Author Topic: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning' (Read 139721 times)

AbbaRue · « **Reply #150 on:** November 17, 2008, 02:04:45 AM »

@alan
I'm refering to the "Tesla Charge Siphoning" that this thread is about.
I tested the circuit on my electronic simulator and I found a hookup that works just like in the video.

Using a SPDT relay switch.
Connect the "common" terminal of a relay to the Coil's terminal.
Connect the "normally on" terminal to the Battery's terminal.
Connect the "normally off" terminal to the Capacitor's terminal.
Place a light bulb between the battery negative and the coil to act as a limiting resistor. (20 ohms)
Then each time you briefly pulse the relay the capacitor receives a high voltage charge from the coil.
Using a 20 ohm resistor the simulator measures 224 volts.
The lower the resistor the higher the voltage so when building this watch you don't exceed the voltage of your capacitor.
You can get thousands of volts.
The internal resistance of the coil and it's saturation point will determine the maximum voltage.

CTG Labs · « **Reply #151 on:** December 08, 2008, 02:17:26 PM »

Dear Sandy and all,

This morning I have been able to perform some tests.

Basically I have transferred some charge from one cap to another via an inductor which is pulsed. I have used two 1 Farad caps with a programmable uC to control the pulse duty and number of pulses. There is also a flyback diode. It is the same circuit as posted by Sandy except I replaced the oscillator with uC and opto-coupler so as to ensure no energy enters the circuit here.

So far a very low eff has been found. However I have used a very high inductance coil which also has a very high DC resistance in which energy can also be dissipated. So it will be necessary to use a very low resistance, high inductance coil. Something with low turns on a ferrite rod so that mostly all the energy dissipated will be in R1 only. I do not wish to measure energy in the coil due to reactive power issues complicating the measurements???

So far the figures are:

START ENERGY C1: 78.25 Joules
END ENERGY C2: 74.29 Joules
ENERGY INPUT: 3.96 Joules

ENERGY USED IN R1: 629mJ

ENERGY STORED IN C2: 075mJ

ENERGY OUT: 704mJ

COP = 0.704 / 3.96 = 0.177

Some further figures:

Start coloumbs C1 12.51
Start coloumbs C1 0

End Coloumbs C1 = 12.19
End Coloumbs C2 = 0.389

Charge conservation is maintained in this test, thus energy will also be!

By the way, as you can see I did not drop the voltage by 1v, but this was only because using 1F caps and a large coil, the time constant was so long that it would go outside the data recording time of my equipment and I would not have been able to export all the data to excel for analysis

Regards,

Dave.

poynt99 · « **Reply #152 on:** December 08, 2008, 02:22:33 PM »

@ Dave, all.

This may be of some help, maybe not.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item207

.99

nul-points · « **Reply #153 on:** December 08, 2008, 03:43:12 PM »

hi Dave

great you're able to start some measured testing now - thanks for the post

yes - you definitely need to attend to the load-to-loss ratio to see the overunity effect at the load (otherwise too much I^2*R energy gets dissipated in the coil)

my load is 10R and the coil DC resistance is 0.5R

also, since you have uC control you don't need such large valued caps - this makes it easier to get a more accurate measure of input energy when dealing with single cycles of charge pulse-train & discharge

i use PC control & opto-isolation and i can use 200uF caps for C1 & C2, coil can be a few mH and fraction of an ohm DC res

you should see approx 0.75 input energy stored in C2 & around the same dissipated in Rload whilst charging

so when you discharge C2 back thro' the load after being charged you get the other 0.75 input energy released

total output energy will be approx 140-150% of input energy

good luck!

hi Poynt

thanks for the link - it wouldn't allow me to access it, but maybe i followed the link before i was logged in - i'll try again

all the best
sandy
________________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08

nul-points · « **Reply #154 on:** December 08, 2008, 08:30:03 PM »

hi Poynt

amazing amount of work you put into that document - i think, sadly, it will be wasted on the Capn

this thread (which was able to start reporting measured OU results back in May of this year, whilst the Capn was still knee-high to a Cabin Boy) is looking at the same capacitor-to-capacitor charge anomaly from a slightly different perspective - switched charge operation

in addition, the test circuit has been used to look at the effect of including other loads, such as motors, in series with the output capacitor

it appears that the classical electrodynamic equations for charge (and therefore energy) do not hold true when pulses of energy are switched from capacitor to capacitor via an inductor

oscilloscope measurements at the resistive load (recorded digitally & processed by Excel spreadsheet) show that the circuit is operating with an efficiency of approx 140-150% at the load, eg input from C1: 1.43mJoules; output on 10ohm load: 2.09mJ

these results are over and above the usual losses which occur: vibration, noise & heat from coil, heat from wiring & switch components, power supplied to opto-isolator outputs & CMOS switching gates, etc

i think these results, and all the work involved in achieving them, help put the good Capn's magnanimous "gift to the free energy movement!" (referring to the very same phenomenon, half a year later) in perspective

all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08

nul-points · « **Reply #155 on:** December 08, 2008, 09:09:18 PM »

hi alan

if you're around...

