PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-11-18, 15:56:40
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Pulsed Saturating Oscillator  (Read 741 times)
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
This is a subject about some oscillator designs I developed years ago and basically viewed them as a novelty however, they may find application in the TPU as current pulse sources.  I've attached two papers below disclosing some variations of the circuitry.

What can be somewhat confusing at first viewing of the circuit waveforms is that we tend to think of saturation occurring during the flat topped portion of a waveform such as in audio amplifier overdrive, mosfet avalanche, flux saturation, etc.  With these devices however, saturation occurs during the output voltage transition and not at the output voltage flat top.

Anyway, many ideas have been tossed about concerning the center toroids in SM's TPUs and so here is another idea that I will throw into the mix.

Pm     
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
This is an up-to-date test with results on a basic single ended PSO.

The schematic is attached which gives the circuit details plus the scope connections.  What is notable is that the device yields an apparent gain.

Scope pix ..Input shows the input measurements of primary current to be 231.5ma rms and the input power of 1.891 watts for a period of 167.8us.  The input energy is 1.891 x 167.8e-6 = 317uJ and the primary coil loss energy is .2315^2 x 5.61 x 167.8e-6 = 50uJ.

Scope pix ..Output shows the measurements of the secondary output current of 439ma rms, the peak of the positive flux as indicated in the Math channel of 564.4mVs which equals .5644 Tesla, and the peak positive and negative voltages on the .0464ufd capacitor C1.  The secondary coil loss is .439^2 x 4.4 x 167.8e-6 = 142uJ.  The energy loss in C1 is (227.5^2 - 210.6^2) x (.0464e-6/2) = 172uJ.  The core loss is calculated with Magnetic's best fit equations for power loss in ferrites at 80 degrees C and is found at-    https://goo.gl/xD3tqG   

The result is a loss of 351mw/cc so the core loss is .351 x 1.91 = 671mw peak ~474mw rms.  The energy loss therefore is .474 x 167.8e-6 = 80uJ.

Scope pix ..Output2 is a confirmation of the peak flux density using E x t / Ae x Nt = (179.8 x 41e-6)/(.403e-4 x 340) = .538T .

Adding the energy losses amounts to 50uJ + 142uJ + 172uJ + 80uJ = 444uJ.  The apparent gain or COP = 444e-6/317e-6 = 1.4.

Comments....?

Pm



   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
While investigating the possible source(s) of the apparent excess energy in the PSO shown in the previous post, I realized that I was taking some losses twice.  For example, the differential voltage across C1 and the resultant energy loss is created by the current thru the dc resistance of the secondary plus the core loss during that particular cycle period.  When all is correctly accounted for, there appears to be a slight gain however, this is probably due to error in calculating the core loss IMO.  So, the device appears to operate as an extremely efficient device at best.

Pm 
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 263
Pictures of actual device ?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 529
@partzman

What is D1 doing there?

Here is my rendition and how guys need to play their devices. Think of it like finding the best slinky toy swing action you can produce with your hands but only with your right hand moving up and down to keep it going steady. Just be careful and be smart. Maybe use only a 9v battery or two in series. Or a small 12v battery that you could then keep connected to measure battery draw (or charge - hic hic hic).

The main idea is to think off the grid, start her up and listen for the purrrr. Vary frequency. Do it again. Vary width. Do it again and at one frequency and width it has to run. But be careful not to touch live wires. The more inductance the more inrush and hence the more flyback the higher the voltage.

OU or COP over 1 does not have to only occur from the secondary. Before that happens the primary must be running lean and returning everything it can to source, so by itself the primary on a core or air core, just alone should be able to become self running and any output on the secondary or off the bridge should be free. You wind a coil and actually play with only half of it when single pulsed. You can play with both halves of a coil with an H-bride but that is more complicated.

It's a starting point.

All the best.

wattsup


---------------------------
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
Pictures of actual device ?

Forest,

Here is a pix of the core assembly used in the test.  The primary is the black bobbin and both can slide on the core to vary the coupling or leakage inductance.

Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
@partzman

What is D1 doing there?

D1 prevents the primary from conducting current thru the substrate diode of M1 during negative half cycles on the secondary due to the secondary to primary leakage inductance.  If D1 is removed, the saturating oscillator ceases to function.
 
Quote
Here is my rendition and how guys need to play their devices. Think of it like finding the best slinky toy swing action you can produce with your hands but only with your right hand moving up and down to keep it going steady. Just be careful and be smart. Maybe use only a 9v battery or two in series. Or a small 12v battery that you could then keep connected to measure battery draw (or charge - hic hic hic).

The main idea is to think off the grid, start her up and listen for the purrrr. Vary frequency. Do it again. Vary width. Do it again and at one frequency and width it has to run. But be careful not to touch live wires. The more inductance the more inrush and hence the more flyback the higher the voltage.

