PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2018-09-24, 14:23:55
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Ultra-efficiency through adiabatic design  (Read 9183 times)
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 141
Hi ION,

You posted a letter recently in the Partnered Coils thread that discusses the issue of efficiency of a coil circuit in terms of the potential difference being reduced in the coil. You said:

"In a practical real world coil, this is true but it is only because of the resistance of the coil. Were the resistance to go to zero, a potential difference would not be needed, only a current. In the limit analysis it is the current that charges the coil."

This gives me a good starting point to introduce several methods for increasing the efficiency of our circuits even in the absence of overunity. This letter serves as an overview of some little known aspects, and I'll get into more depth in further posts.

Not only the potential difference across the coil, but the potential difference from source to coil terminal, determines the losses.

Let's take the most basic example of energizing any inductor, even one with small wire. The inductor can be considered an LR circuit since it has its own R. If you connect a voltage source to it directly, the V will quickly rise to maximum, while current rises over the time constant.

As you said, the only thing that matters is the current. The extra V at the start of the inductor charging simply represents wasted energy. If you limit the voltage of the source to a low level, and then let the source current rise in exact harmony with the rising I of the inductor, the energy that is normally lost as heat in the inductor will be conserved. In this case, the potential is discarded, and only the current is used.

This method is currently in use in huge inductors made for the Star Wars program. In those machines, they energize several smaller inductors and then switch them into the larger inductor in parallel. The voltage is always that of the individual inductor, but the current rises as each inductor is added. Through this means the thermal losses of the large inductor are reduced. This post is the first time this concept has been suggested for magnetic circuits that are not the size of a building :-)

The mistaken concept about adiabatic processes is that they must be slow. The above example shows that the TC of the inductor still determines the length of the process. Adiabatic technology is applied somewhat unknowingly through resonance, where the potential difference between inductor and cap are kept low at all times. But even resonance is a waste of energy, recycling current through the resistance over and over, unless the energy is handed off every ΒΌ cycle or less.

Although the use of a controlled voltage source (really probably a current source with variable voltage) to feed an inductor is more complex, it opens up a new world for OU experiments, because every coil in every device has these thermal losses, often obscuring the sources of overunity.  Simply controlling the input V and I can obviate these losses in ways that are completely conventional but never used except in a few adiabatic logic circuits and odd star wars machines.

orthofield
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3226
It's turtles all the way down
Great title for a thread on your bench, I hope to contribute

quote orthofield

Quote
Not only the potential difference across the coil, but the potential difference from source to coil terminal, determines the losses.

In my statement I was referring to the steady state, not the instantaneous condition. Also your statement about the wires leading to the coil is true, however this resistance is not normally considered in the ideal condition.

In the real world those wires do subtract from efficiency, which is why experimenters should strive to eliminate clip leads and plug boards with their high losses, especially when there are high currents circulating. For prototypes, I favor compact homemade breadboards with soldering of components directly to wide copper strips for efficient transfer of energy. A well designed pcb is also a good thing.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 932
Let's take the most basic example of energizing any inductor, even one with small wire. The inductor can be considered an LR circuit since it has its own R. If you connect a voltage source to it directly, the V will quickly rise to maximum, while current rises over the time constant.

That rise of voltage is instantaneous for a perfect switch closure.  The current at switch closure is zero.     

Quote
As you said, the only thing that matters is the current. The extra V at the start of the inductor charging simply represents wasted energy.

I disagree, at the start there is no current hence no energy.

Quote
If you limit the voltage of the source to a low level, and then let the source current rise in exact harmony with the rising I of the inductor, the energy that is normally lost as heat in the inductor will be conserved. In this case, the potential is discarded, and only the current is used.

That is nonsense!  The source current is the inductor current.  Or are you assuming there is some capacitance that is taking current away from the inductor?  As for the potential being discarded it is most essential as its value multiplied by the current is the energy flow rate into the inductor.  If there is no potential there is no energy flow.  If you could gain access to the junction between the L and the series R of the equivalent circuit then you could do something to make the voltage across R zero and eliminate heat losses, but you can't get that access since there is no such circuit point, the R is distributed throughout the L.

