PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-18, 09:44:42
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
Author Topic: Circuit sj1. Terse and Technical only.  (Read 165297 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Professor

First a little background on the single chamber test method.

The idea behind the single chamber method is that the DUT is placed into a thermal chamber with some fixed losses to ambient. A heat rise will be generated within that chamber that will eventually stabilize at some temperature above ambient.

Power input in the steady state is noted, and the test is repeated without the DUT in the chamber, except in this case we try to obtain the same rise over ambient using a resistive heater and manual adjustment of the power supply, again noting the final power input to obtain the identical heat rise over ambient.

If there is no anomalous heat gain in the DUT, similar results should be obtained, and power input should be the same. This method requires two steps and has been so named the two step method.

The dual chamber thermal method is a refinement and automation of the single chamber test method shown below. In this case the entire process is automated using a PID control algorithm to "servo" the control chamber to the same temperature rise as the DUT.

As long as the test chambers are nearly identical, with roughly the same fixed losses to ambient, we do not need to care what those fixed losses are, as we are attempting to obtain a "null" reading. We can indeed "characterize" the test chambers using fixed heaters in each to determine the limits of accuracy of the test.

Any device that we are testing will have many heat sources to consider. The thermal chamber method sums up all the heat losses, which should be equal to power input. If the final heat rise over ambient seems to be greater than power input in the control chamber, we can begin to look for a source of heat gain.

In the dual chamber method shown below, the DUT and load resistor should be placed in the chamber. Thermocouples should not be taped to the resistors, but placed at the top of the chambers. This diagram was made for a different purpose, where open air testing of load resistors was being compared, but you should get the idea.

I'm sorry if this is not clear. I have many years of experience using these methods so I tend leave a lot of holes in my explanations. Think of it as a balance scale in that that we are attempting to find the unknown quantity by comparing it to a known quantity.


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
PhysicsProf (happy traveling),

concerning the the 30 second measurement i did, here are again the figures:

Vstart  V5sec  V15sec  V30sec
 1.537  1.067   0.636   0.522   (volts)

Pstart  P5sec  P15sec  P30sec
????     12.24      6.5    3.48   (mW)


When i make a graph of these, is it not fair to extrapolate the unknown Pstart the way i did below, meaning that the purple part points to a Pstart of 18mW, which
is in line with the dual DMM measurement i did on this same circuit (18.7mW)?

If you agree, than this again means to me that the dual DMM method is accurate for DC, even with high AC/RF pollution .

Regards itsu


   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2995
Itsu,  actually I find that the higher Vin, the faster the cap drains, and the LED is brighter also.  

So you need a capacitor that will drain slowly, but not leak significantly when disconnected --  measuring over a smaller V drop on the cap.  And compare THAT Power result with the DMM measurement!

Today, I tried my own replication of the DUT and used a 10F cap to do the measurement:

Over 6.0 minutes, 2.39 to 2.34 volts => 3.2 mW  +/- due to the small V change.

Over 40 minutes, 1.661 V to 1.490 V =>  1.1 mW.

(someone check my math?)

I just report the results as I see 'em.  Rb again @ 51Kohms -- are you doing this, Itsu??

I note also that when the cap is first charged, one has to wait for it to "settle down" -- I did this.

This is a simple test IMO, to see if YOUR replication is in the same ballpark as mine.


Note: I have no opportunity to test this replication with the Tek 3032, until I return from my trip.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2995
On Terminology.

"Overunity" carries baggage, connoting energy out of nowhere, implying a violation of the laws of Physics.
 Don't believe in violating laws of physics at all, so I try to avoid the term OU -- and suggest instead "super-efficiency", meaning
n = (electrical power out) / (electrical power in) > 1.

n > 1, super-efficiency -- allowing for anomalous energy input to the device.  (And I favor "dark energy" personally -- 70% of all the mass-energy in the universe is this little-understood stuff, as I posted earlier.)

I avoid "COP" in favor of "n" -- same reason, baggage carried with the term COP >1 going with violating laws of physics.

And finally, I avoid "free energy" because it also connotes now energy out of nowhere (google it).  
IMHO, something like Novel Electrodynamic Energy ( or simply, novel energy) would be a much better term.
All, IMHO.


Of course, we have to prove a device exists with n>1 before this is really useful!  ;)

TERMinology in a nascent field of science is critically important.
« Last Edit: 2011-06-02, 01:50:03 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Guest
I went shopping today for a 3 Ohm Potentiometer, but only got lucky with a 25 Ohm Rheostat (took it anyway).  Did some quick calculation and realized how important/crucial it is to find correct POT for precision tuning.  Let's say you need to tune your POT to +/- .1 Ohm to get what you want.  Let's also say that an average person can touch a pot and tuned it 1/50 of the whole turn.