OU or COP over 1 does not have to only occur from the secondary. Before that happens the primary must be running lean and returning everything it can to source, so by itself the primary on a core or air core, just alone should be able to become self running and any output on the secondary or off the bridge should be free. You wind a coil and actually play with only half of it when single pulsed. You can play with both halves of a coil with an H-bride but that is more complicated.

It's a starting point.

All the best.

wattsup

I am not familiar with your Half Coil Syndrome so I'll need to look at your research to get up to speed.  Thanks for the suggested schematic changes and I'll run some experiments after more investigation.

Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
I had to ask myself if there was any potential for the PSO regarding OU and I concluded that surely there must be with the large parametric change in core permeability.  So, this is a first attempt to tap that part of the device.

The pix of the core arrangement below shows that an additional coil S2 and core piece have been added to the output end of the original transformer thus allowing the permeability change in the original P1/S1 core to be seen by secondary S2 and it's core. 

Referring to the attached schematic, the idea is to supply S2 with current from Vss via M2 during the rising voltage on C1 when the H field and flux is increasing but not yet at maximum.  Ideally, it would be best to ramp the current in S2 during the time when the core permeability is at it's maximum but I've not been able to manage that at this point in time.  When the S1 current along with the core flux has increased as compared to the start of the M2 turn on,  M2 is turned off when the permeability of S2 has considerably reduced thus supplying a current to Vss that would be larger than S2's input current.  The current from the collapsing field of S2 is stored in C2 and then dumped back into S2 and VSS.  This is a result of that testing.

PSOb Input scope pix shows the input to the primary of P1 only and although S2 is connected and operating, it's energy will be calculated below.  The input energy is 2.435 x 166.7e-6 = 406uJ.

PSOb Output scope pix shows the S2 waveforms, the P1/S1 rms core flux, plus the min and max voltages of C1.  Note that the resultant mean current of S2 is -34.41ma.  This results in a returned energy to Vss of .03441 x 20 x 166.7e-6 = 115uJ. 

Any energy loss in C1 represents all circuit and core losses including the energy in S2.  Due to phasing, all the input energy is used to replenish C1 at the beginning of each cycle.  So, we see that the energy loss in C1 is (241.9^2-202.8^2) x .0464e-6/2 = 403uJ.  Note how close this is to the input energy which IMO indicates considerable interaction in the circuitry.

Using the above info to calculate the apparent COP we have (115e-6+403e-6)/406e-6 = 1.28.

Now IMO it is interesting to study an expanded view of the S2 function which is seen in the last two scope pix.  The 1st pix allows us to see the local input energy to S2 and the resultant stored energy in C2 for the collapse of S2.  The input energy is .5056 x 20 x 14.08us = 142uJ.   The stored energy in C2 is 207.5^2 x .0149e-6/2 = 321uJ! ???   

The 2nd pix shows us that the negative energy returned to Vss is .5797 x 20 x 20.68e-6 = 240uJ.  Thus the energy gain in S2 is 240e-6/142e-6 = 1.69.   Note that the energy stored in C2 is not utilized very efficiently.

Pm

     
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 263
You don't have coils at 90 degrees to each other . It should work like magamp or with coils not seeing each other in case of single core.
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
You don't have coils at 90 degrees to each other . It should work like magamp or with coils not seeing each other in case of single core.

In my bench tests with cross coupled coils I have only seen conservative results but I'm open to any suggestions and ideas. 

My Vari-Perm design is an example of a single core topology with really good isolation between the control and power windings but it also is conservative at this point in time.  IOW, it appears that generally more energy is required to create a core permeability change than the energy gained from that change.

The PSO as a unique topology does seem to offer potential due to it's wide permeability swing that is controllable.

Thanks for your comments.

Pm
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3036
It's turtles all the way down
As always, I follow your work with great interest.  O0

 Small suggestion: Maybe put the whole device into a small styrofoam container so that all losses are captured as heat. Then compare to a resistor in the container with the same power input.

I'll give you a call soon.

Regards


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
As always, I follow your work with great interest.  O0

 Small suggestion: Maybe put the whole device into a small styrofoam container so that all losses are captured as heat. Then compare to a resistor in the container with the same power input.

I'll give you a call soon.

Regards

ION,

OK, I'm in the process of running your recommended test.  I first had to fabricate a hi-tech calorimetric chamber  ;) using multiple styrofoam cups which seems to work rather well.  Will post the results when finished.

Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
ION,

Per your suggestion, here are the results of my initial calorimetric tests on a PSO previously tested but operated at a lower frequency to establish a constant 1.00 watt input draw.  This is then compared to 4 paralled 100 ohm Caddock precision resistors in TO-220 packages for a resultant 25 ohm load that is precisely operated at 1.00 watt input.

The power supply used is a Rigol DP832 with the hi-res option and the power levels were monitored on the supply's display.

