uH, permeability ur of your core material unknown
L=uAN^2 /l and since the measured inductance is 120uH by calculating the permeability of your core will be around u=L*l/AN^2 = 2.75nH @ unknown frequency, while the inductance of free space is u0 4pi*10^-7 H/m quite strange. What type of material, compound, and or mixture you are using in your core?? Even-though I don’t know what it is but you are heading in to something!!!
jj

Hi Myenergetic,

The formula you use for calculating u is for solenoid coils. For toroidal coils, the formula is different, see for instance this link
https://www.easycalculation.com/engineering/electrical/toroid-inductance-calculator.php  and a possible formula is at the bottom of the page.

Gyula

EDIT    One more thing: for permeability of a core, you cannot get nH dimension, permeability for ferromagnetic cores is just a relative number so it has no dimension.