Having a 3 Ohm pot will give 3/50 = .06 or +/- .03 Ohm
.1/.03 = 3.3 or 330% accuracy. 
However, having a 25 Ohm pot will give 330/8.3 = 39% accuracy! (since 25Ohm / 3Ohm = 8.3).  Before I used a 5K pot to tune it, so the precision is 330/1666 = .19% accuracy!  That means if I touch it 500 times, I should get it right. lol 

I realized this is crucial because during my calculation I came up with a tuning characterized by L/i where L is the coil inductance and i is the input current.  If the coil is 250 microH and I have a 25 Ohm POT with 1.5V input.  The current I can play with is 1.5/25 = .06 amps .   .06/ 250 micro = 240 .  It means for each unit of current I adjust, the sensitivity is 240 times.  By having a 3 Ohm POT, the sensitivity can be reduced to 30.  Sorry if you understand this already, just my share for those who in the same boat.

My 1/50 dollar. 
   
Group: Guest
Hi Professor,

I'm just curious: have you ever successfully replicated it yourself? XN says that OU is simply not duplicable because it was an extreme coincidence. Therefore, I wonder if you could replicate it by yourself, having two independent sets of components assembled that show similar results?

lanenal
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3870


Buy me some coffee
GibbsH

You could put a resistor in parallel with the rheostat to bring it's resistive range down
   
Group: Guest
GibbsH

You could put a resistor in parallel with the rheostat to bring it's resistive range down

Oh nice.  Thank you for your expertise Peterae.

Rtotal = RtuneRparallel / (Rtune + R parallel) .  Good tune!

GH
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2995
Thanks @all for comments.

Hi Professor,

I'm just curious: have you ever successfully replicated it yourself? XN says that OU is simply not duplicable because it was an extreme coincidence. Therefore, I wonder if you could replicate it by yourself, having two independent sets of components assembled that show similar results?

lanenal

Yes, I have built my own replication, and as noted above:

Quote
Today, I tried my own replication of the DUT and used a 10F cap to do the measurement:
...

Over 40 minutes, 1.661 V to 1.490 V =>  1.1 mW.
...

This is a simple test IMO, to see if YOUR replication is in the same ballpark as mine.


Note: I have no opportunity to test this replication with the Tek 3032, until I return from my trip.

XN may be correct, don't know yet.
My first test showed Pin of only 0.23 mW as I noted earlier, using the cap and stopwatch method.
I think this rather simple test of Pin allows a first test, to check out other builds, to see whether they are in the same ballpark.


   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2995
laneal -- was it you who had the information/specs on the 1"OD, 0.5"ID, 7/16" high, electronic goldmine G6683 toroid that I used? 
Can you give what information you have on this toroid? 
Thanks -- soon to hit the road again!  sorry no computer contact for a while.
   
Group: Guest
Oh nice.  Thank you for your expertise Peterae.

Rtotal = RtuneRparallel / (Rtune + R parallel) .  Good tune!

GH

Please be aware that connecting an external resistor to the outside terminals of a potentiometer or rheostat does not do exactly what folks may think. The variable resistance will not change as expected.
On larger variable resistance values this can be a real problem.

PhysicsProf,

About concerns of not seeing EM energy using calorimetry....  You can enclose the DUT within a small, double layer Faraday cage (with no electrical connection to the outside or between layers). The purpose is to provide an opportunity for EM energy to be converted to heat for measurement. Double-layer because the second layer minimizes capacitive coupling to the measurement container.

 
« Last Edit: 2011-06-03, 03:30:15 by WaveWatcher »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102

Hi all,

i replicated this circuit as close to the original as possible now, and made again some measurements.
The diagram is as can be seen below, and the video is to be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJttV_kzTFY

My input current measured with the dual DDM method is:
 with Rb=50K is 2.2mA, and with a Vbat=1.31V this gives a Pin of 2.52mW
 with Rb=100K is 1mA,  and with a Vbat=1.31V this gives a Pin of 1.31mW

Using the Cap bank (40mF) as source, the 30sec calculations gives Pin of 0.66mW, but when calculating after 20sec, this gives a Pin of 0.79mW.

I guess this should give both the same Pin, right? Or does the depletion of the voltage across the caps influences the current being drawn?

If so, then this cap math method is only accurate when very little current is drawn, and the voltage keeps kind of stable over the 30s period.

My feeling says, and experiments show, that the dual DDM method is more reliable in this circuit.