Quote
This method is currently in use in huge inductors made for the Star Wars program. In those machines, they energize several smaller inductors and then switch them into the larger inductor in parallel. The voltage is always that of the individual inductor, but the current rises as each inductor is added. Through this means the thermal losses of the large inductor are reduced. This post is the first time this concept has been suggested for magnetic circuits that are not the size of a building :-)

The concept of charging in parallel and discharging in series (or vice versa) is used with capacitors and inductors but it does not give you extra energy.  It can allow you to develop huge voltage or huge current which is why it has its uses.  But there is always some loss because of the clash between conservation of charge and conservation of energy and the energy loses out.  But you are right about using resonance to eliminate or minimise those losses, somehow the introduction of a capacitor in the inductive circuit (and vice versa for the capacitor circuit) resolves the clash between charge and energy.

Smudge
   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 141

Great title for a thread on your bench, I hope to contribute

--Thanks, Ion



In my statement I was referring to the steady state, not the instantaneous condition.

--I was referring to the steady state as well. I used the example of the V and L rise in an inductor as an example, which might have confused the issue.

 Also your statement about the wires leading to the coil is true, however this resistance is not normally considered in the ideal condition.

--I was speaking of something more than the inclusion of a bit of extra resistance. In this special inductor energizing circuit, the output impedance of the source changes to track the current rise, while keeping the voltage low.

In the real world those wires do subtract from efficiency,

--Yes, they do, and any good design for energy efficiency must use every trick in the book. You use low gauge coils AND whatever esoteric techniques you are imagining.

The adiabatic methods can reduce the resistive losses to near zero, even in an energy-wasteful coil. You can shape the current and voltage so thermal dissipation is reduced below what the circuit will normally have at room temperature.

The paper attached shows an excellent experiment which I think should be understood by anyone in the energy field. The story is told well on pg. 2, in fig. 3, which compares step charging of a capacitor, to simply applying a voltage to charge it. On the left you can see the step charging, and the temperature as it rises in steps, and on the right, the direct charging, where the temperature shoots up to a much higher level.
Here is direct evidence that shaping the voltage in a capacitor (or more obscurely, the current in an inductor), can reduce the heat dissipation.


which is why experimenters should strive to eliminate clip leads and plug boards with their high losses, especially when there are high currents circulating. For prototypes, I favor compact homemade breadboards with soldering of components directly to wide copper strips for efficient transfer of energy. A well designed pcb is also a good thing.

--Yes, agreed. There are many sources of ultra-efficiency. Any device that aspires to be more efficient than a good conventional model, should  be as efficient as it is, first!
The people I've enjoyed working with the most are those who are perfectionist in their work, because it is in the fine details that the overunity juice often leaks away :-)

orthofield

   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 141
Hi Smudge,

Glad you could join us!

That rise of voltage is instantaneous for a perfect switch closure.  The current at switch closure is zero.     

I disagree, at the start there is no current hence no energy.

--True at the exact start, but as voltage remains high, and I is rising, thermal losses occur in the inductor, and these are what I'm considering as something to be worked with.   

That is nonsense!  The source current is the inductor current. 

--True, I was being a bit poetic. It would be better to say that the output impedance of the source tracks the rise in current in the inductor.

 Or are you assuming there is some capacitance that is taking current away from the inductor?

--No.

  As for the potential being discarded it is most essential as its value multiplied by the current is the energy flow rate into the inductor.  If there is no potential there is no energy flow. 

--Be that as it may, it remains true that you can pick up some really big stuff with magnets that have a low voltage and high current. The Navy uses thermo-magnets that run off thermoelectric elements. The coils have only a few large turns, but develop enormous magnetic fields because of the high current from the (low-voltage) thermoelectric elements.

 If you could gain access to the junction between the L and the series R of the equivalent circuit then you could do something to make the voltage across R zero and eliminate heat losses, but you can't get that access since there is no such circuit point, the R is distributed throughout the L.

--In the paper I just posted by Heinrich, the reduction of heat losses is shown in step-charging a capacitor. The circuit is a CR circuit, and there the R of the capacitor is included in the test results, if not the text of the article. It doesn't matter where in the circuit the R is located. I'm guessing that the situation is similar with the inductor, but there is not much written about it, even though it is the electrical dual.


The concept of charging in parallel and discharging in series (or vice versa) is used with capacitors and inductors but it does not give you extra energy. 