you made the following suggestion to the owner of another thread relating to the same phenomenon as we're considering on this thread:

> try this: Load the motor by coupling it to a second motor, which then acts as a dynamo, and connect the dynamo to a capacitor.

i'll be interested to hear if he actually bothers to follow up your suggestion - but it caught my eye because i've just been doing exactly that test - and related ones - with the switched charge test circuit

i've been looking at the effect of using different loads (apart from resistive), such as batteries and motors

i believe the results have given me a better insight into some of the unusual behavior of this type of circuit - but just to give you one answer, at least, to your suggested test...

i wanted to compare the drive output from a motor as load - when powered by the test circuit; when powered by the equivalent DC drive; and when powered by a PWM drive equivalent to the DC drive

the results were very interesting and - initially, to me - unexpected

when using the same scheme which you suggested on the other thread - drive a motor, couple to another motor as dynamo, feed dynamo o/p to cap (initially, i used a series diode into the output cap):

the test circuit was approx 140% as efficient as the PWM drive - ok, as expected so far

however, when the motor was driven using DC, with the same input energy, the test circuit was only about 70% as efficient as the DC!

so, i decided that maybe the dynamo o/p should feed into a cap with a load in parallel and measure the total energy supplied at the load, rather than the total energy stored in the cap

for this second round of tests, both the test circuit and the PWM circuit gave approx the same energy output level (1.4Joules approx) whilst the DC drive produced 1.9J

i could get slightly better output from the test circuit (1.5J) if i used the motor to replace the series inductor, L

i think i understand, now, the implications of these results but it was a bit disappointing, at first, to see efficiencies around 140% getting reduced to 70% just by changing the load type to a motor

hope you found these results interesting!

all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08

CTG Labs · « **Reply #156 on:** December 08, 2008, 10:54:51 PM »

@.99. Thanks for the document, you obviously spent sometime on this. I totally agree with everything you said. This is normal action that we should see. However, what Sandy is saying is something else. He claims that the total energy dissipated in R1 and left over in C2 is more than was taken from C1. So far I could not verify this, until now...

@ Sandy. I just wound a coil on some ferrite rod, so it basically has zero DC resistance. I also changed the caps to 100,000uF.

With further tuning of the microcontroller timing I have been able to produce the results you describe, with an apparent COP=2.079!

Without further a do, here are the figures!

C1 START VOLTS = 12.60v
C1 START ENERGY = 7.938j
C1 START Q = 1.26q
C2 START VOLTS = 0

C1 END VOLTS = 11.42v
C1 END Q = 1.142q
C1 END ENERGY = 6.52j
INPUT ENERGY = 1.418j

C2 END VOLTS = 2.53v
C2 END Q = 0.253q
C2 STORED ENERGY = 0.1265j

ENERGY USED IN R1 = 2.822j

OUTPUT ENERGY = R1 ENERGY + ENERGY LEFT IN C2 = 2.948j

COP = OUTPUT / INPUT

COP = 2.948 / 1.418 = 2.079

Seeing as C2 is left with less energy that was taken from C1, then any mistake will be found in the measurement of energy used in R1.

Also of note, if we start with 7.938 joules in C1 then we took 15.876 joules from the battery which charged C1 prior to the test. Mind you, if you keep repeating it until C1 is empty and getting COP=2 then...

So overall we do not have COP>1. But we do have something very interesting, since we start with 1.26q and end with 1.395q total stored charge. Conservation of charge has been violated and it has been accompanied by an energy gain?

!!!

So the question is, is there a better way to measure energy used in R1. I have exported data to excel from my scope and done a manual integration of the waveform using an averaging method, I think Sandy has done the same.

Regards,

Dave.

CTG Labs · « **Reply #157 on:** December 08, 2008, 11:51:17 PM »

Just for comparison I did another run but with the circuit just turned on and then off, no pulsing. This time I get expected results.