I will now concentrate on the output power, but still have not found a reliable method for measuring that.

User TinselKoala proposed to calibrate the used led with a phototransistor or so, and a known current or voltage source, and then measure the led output again with this phototx in this circuit.

But as can be seen, this (red) led hardly is lit, so i don't think this will work, but i will see what i can do.


Regards Itsu

   
Group: Guest
Hi all,

i replicated this circuit as close to the original as possible now, and made again some measurements.
The diagram is as can be seen below, and the video is to be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJttV_kzTFY

My input current measured with the dual DDM method is:
 with Rb=50K is 2.2mA, and with a Vbat=1.31V this gives a Pin of 2.52mW
 with Rb=100K is 1mA,  and with a Vbat=1.31V this gives a Pin of 1.31mW

Using the Cap bank (40mF) as source, the 30sec calculations gives Pin of 0.66mW, but when calculating after 20sec, this gives a Pin of 0.79mW.

I guess this should give both the same Pin, right? Or does the depletion of the voltage across the caps influences the current being drawn?

If so, then this cap math method is only accurate when very little current is drawn, and the voltage keeps kind of stable over the 30s period.

My feeling says, and experiments show, that the dual DDM method is more reliable in this circuit.

I will now concentrate on the output power, but still have not found a reliable method for measuring that.

User TinselKoala proposed to calibrate the used led with a phototransistor or so, and a known current or voltage source, and then measure the led output again with this phototx in this circuit.

But as can be seen, this (red) led hardly is lit, so i don't think this will work, but i will see what i can do.


Regards Itsu



Hi Itsu,

Giving the about the same current draws between the Caps and Battery, the result should be similar between the 2 methods.  I know the voltage drop a bit in the cap but that should not change the result by a factor of 2-3 in my opinion.

I think the observation of more power in higher voltage Cap is this:

q=CV , dq = CdV  .  I think the circuit draw about the same current at high and low voltage, that means dq = dV for both cases.  But this, say at 10-9V , the energy is 100-81=19, at say 5-4V, the energy is 25-16 = 9 . 


WaveWatcher,
Thanks
   
Group: Guest
laneal -- was it you who had the information/specs on the 1"OD, 0.5"ID, 7/16" high, electronic goldmine G6683 toroid that I used? 
Can you give what information you have on this toroid? 
Thanks -- soon to hit the road again!  sorry no computer contact for a while.

Here is what I have got from their catalog
(http://www.goldmine-elec.com/pdf/243_pgs30-37.pdf):

These are prime ferrite cores made by Nippon Ferrite LTD. Size  is 1”
outer diameter x 5/16” thick with an inside diameter of 1/2”
G6683           5 / $ 1 . 0 0

In the other post I also have its Al Value, which is 10,000 (nH/t^2).
That means, if you had T turns on the toroid, you are supposed to
get about 10,000 X T^2 nH of inductance.

For example, when you got 9 turns on it, you are supposed to get
10,000 X 81 nH = 810uH of inductance. But what you get is not
that high (around 90uH as you said), that's probably because you
are using wires with thick encapsulation, causing good amount of
leaking. If you use magnetic wire, the inductance will be much closer.

lanenal
   
Group: Guest
Thanks @all for comments.

Yes, I have built my own replication, and as noted above:

Note: I have no opportunity to test this replication with the Tek 3032, until I return from my trip.


Thanks for the confirmation. Hopefully I can manage to make some progress by then.

lanenal
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102

Ok Gibbs,  thanks for your insights.

So the very second the cap voltage is decreasing, the energy in the system is decreased, and therefor the current drawn (and input power) is decreased.

So for this Cap math method to be accurate, one should take regular voltage measurements say like every 2 seconds, put that in a graph, and then extrapolate the unknown starting power (Pin) like i did in my post #101

Is that fair to say?


Regards Itsu
   
Group: Guest
Ok Gibbs,  thanks for your insights.

So the very second the cap voltage is decreasing, the energy in the system is decreased, and therefor the current drawn (and input power) is decreased.

So for this Cap math method to be accurate, one should take regular voltage measurements say like every 2 seconds, put that in a graph, and then extrapolate the unknown starting power (Pin) like i did in my post #101

Is that fair to say?


Regards Itsu

Well, the first test you did with the graph showing exponential decay in voltage suggested that the voltage and current decreased over time.  I think if you tuned your circuit good and have a large cap like the second test, voltage should drop linear (implies same current draw).  During your test, did you observed current drop?  Like 2 mA to 1ma ?  What I was saying is the cap voltage decrease, the energy decrease, the current is the same. 