--No, I didn't suggest it did. What it does it give you the opportunity to work at 99.9% efficiency, what I call ultra-efficiency, by reducing thermal losses.

 It can allow you to develop huge voltage or huge current which is why it has its uses.  But there is always some loss because of the clash between conservation of charge and conservation of energy and the energy loses out. 

--Yes, there is always some loss in charging a capacitor through a resistor, and it can only be fully eliminated if the capacitor was charged for an infinite amount of time. But if one charges the capacitor for 2 time constants, the losses are reduced to 1/4 rather than 1/2 of the energy, and so on. This is not very practical, but the more subtle thermodynamics shows the same result is had by shaping the input voltage into steps, or ultimately a ramp waveform.

 But you are right about using resonance to eliminate or minimise those losses, somehow the introduction of a capacitor in the inductive circuit (and vice versa for the capacitor circuit) resolves the clash between charge and energy.

--Yes, resonance is precisely the adiabatic condition. But if the system is allowed to ring for more than 1/4 cycle, taking the energy through the resistance again and again, then the waste grows back.

orthofield

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 932
@ Ortho,

Having thought about this overnight I can see where this is coming from.  The problem is that our electrical power sources are all voltage ones, supplying voltage from a low impedance source.  When used to drive an electromagnet, the steady state condition after the inductor is charged is determined by the resistance of the coil and that is all losses.  The magnetic field energy that we want to do any work is supplied during the charge-up period.  It is clearly advantageous to keep the continuous losses as low as possible by minimising R and then you need smaller voltage to sustain the current.  If you then need to minimise the losses during charge-up you want this to be fast, and one way of getting faster charge rate is to initially supply a much greater voltage than that needed to sustain the current, then gradually reduce that voltage during the charging period down to the sustain level.  I think this is what you were getting at.

If we had current sources delivering power the problem would not arise as the high impedance then creates the shortest possible L/R charging time.  The voltage would automatically start high then reduce down to the sustain level.  But such a form of power is not compatible with our infrastructure, we would need switches where the off condition is a short circuit.

Smudge
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3226
It's turtles all the way down
Regarding the Heinrich patent, it would be interesting to run again this experiment with  perhaps two changes:

1) locate the reference junction in an external ice bath or use a digital temperature measuring device with electronic reference junction compensation. (this to eliminate possible crosstalk between the hot junction and reference junction)

2) eliminate the batteries and use a programmable voltage source with finer steps or a linear ramp of the voltage source.

An alternative testing method would measure the true elapsed power dissipated by the resistor by including time of resistor heating, not just temperature rise.  Not doing this hides some of the data.

Temperature was used to provide a true thermal RMS measurement of the current spike during each step. This could be re-run using a DSO with math function to measure the true elapsed power dissipated in the resistor.

Another alternative would be to use a cheap $20 Kill A Watt  meter driving a programmable switchmode power supply to charge the capacitor. The resistor could possibly be eliminated from the circuit entirely, as the Kill A Watt meter would measure elapsed power fairly accurately for each case.

For most efficient capacitor charging a flyback converter should be used with low input duty cycle. This will allow the inductor to charge the capacitor in fine steps by acting as a nearly pure current source, efficiency limited only by the ohmic winding and ferrite losses.

Comments anyone? Smudge?
« Last Edit: 2015-02-27, 14:21:27 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3226
It's turtles all the way down
From Smudge: re series charged/parallel discharged capacitors and inductors (or vice versa)
Quote
It can allow you to develop huge voltage or huge current which is why it has its uses. 

A resonant L/C circuit can also do this and is a good area for research. The trick is to use e.g the  extremely high circulating current that can be developed n a resonant circuit without disturbing the resonance by trying to extract power from it. This kills the resonance by introducing an "R". We don't want to do that.

See e.g my experiments with ferrites on my bench. I am at a loss to explain the waveforms i.e. the high frequency hash on the waveforms.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=26.0

Here, no attempt was made to extract energy, rather the ferrites were allowed to enter saturation from the high circulating currents of the resonant circuit.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 530
Was reading this doc a few weeks ago.

