We have discussed the critically-important matter of painstaking measurements before; it is worth it's own thread here as reliable measurements are a principal goal with me and many others. And I have some particular questions based on recent observations.
Let's start with quotes from a related thread:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=764.msg12282;topicseen#msg --
A few days ago, I was able to spend some time with the Tektronix 3032 and several variations on the basic JT circuit. Measuring Pout, Pin and n as discussed above, I might summarize n values to show the spread in values obtained and recorded:
n = .81, .52,.59, .63, .52, .35, .45, .80, .13, .77, .61, .79, .88, .62, .94, .99, .92, 1.0, .69, 1.06
So yes, there were some "interesting values", though I would say the last value is still consistent with unity (given the +-3% errors as previously stated, 2 sigma).
In the process of taking measurements, I realized the importance of reviewing HOW the measurements are taken, and the importance of simulations AS A WAY OF CHECKING THE MEASUREMENT METHOD, for example where the probes are attached. Also, if there is an input of power in the circuit somewhere (and somehow) -- just how will this show up? as an increase in current at some point, or an increase in voltage along a path? I think the latter, from observations, but all this has to be checked -- and then re-checked.
I believe simulations will help in this effort of re-checking.
This issue is so important that I propose to come back to this tomorrow on another thread I'll start -- "Measuring Pin, Pout, n -- Simulations etc."
To which .99 kindly replied:
Sounds like a very good plan Professor. 
I'll help out where I can.
One thing I will suggest, is that you try the RC filter/two-DVM method for obtaining a Pin figure. I will draw up an amendment to the schematic to show exactly how to do it. This will not only provide you with another method to obtain Pin, but a way of checking your scope Pin measurements. If you do not have two DMM's (digital multi-meters), you can buy them quite cheaply. As a bonus to this method, not only is it inexpensive, accurate, and accessible (not requiring a scope channel), it allows more freedom as to where and how the Pout can be measured, because there is no longer a common ground between the two measurements, i.e. the scope grounds always limit this flexibility. The Pin measurement is essentially "floating" wrt the scope ground.
.99
I do have two DMM's and look forward to your alternative method, .99 -- very much in fact.
Meanwhile, I would like to understand results I obtained with the Tek 3032 last Friday, as attached along with the schematic for the straightforward transistor-resonator circuit (TRC). The TRC circuit discussed here is shown on the right; a standard JT circuit is shown on the left for comparison. There is one change -- a 1N4148 diode has been added at point 5 before (in series with) the LED. Here are details of the circuit (on the right):
1.46V AA battery (measured by DMM)
CSR1 = 1.1 ohms
Rb = 979 ohms
MPS2222A transistor
Capacitor (C2) = 151 pF (note: corrected to pF; measured)
Diode at point 5 = 1N4148
LED = red diode
Ferrite toroid (2 cm OD, 0.9 cm ID, 1.1 cm tall) was would bifilar with eight windings of 23 gauge enameled copper wire. Here are measured values for the two windings, using an MCP meter BR2822:
L1 (between Points 5 and 7); L2 between point 5 and capacitor C2 (feedback loop).
L1 at 120 Hz: R=0.0336 ohms, Z = 0.0614 ohms, L = 68.0 uH, C = 0.
L1 at 1 KHz: R=0.0359 ohms, Z = 0.4257 ohms, L = 67.4 uH, C = 376 uF.
L1 at 10 KHz: R=0.0631 ohms, Z = 4.27 ohms, L = 66.9 uH, C = 3.8 uF.
L2 at 120 Hz: R=0.0322 ohms, Z = 0.0699 ohms, L = 82.0 uH, C = 0.
L2 at 1 KHz: R=0.0351 ohms, Z = 0.5124 ohms, L = 81.3 uH, C = 311 uF.
L2 at 10 KHz: R=0.0666 ohms, Z = 5.08 ohms, L = 80.8 uH, C = 3.14 uF.
I invite (and would much appreciate) .99 and/or Humbugger and/or others to do a SIMULATION of this circuit, to see whether one can:
1. Replicate the observed Power In (Pin) and Power Out (Pout) waveforms, even approximately.
I used:
Mean Pin = Mean (V1*V2), given that I2 = V2 to a close approximation since CSR1 = 1.1 ohms. (which I measured afterwards; for future runs, I will look for a CSR1 closer to 1.0 ohms)
Mean Pout = Mean (V3*V2), where V3 is measured between points 5 and 3 on the labeled schematic attached.
2. Pin appears basically as "negative" because of the way V2 is measured -- I will however set the +y axis downward and refer to this as "positive power", hoping this will not be too confusing. Pout is more interesting in that it shows both "positive" and "negative" power excursions, repeatedly.
3. Spikes in the data are also seen and should be replicated in the simulation.
4. Note that I acquired Mean power values over a number of cycles, to improve the accuracy, so details in the waveform are not easily seen. But important features are seen and should be reproduced by a successful Simulation.
5. MEAN Pout comes out to be a very small value, 367 micro-V*V = 0.367 mVV, owing to the fact that the power curve Pout goes both positive and negative. Clearly, the voltage and current in this part of the circuit are frequently of OPPOSITE PHASE (OP, previously called OOP).
We can calculate efficiency n:
n = Pin/Pout = 0.367/21.57 = 0.017 = 1.7%.
Viewing the Tek taking Mean values for Pout, I see that Pout is fluctuating around ZERO, and when I hit the stop button, the value came out to 0.367 mVV (very small compared to input power) -- but it could have been zero or even of opposite sign from the input power if I had hit the stop button at a different instant.
Trouble is, the LED was glowing very brightly and I flat don't believe this result of n = 1.7%.
I would like to see what a decent simulation says about the efficiency n, and if the method used is correct (which we discussed rather thoroughly before, Mean Power instead of RMS Power, etc.) Clearly the RMS output power is much greater than the Mean output power, which latter is close to zero, and I am left wondering about the method we have developed.
There seems to be something wrong, and I hope the simulation and discussion will elucidate what is going on and how to get an accurate assessment of n for this straightforward circuit.
Author
Topic: Reliable Measurements and Simulations: Power In and Out and Efficiency n (Read 51378 times)
