PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-09-24, 20:14:35
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Hubbard Coil  (Read 38130 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3056
It's turtles all the way down
I read the Jensen UDT paper. While well written, there is always a chance of measurement errors.

One fairly foolproof "proof of concept", especially where a COP>1 is claimed would be to put the entire device including the load resistor in a styrofoam box and after stabilizing, take the temperature (rise above ambient) at the inside top of the box.

Now repeat the same test with an equivalent circuit (one that has the same power factor and draws the same real power) or just use a resistor with the same real power input.

This will allow a thermal tally that includes all losses of the DUT. It is a comparative method that can be used to test just about any claimed OU device, once properly set up.

I call this the "fixed loss to ambient method" and have discussed it further on my bench, including an automated dual chamber test setup.


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

Posts: 160
Hi Ion,

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with calorimetric methods. That researcher did work with me using pretty solid thermal methods to measure eddy current heaters and cold fusion cells. The UDT test would have gone thermal, if funding hadn't run out.
 
orthofield
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 116
Hi Ion,

Yes, I am somewhat familiar with calorimetric methods. That researcher did work with me using pretty solid thermal methods to measure eddy current heaters and cold fusion cells. The UDT test would have gone thermal, if funding hadn't run out.
 
orthofield

Good day orthofield
Read the UDT papers.... regarding your experience with the UDT technology,  do you speculate that the core material can be substituted for ferrite or powered iron type material? I assume that 60hz was the chosen frequency because of it's use with AC grid power in North America and because the laminated Si steel plates that were modified came from an AC xfrmr.
I ask because it would be quicker to modify some of my ferrites to do tests (not w/ grid power).
I remember seeing something resembling this configuration in one of Patrick Kelly's pdfs.
take care, peace
lost_bro
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 116
Good day all:
OK, found an old file that I had on the hard drive for a number of years......
Specifically mentions the Hubbard coil and shows an alternative model with toroids.
Maybe I need to try this.
take care, peace
lost_bro


   
Full Member
***

Posts: 160
Hi lost_bro

At the time, I was working with the guy who came up with this toroidal power amplifier, and he wasn't able to get any OU results with it. It does not use the "lenz utilization" principle that Matt talks about, which is key.
He is no longer working on it.

That guy also worked with me on testing the FNT, and he was the one who found COP around 19 when run at resonance, although I think that number is considerably too high.

As to the Jensen UDT, if you go up a couple of letters, I showed two files for a ferrite/metglas version of the UDT I called the flux null transformer. You definitely could do something with ferrite E and I core, but as I recall, Jensen himself said it would work better at higher frequencies. That is because of the gap: magnetic energy stored in the gap can be recovered better at higher frequencies by running at resonance, as I did with the FNT.

If you're interested, let me know what you have in terms of cores, and maybe we can come up with something using what you have.

orthocoil

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 337
Good day all:
OK, found an old file that I had on the hard drive for a number of years......
Specifically mentions the Hubbard coil and shows an alternative model with toroids.
Maybe I need to try this.
take care, peace
lost_bro




lost_bro,

On page 2 in your posted document, it states that the inductance in winding 1 will increase when you short
winding 2, thus adding more core to winding 1. This is not what I see when I test this setup. I see a drop
in inductance in winding 1 when I short winding 2.

GL.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 116
lost_bro,

On page 2 in your posted document, it states that the inductance in winding 1 will increase when you short
winding 2, thus adding more core to winding 1. This is not what I see when I test this setup. I see a drop
in inductance in winding 1 when I short winding 2.

GL.

Hello GL
Yes, you are correct.
please see attached photos....
Apparently the inductance is reduced to about 30% of original non-shorted inductance.
Can't win them all......
take care, peace
lost_bro
   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-09-24, 20:14:35