Maybe it can help here.

wattsup



---------------------------
   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 141
Hi Smudge,

Having thought about this overnight I can see where this is coming from.  The problem is that our electrical power sources are all voltage ones, supplying voltage from a low impedance source.  When used to drive an electromagnet, the steady state condition after the inductor is charged is determined by the resistance of the coil and that is all losses. 

--Yes, this is true, but I am interested in reducing thermal losses within the time of the first time constant.

 The magnetic field energy that we want to do any work is supplied during the charge-up period.  It is clearly advantageous to keep the continuous losses as low as possible by minimising R and then you need smaller voltage to sustain the current.  If you then need to minimise the losses during charge-up you want this to be fast, and one way of getting faster charge rate is to initially supply a much greater voltage than that needed to sustain the current, then gradually reduce that voltage during the charging period down to the sustain level.  I think this is what you were getting at.

--Yes, quite similar. The upshot is that we can control thermal losses in the capacitor or inductor within the first time constant. I think by analogy, and this can get me in trouble sometimes, but in terms of a cap, you can reduce thermal losses to near zero within the TC by using a voltage variable source, and controlling the V so it is just above that of the cap it is charging, so current equals Vcharge-Vcap/R, and is kept low. The dual situation in an inductor is to control the through current while keeping the V low.

There is nothing in there that suggests the V should be high at any time during this process. The magnetic field will be the same at 1 TC in the controlled as in the uncontrolled situation. The issue is how fast the magnetic energy gets to that level. "fast" is a relative term, based on the resonance frequencies, or 'internal clock' of the particular usage. I've found that the perception of adiabatic systems being slow is a vague usage.

There is a bit of a design compromise between absolute efficiency and the speed of response of the system, but since 'slow' adiabatic circuits run at Mhz, and power circuits run at Hz (even an electric motor is 'just' a couple of Khz) there is no problem with using adiabatic inductive energizing-- and de-energizing-- of our power coils, stators, etc. If my analogy is correct, the magnetic field can be delivered to the inductor in one time constant or less, with very low thermal losses, by using a current ramped, and voltage suppressed circuit. This is not to say that the presence of an electric or mechanical load will not affect this process, but the absence of high voltage at the start does not automatically prevent us from using the field that results.

I grant that such circuits are 'different' from the usual inductor energizers, and our global system is not adapted to their use, but at least they should be used in our overunity machines, even if they are never adapted by the general technical public. 

As an example of the need to set the internal clock of the system in order to limit losses, take a look at the attached paper. The authors show by theory and experiment that putting a sine wave through a CR circuit that has a TC much shorter than the period of the signal TC can reduces the thermal losses, as measured by an accounting of the energy contained in the capacitor. Pg. 2 has the circuit, and the thermal losses at different frequencies relative to the CR time constant are shown at top of pg. 3. The amount that dissipation can be reduced has been a matter of controversy, but this experiment demonstrates that the dissipation reduction is not limited.


orthofield


If we had current sources delivering power the problem would not arise as the high impedance then creates the shortest possible L/R charging time.  The voltage would automatically start high then reduce down to the sustain level.  But such a form of power is not compatible with our infrastructure, we would need switches where the off condition is a short circuit.



Smudge
[/quote]
   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 141
Hi Ion,

A few points.

The experiment shown by Heinrich is a demonstration for students and he acknowledges that more detailed calorimetry could be used This results of the experiment are not in any doubt, and there is no crucial need to test it to prove it is true.  Using it, on the other hand, is a good idea.

The flyback circuit is so effective because the inductor limits the current through the capacitor to the minimum, and certainly it is good to have minimum ohmic resistance in the circuit, but loss reduction is not limited by that resistance. In charging a capacitor through a resistor, the R doesn't affect how much charge can be deposited, just how much time it takes to do it. No matter what resistance the capacitor is charged through, the energy lost is always exactly 1/2, unless voltage controlled methods are used.

Resonant circuits are wasteful if energy is allowed to circulate. Energy should be transferred to the load within 1/2 cycle for best results.

I haven't looked at your high frequency hash yet, but it sounds interesting-- always looking for evidence of noise coherence.

orthofield
 
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2488


Buy me some coffee

The flyback circuit is so effective because the inductor limits the current through the capacitor to the minimum, and certainly it is good to have minimum ohmic resistance in the circuit, but loss reduction is not limited by that resistance.
 