INPUT CHARGE 1.263q
INPUT ENERGY 4.167j

OUTPUT CHARGE 1.273q
OUTPUT ENERGY 2.234j (R1 and C2)

This time we see much less energy used in R1 and left over in C2 than was taken from C1. The remainder must be used in the transistor, coil resistance, etc.

The effect only appears when we pulse the coil with a specific timing. Now the question, is it a scope error from pulsed data or a real effect?

Regards,

Dave.

CTG Labs · « **Reply #158 on:** December 09, 2008, 12:09:34 AM »

Ok, just to be sure...

I adjust the "single pulse" discharge period so that the voltage dropped from C1 was again the same as the end result as successful test no 1.
(so no pulsing this time, just one pulse that drops voltage to the same drop).

Again this test now shows what we would expect to see, no charge gain or any excess energy seen.

Rapid pulsing is either causing a strange effect, or messing with my scope. But, on the successful test, a DC meter measuring end voltages on the caps doesn't lie. There is more stored "charge" in C1 and C2 than we started with in C1.

D.

nul-points · « **Reply #159 on:** December 09, 2008, 12:44:59 AM »

hi Dave

great to hear you've been able to duplicate the effect & see anomalous charge & energy gains

i'd expect to see a greater proportion of the output energy getting stored in C2 - do you have an approx value for your coil? you say 'zero ohms DC' so i guess it's either not many turns or its a heavy guage?

in most of my results i'm seeing approx 1:1 ratio of energy in R1 & C2 - and each of these two energies are around 70-75% of the input energy

i agree about the overall efficiency when taking the initial charge of C1 from the battery - i think we'll find that C1 can be replaced with another type of energy source

could you confirm your Rload value & your approx pulse-width please? also, have you measured your C1 & C2 values, or are you using their nominal values? and lastly, do you discharge C2 back thro the load resistor to measure & confirm the stored energy value?

thanks
s

CTG Labs · « **Reply #160 on:** December 09, 2008, 01:01:43 AM »

Hi Sandy,

Yes, I also thought that the proportions were not the same.

The resistance of the coil is 0.5ohms and 1.886H.

I am currently using the printed values and will have to measure their capacitance, they are too large for my Digital LCR meter so I will have to do it the old fashion way.

I do not discharge C2 back through R1 (10 ohms), but simply calculate the energy stored in it. So it could be "slightly off" as I used the nominal capacitance value.

The pulse on time is 50uS, off time 300uS and there are 10,000 repetitions, which drop from about 12.60v to 11.40v in 3.6 seconds.

During this time, the scope samples 1784 times, so there is a sample once every 2mS, hmm, this is no where near the sampling time specific for this scope

Regards,

Dave.

PS. I can also hear the coil "sing", guess its around 3khz.

nul-points · « **Reply #161 on:** December 09, 2008, 02:31:47 AM »

hi Dave

thanks for the info

your coil value of 1.9H seems very large for a 0.5ohm winding - approx how many turns with what diam wire is it?

my coil is 0.5ohm DC with approx 60-80 turns of .5mm wire

or is it a typo for mH?

measuring the discharge energy of C2 isn't critical - i usually find there's a good correspondance with the calculated value from the final stored voltage - it's just a cross-check of one of the results

as a quick check of the relative cap values you could swap C1 & C2 & see if you still get a similar efficiency result - if you do, then the cap values aren't out too much - if the efficiency values changes significantly then it would be a good idea to measure them (old method = time to discharge to 37% of Vstart, with a measured shunt R?)

might be worth trying a longer 'off'' time - see if you're starting each new pulse before the flyback energy from previous one is all returned to C2

if your coil really is 1.9H, then 50us may be on the short side - you could probably increase the pulse width significantly & reduce the number of cycles - you might reduce some switching loss overheads this way?

very encouraging!

regards
s.

CTG Labs · « **Reply #162 on:** December 09, 2008, 10:28:57 AM »

Hi Sandy,

Sorry for confusion! The inductance is around 1milliHenry, measured on a digital LCR meter, the resistance 0.4ohms measured on a Fluke 177.

I hear what you are saying about matching the pulse duration to the rise time, I fine tuned this on the scope.

Regards,

Dave.

CTG Labs · « **Reply #163 on:** December 09, 2008, 01:02:17 PM »

Hi Sandy and all,

I have now tested the capacitors using timed discharge method. They are different to the labeled value (of course), but the overall result leaves with around the same apparent COP.