The pix below show the "chamber" which is made up of 3 stacked styrofoam cups for the top half and 2 stacked cups for the bottom half.  Maybe not the best but I had recently cleaned up the shop and pitched all my scrap pieces of styrofoam so perhaps a thicker chamber is in order.  A lead weight is placed on top of the assembly to tightly position the parts and the wire and thermocouple leadouts can be seen as well.  Basically both tests reached stability in ~1 hour of operation.  In order to maintain a constant 1.00 watt input, the PSO required an increase in operating frequency over time due to the increase in resistance of the copper windings as the temperature increased and is noted.

Here are the results-

PSO start frequency was 5.00kHz and the ending was 5.63kHz.  The stabilized chamber temp was 153 degrees F at the end of test with the ambient at 78.8 degrees and the outside styrofoam case temp at 85.4 degrees F.

The 25 ohm was driven at 5.031 vdc  for the entire time period resulting in a stabilized chamber temp of 148 degrees F with the ambient at 80.0 degrees and the outside styrofoam case temp at 86.3 degrees F.

The ambient and case temps were measured with an IR gun and for the chamber measurements I used a Yokogawa 2455 digital thermometer with thermocouple (?).

Pm
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1074
Nicely done.

I would recommend doing (at least) two things further:

First, do a number of runs, so that proper statistics can be done (to answer the question of whether your results are actually statistically significantly different). Say 8 or ten runs of both the PSO and the control resistors. This should control for the effect of errors due to random variables. Once means and standard deviations are calculated, then a t-test can be performed on the aggregate results.
Second, use some other power measuring instrument besides (in addition to) the Rigol power supply to determine the exact power applied to the PSO while oscillating, and to the control resistors during the DC feed. This is necessary to avoid some systemic error that may be introduced by inaccuracies in the Rigol PSU's reported measurements.

It would also be informative to run both experimental and control systems for exactly the same amount of time, and determine the actual _energy_ in Joules applied to each system. One might even want to graph applied Joules against chamber temperature for each system.



---------------------------
"The easiest person to fool is yourself" -- Richard Feynman
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
Nicely done.

I would recommend doing (at least) two things further:

First, do a number of runs, so that proper statistics can be done (to answer the question of whether your results are actually statistically significantly different). Say 8 or ten runs of both the PSO and the control resistors. This should control for the effect of errors due to random variables. Once means and standard deviations are calculated, then a t-test can be performed on the aggregate results.
Second, use some other power measuring instrument besides (in addition to) the Rigol power supply to determine the exact power applied to the PSO while oscillating, and to the control resistors during the DC feed. This is necessary to avoid some systemic error that may be introduced by inaccuracies in the Rigol PSU's reported measurements.

It would also be informative to run both experimental and control systems for exactly the same amount of time, and determine the actual _energy_ in Joules applied to each system. One might even want to graph applied Joules against chamber temperature for each system.

Thanks TK.

I'm in the process of constructing a better chamber out of sheet foam as I figure that there is some thermal loss with the simple cup arrangement that could be improved upon.  IMO, since the first test indicated a gain, a better chamber would improve any temp differential.

As you suggest, I will add additional instrumentation to measure the input power and I also find that the Yokogama temp meter has increased resolution.  It had been so long since I last used it I forgot it was auto ranging!

Running a number of tests is no problem except for the time involved but I presently have no data logger to capture the overall energy consumption over time,  I might be able to come up with something we'll see.

Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
Here are some test results using a new foam chamber.  Not exactly what I expected!

I used a Voltech PM3000 for measuring the electrical parameters and it does include an integrator for W-hr, VA-hr, etc,  but this data was not recorded for both tests so is not given.

Two tests were run and that is all I plan to do at this point due to the results of the testing.

Test #1 resulted in the PSO reaching 153.0 degF at 1.005w (amb=81.5 degF) and the 25 ohm resistor reaching 158.3 degF at 1.003w (amb=81.5 degF) after 2 hours run time.

Test #2 resulted in the PSO reaching 152.3 degF at 1.005w (amb=80.3 degF) and the 25 ohm resistor reaching 154.4 degF at 1.002w (amb=78.2 degF) after two hours run time.

So, IMO the PSO in itself does not produce any excess energy as these tests indicate.

Pm
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1178
Your work is appreciated Partzman.  It would seem
to support the reality that "Overunity" is an
uncommon event.  Deepens the mystery.


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   
Group: Moderator
Sr. Member
*****

Posts: 385
Your work is appreciated Partzman.  It would seem
to support the reality that "Overunity" is an
uncommon event.  Deepens the mystery.

Thanks muD!  I'm slowing coming to the conclusion that searching for OU in the areas I focus on anyway, may require a careful look for even the slightest of gains.  Sometimes we (I) pursue the more outstanding claims of high COPs and then face discouragement when no success is found.  I honestly sometimes wonder if OU is even possible :-\ !

Pm
   
Pages: [1]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-11-18, 15:56:40