As strange as it would sound,i don't believe this to be true in circuits that rely on magnetic field manifestation-->and i believe this is where we may be going wrong. I have found that high resistance coils(many turns of wire) for electromagnets to be far more efficient at building a magnetic field of a certain strength than that of a low resistance coils(fewer turns). The same seems to be true with transformers-->the greater the number of turns in the turn ratio(higher resistance on both the primary and secondary),the more efficient the transformer. This all seems to go against what we believe,but my experiments shows this to be true.

I am in the process of building a transformer where primary and secondary coils can be changed with ease. This will allow me to do a comparison between high and low resistance coils,while keeping the same core.
I will post my results here when complete.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3226
It's turtles all the way down
From Tinman

Quote
I have found that high resistance coils(many turns of wire) for electromagnets to be far more efficient at building a magnetic field of a certain strength than that of a low resistance coils(fewer turns). The same seems to be true with transformers-->the greater the number of turns in the turn ratio(higher resistance on both the primary and secondary),the more efficient the transformer.

I think you are confusing resistance with strength of field. It is ampere-turns that determines the strength of a magnetic field. This is reflected in the inductance. If you compare two magnetic structures with the same number of ampere-turns, but different gauge wire, the field strength will be the same and they will have the same inductance. The higher resistance coil will be more wasteful of power.

The one with the lighter gauge wire will naturally have a higher resistance than the one with thicker wire, but everything else being equal it is the number of turns times current through the coil that determines the strength of the field (as a first order formula). Then there is the physical geometry to be considered, but this is second order.

Resistance of the coil does not appear in the formula for field strength or inductance, It does appear in the formula for overall efficiency of the coil e.g. how much applied power is converted into a magnetic field and how much is lost in heat because of resistance.

If you want very efficient coils, strive for low resistance with large number of turns or the number of turns for your desired inductance, fine wire will get you lots of resistive losses but allow more inductance in a smaller package at the price of resistive loss of applied power.

For the same size package, the coil with finer wire will win in field strength by having higher inductance over the coil wound with heavier wire, because you can't fit the same number of ampere turns into that given size with the heavier gauge.

« Last Edit: 2015-02-28, 15:57:41 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1925
@ orthofield

Try this circuit, D1 and D2 must be ultra fast diodes such as found in SM power supplies (STTH5L06FP or similar), coils L1-L4 are all the same length and wound the same way (CW) on a toroid or E core which will saturate within the frequency range you are working, latter is better.

C1 is 0.39uf polypropylene cap at 600v, C2 & C3 0.1uf polypropylene at 600v.  About 50T of 20g each for the coils, the electrolytic cap 100-220uf.

R1 is a CSR to tune to minimum current draw by adjusting frequency of square drive to the mosfet  (2khz-15khz).

L5 is primary of output transformer 1:2 will give around 200v+ and should be ferrite for the frequency.

Remember really fast diodes or will not work.

Voltage at the anode of D1 will be around 100v with V1 (battery) at 12v.

Note the connections of the coils

regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 141
Hi Centraflow,

Your circuit, and ION's, looks quite a bit like some things that I've done with others, where switched inductors or capacitors could actually cause parametric amplification of noise currents or voltages. Jean-Louis and I did something with this in 1997 or so.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tep62par.htm

The switching alone can get energy in some cases. Usually at least some of the energy is on high harmonics. I recently posted an interesting paper by Barrow on the Mandleshtam and Papaleksi forum-- which is where I got started on this very interesting subject.
I'll start another thread here about using noise for power, and I will repost the Barrow article again because I refer to it a lot.
Harold Black, the inventor of the negative feedback circuit, also showed that he could suck the noise energy out of a circuit using feedback loops and hybrid transformers.
I'd like to work with you on developing this, because of my previous interest. I can offer a lot of data support for those working with parametrics or similar things, but I'm not a builder myself, just a book pusher, by trade.

orthofield

 
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1925
Thanks for the reply

I used to build a lot, not so much now, getting old. This circuit does work, takes a bit of setting up but shows what can be done especially monitoring the current input. A company in Detroit replicated it using a simple driver for the mosfet also powered by the battery, "no gate leakage from another power source". Driving only neon's the current draw showed a negative after subtracting the drive power. Now where was the power coming from? well conjecture has it that it was "accumulated noise, to use a term, giving in the end a huge volume". :)

This maybe right or maybe it is to do with the saturation at multiple frequency points of the ferrite, something for sure was/is happening to create an output that really should not be there if no current is consummed from the battery.