Same calculations taking in to account measured capacitances:

C1: 111,201uF
START: 12.60v, 1.4q, 8.827j
END: 11.42v, 1.27q, 7.251j
INPUT ENERGY: 1.576j

C2: 108,961uF
END: 2.53v, 0.275q, 0.348j

R1: 2.822j

OUTPUT ENERGY: 2.822 + 0.348 = 3.170j

COP = 3.170 / 1.576 = 2.011

So, I don't think cap values being off at this level will cause much of an overall error given the large apparent amount of extra energy. If we were seeing say COP = 1.1 then it could very well tip the balance.

I am still not seeing the equal share of energy in R1 and C2 though like you show.

How are you intending to prove the energy in R1? This is not big enough to perform any heat tests? I thought about the motor example but that is also flawed.

Regards,

Dave.

ERM>.... Time for me to have a big red face, I messed up the energy calculation for R1. In fact R1 has only 0.223j, so even with this test the over all COP is: 0.360. There was an error on my excel sheet, after adding all the voltage samples and then finding an average voltage, I neglected to square the voltage over the load resistance before mulitplying that by the time to get the energy. So of course the figure was much larger. This is my fault for staying up so late and posting too early.

nul-points · « **Reply #164 on:** December 09, 2008, 04:47:12 PM »

hi Dave

> after adding all the voltage samples and then finding an average voltage, I neglected to square the voltage over the load resistance before mulitplying that by the time to get the energy

i'm relieved to learn that i'm not the only one who sometimes finds that a set of good results were only achieved by 'creative accounting'!

before looking more closely at possible losses in the system, i think you'll also need to alter your Excel calcs to average the sum of the instantaneous powers - not the instantaneous voltages (ie. calc the power for each reading first, then sum all, then average)

you can confirm this if you performed the same calcs on the discharge from C2 as you do on the charging energy in R

here's an example from my results:

Average of the Sum of the Instantaneous Power readings:
0.119W

duration:
7.81ms

Energy in discharge:
0.119 * 7.81 = 0.929mJ

Vmax C2:
3.07V

E stored in C2 (196uF):
0.924mJ

so the above calcs from the scope measurements match the stored energy calc for Vmax on C2

however, if we used the average of the instantaneous voltage readings we'd get:

Vav:
-0.809V

P:
-0.809 * -0.809 / 10 = 0.0654W

E:
0.511mJ

so getting Excel to calc the Av volts & THEN squaring will give you an answer approx 50% of the actual

i think the next thing to do is to look for possible losses in your setup

i notice that your results show a charge gain imbalance around 10% - it should be possible to achieve values nearer 30-50%

before attempting to do a raft of calcs, i usually confirm that i'm getting a sufficiently high output voltage on C2 - if i keep to a set input volt drop with a known input energy then i can very quickly calc & compare the energy on C2

i check & modify my circuit parameters until the max volts on C2 represent a stored energy around 70% or more of the input - then i make a fully measured test-run

your switching schedule gives 10000 charge pulses - could this be reducing the efficiency due to switching-loss overheads?

your coil has a relatively low inductance which will limit the max pulse 'on'-time you can use before you start getting additional I^2*R loss per pulse in the coil - maybe you could try doubling the inductance? (additional ferrite packing might help here?)

hope these suggestions help

all the best
sandy
________________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08

Cookie	Origin	Persistency	Information and Usage
ecl_auth	overunity.com	Expires after 30 days	This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised". Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.
SMFCookie648	overunity.com	Expires according to user-chosen session duration	If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.
PHPSESSID	overunity.com	Current session only	This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.
pmx_upshr{NAME}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel or individual block is collapsed or expanded
pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a individual block is changed.
pmx_cbtstat{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.
pmx_poll{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.
pmx_{fadername}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.
pmx_LSBsub{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.
pmx_shout{ID}	overunity.com	Current session only	These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.
pmx_php_ckeck	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated and will be deleted if the function executed.
pmx_YOfs	overunity.com	Page load time	This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number. The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position as before the click.

1	We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK" and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.
2	If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before accepting cookies.
3	Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.
4	We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning' (Read 139721 times)

AbbaRue

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

CTG Labs

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

poynt99

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

nul-points

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

nul-points

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

nul-points

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

CTG Labs

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

CTG Labs

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

CTG Labs

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

nul-points

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

CTG Labs

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

nul-points

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

CTG Labs

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

CTG Labs

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

nul-points

Re: OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'