An attempt was made to loop, worked for a while but killed the battery in the end, and that battery would not again take a charge!!!!

Interesting subject

regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2488


Buy me some coffee
From Tinman

I think you are confusing resistance with strength of field. It is ampere-turns that determines the strength of a magnetic field. This is reflected in the inductance. If you compare two magnetic structures with the same number of ampere-turns, but different gauge wire, the field strength will be the same and they will have the same inductance. The higher resistance coil will be more wasteful of power.

The one with the lighter gauge wire will naturally have a higher resistance than the one with thicker wire, but everything else being equal it is the number of turns times current through the coil that determines the strength of the field (as a first order formula). Then there is the physical geometry to be considered, but this is second order.

Resistance of the coil does not appear in the formula for field strength or inductance, It does appear in the formula for overall efficiency of the coil e.g. how much applied power is converted into a magnetic field and how much is lost in heat because of resistance.

If you want very efficient coils, strive for low resistance with large number of turns or the number of turns for your desired inductance, fine wire will get you lots of resistive losses but allow more inductance in a smaller package at the price of resistive loss of applied power.

For the same size package, the coil with finer wire will win in field strength by having higher inductance over the coil wound with heavier wire, because you can't fit the same number of ampere turns into that given size with the heavier gauge.


What im saying ION is that for a given size inductor/transformer, it is better to use a smaller gauge wire with more turns than it is to use a heavy gauge wire with fewer turns to create a magnetic field with the same strength-->but consuming less power.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 932
As an example of the need to set the internal clock of the system in order to limit losses, take a look at the attached paper. The authors show by theory and experiment that putting a sine wave through a CR circuit that has a TC much shorter than the period of the signal TC can reduces the thermal losses, as measured by an accounting of the energy contained in the capacitor. Pg. 2 has the circuit, and the thermal losses at different frequencies relative to the CR time constant are shown at top of pg. 3. The amount that dissipation can be reduced has been a matter of controversy, but this experiment demonstrates that the dissipation reduction is not limited.

That is for a capacitor in series with a resistor.  If there were a parallel loss resistor across the capacitor the results would be different and the opposite would be the case (i.e. you would need a sine wave that has a period much shorter than the CR time-constant).  But generally shunt leakage is not the problem with capacitors which is why they are given ESR ratings.  When transferring these results across to the inductive world I think you will find that your surmise applies to an inductor with a shunt resistor, and does not apply to the series case.  Since the inductor losses are generally of a series nature I disagree with your approach for reducing energy loss, and stick by my method of charging it quickly by overvolting.  IMO your method will produce the opposite effect.  You can get a handle on all this by considering the LF and HF impedances of the C or L.  With series R at low frequencies the L is a short circuit so all the input power (hence also energy per cycle) goes into the R, none goes into the L.  At HF the opposite is the case.  So faster is better  :) .

Smudge
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2488


Buy me some coffee
A standard transformer can be made to act in ways that seem imposable.
Take the simple setup i am experimenting with ATM. With this setup driven by my SG,i can reverse the voltage across the cap,and in turn reverse the current flow through the resistor. This happens when the secondary winding is made to ring,while the primary remains stable. Not quite sure how this can be done,as both the primary and secondary windings are on the same core-but it can be done. The LED remains on regardless of current flow direction.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1890


Buy me a cigar
Dear TinMan.

That circuit you have posted reminds me of the ignition enhancer !!

Your LED is providing a negative half cycle for the coil.

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2488


Buy me some coffee
Dear TinMan.

That circuit you have posted reminds me of the ignition enhancer !!

Your LED is providing a negative half cycle for the coil.

Cheers Grum.
Hi Grum

Yes,much like the boost boxes we use to get for the old school points ignition systems.
I have opened a thread for this setup,as it seems to do strange thing's?.The LED(diode)turns the secondary into a current loop,and also feeds current back to the source-a little more than expected apparently :o


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2283
TinMan posits:
Quote
The same seems to be true with transformers-->the greater the number of turns in the turn ratio(higher resistance on both the primary and secondary),the more efficient the transformer. This all seems to go against what we believe,but my experiments shows this to be true.

I am in the process of building a transformer where primary and secondary coils can be changed with ease. This will allow me to do a comparison between high and low resistance coils,while keeping the same core.
I will post my results here when complete.

This makes some sense to me-- when we realize that the xformer (xfr) operation depends on time-rate-of-CHANGE of the magnetic flux, rather than on the magnitude of the magnetic field.  As long as the B-flux is changing rapidly, large currents are not needed in the xfr.  (IMO)
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3226
It's turtles all the way down
http://www.electricaleasy.com/2014/04/transformer-losses-and-efficiency.html

http://www.raftabtronics.com/TECHNOLOGY/ElectromagneticBasics/TransformerBasics/tabid/110/Default.aspx

http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm

http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/transformer/transformer-basics.html

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Richard P. Feynman

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman

Methods for transformer efficiency have been worked out well over 100 years ago.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 141
Hi Centraflow,

No problem about doing building, the idea is to have ideas so interesting someone else will want to build them :-)

The negative resistance of the neon might have had something to do with getting it to work. In that case you have a sort of negative resistance parametric amplifier of noise.

orthofield

I used to build a lot, not so much now, getting old. This circuit does work, takes a bit of setting up but shows what can be done especially monitoring the current input. A company in Detroit replicated it using a simple driver for the mosfet also powered by the battery, "no gate leakage from another power source". Driving only neon's the current draw showed a negative after subtracting the drive power. Now where was the power coming from? well conjecture has it that it was "accumulated noise, to use a term, giving in the end a huge volume". :)

This maybe right or maybe it is to do with the saturation at multiple frequency points of the ferrite, something for sure was/is happening to create an output that really should not be there if no current is consummed from the battery.

An attempt was made to loop, worked for a while but killed the battery in the end, and that battery would not again take a charge!!!!

Interesting subject

regards

Mike 8)
[/quote]
   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 141
Hi Smudge,

Yes, quite right. The adiabatic paper talk about the loss due to parallel R in the capacitor case. I do see your point about the dead short across the L at low frequencies. Still, the devices that led me to think of all this in the first place do specify that the voltage is kept low through the whole process so I'm a bit confused. The attached patent talks about adiabatic process in an inductor, and shows almost the same thing as Heinrich, in fig. 4 in pg. 3 where the efficiency of the energy transfer into the huge storage inductor is improved by breaking down the process into steps.

I think the more basic issue may have to do with power vs. efficiency. I am only looking at the efficiency of storing energy in the inductor, which just as in the case of the capacitor, will reduce losses if the inductor is energized for more than a time constant. The longer the inductor is allowed to energize, that is, the closer the current comes to the maximum current, the more the losses are reduced, just as in the capacitive case. This is completely ignoring the continuous resistive loss that comes just from storing  the energy after the TC, which doesn't happen in the capacitive case.

So the actual process becomes a trade off between the R dissipation and the energy savings from energizing it for more than the TC.  There is also the issue of power delivery too, in that it may be more useful to over voltage to get more power from the inductor's action in the early interval and sacrifice some of the ultimate efficiency that comes with keeping V low through the whole process.

I'm still in a bit of a muddle, and decided that it's a lot easier to think about in terms of capacitors!

orthofield

That is for a capacitor in series with a resistor.  If there were a parallel loss resistor across the capacitor the results would be different and the opposite would be the case (i.e. you would need a sine wave that has a period much shorter than the CR time-constant).  But generally shunt leakage is not the problem with capacitors which is why they are given ESR ratings.  When transferring these results across to the inductive world I think you will find that your surmise applies to an inductor with a shunt resistor, and does not apply to the series case.  Since the inductor losses are generally of a series nature I disagree with your approach for reducing energy loss, and stick by my method of charging it quickly by overvolting.  IMO your method will produce the opposite effect.  You can get a handle on all this by considering the LF and HF impedances of the C or L.  With series R at low frequencies the L is a short circuit so all the input power (hence also energy per cycle) goes into the R, none goes into the L.  At HF the opposite is the case.  So faster is better  :) .

Smudge
[/quote]
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2018-09-24, 14:23:55