I also think that you did accurately measured input for both methods, but with a factor of 2-3 off like that.  One method is wrong.

PS: are you the one that paint a dog biting a man's hand on youtube?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote
Well, the first test you did with the graph showing exponential decay in voltage suggested that the voltage and current decreased over time.  I think if you tuned your circuit good and have a large cap like the second test, voltage should drop linear (implies same current draw).  During your test, did you observed current drop?  Like 2 mA to 1ma ?  What I was saying is the cap voltage decrease, the energy decrease, the current is the same.

I also think that you did accurately measured input for both methods, but with a factor of 2-3 off like that.  One method is wrong.

PS: are you the one that paint a dog biting a man's hand on youtube?


Ok, Gibbs,

i do see also the current drop in a similar way as the voltage, see this video at the 11:08 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7x2Y0gdXWQ
where i just hooked up the circuit to the Cap bank

11:08   V = 1.314V and decreasing fast
        i = 11.3mA and decreasing fast.

So my money still is on the dual DDM method for most accurate input method.

And no, i am not the one that painted the dog biting a man's hand.


Regards Itsu
   
Group: Guest

Ok, Gibbs,

i do see also the current drop in a similar way as the voltage, see this video at the 11:08 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7x2Y0gdXWQ
where i just hooked up the circuit to the Cap bank

11:08   V = 1.314V and decreasing fast
        i = 11.3mA and decreasing fast.

So my money still is on the dual DDM method for most accurate input method.

And no, i am not the one that painted the dog biting a man's hand.


Regards Itsu


I see that the circuit draw down the Cap bank quickly.  I also see that for the first 5 seconds, the power is the same as the dual DMM method.  So at least there is an agreement on both methods.  But your tuned circuit does not agree.  I see if you use 5 seconds on your tuned circuit, the power is still low (if 30 seconds gives .66mW, 20 sec gives .79mW, then 5 second would be around 1mW).  1mW is still lower than dual meter method, not sure what Rb is when you do this.  So we should investigate why both methods agree on low efficient circuit and disagree on high efficient circuit.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2995
I see that the circuit draw down the Cap bank quickly.  I also see that for the first 5 seconds, the power is the same as the dual DMM method.  So at least there is an agreement on both methods.  But your tuned circuit does not agree.  I see if you use 5 seconds on your tuned circuit, the power is still low (if 30 seconds gives .66mW, 20 sec gives .79mW, then 5 second would be around 1mW).  1mW is still lower than dual meter method, not sure what Rb is when you do this.  So we should investigate why both methods agree on low efficient circuit and disagree on high efficient circuit.

You make an important point, Gibbs:  "So we should investigate why both methods agree on low efficient circuit and disagree on high efficient circuit."
Still traveling, home late tonight if all goes well.  Then back to research on this circuit tomorrow.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2995
 I'm back from the trip to California where I spoke to colleagues.  A brief summary of where we stand on the blocking oscillator OU? device seems in order.

1.  After months of development and learning, the initial device was tested by me using a Tektronix 3032 scope to measure  I(t) as voltage drop across a 1-ohm resistor and V(t) and the instantaneous Power was displayed as the product:  P(t) = V(t) * I(t).  Then the Tek3032 was used to calculate the MEAN power from this waveform, over numerous cycles.  Finally, I calculated n = Poutput / Pinput and found n ~ 8 for this circuit, by this method.
My early measurements involved hand-integration of the energy of the power waveforms for Pin and Pout, P(t) = V(t) * I(t), for one cycle, and these integrations yielding Ein and Eout also showed n>1 (back in the Feb-March 2011 time frame).

2.  The same procedure using the Tek3032 was followed for an "exact-as-possible" replication of the circuit by Les Kraut, which showed again n ~ 8.  At this point, I noted that we had "evidence for" (NOT "proof of") OU and shared the straightforward circuit design publicly, inviting any who wanted to test/develop the circuit to do so.  It was the success of the replication and pushing by Sterling Allan that induced me to release the development publicly -- to those willing to build and test the device.  I am a strong supporter of open source development of alternate-energy devices.

3.  In both cases, mine and Les', the input power was tuned (using especially the variable resistors in the circuit) to be close to zero.

4.  The low value of the input power  was checked using the input-capacitor + stop-watch method, Ein = 1/2 CV**2 and Pin = Ein /time, and the values came out:  0.23 mW for my initial circuit and 1.1 mW for Les Kraut's replication, with the output LED dimly but visibly lit in both cases.

5.  I urged replicators to assure that the Pinput was in this low range with the output LED lit, as a first test of whether the replication was in the same ballpark as our DUT's.

6.  Chris built a replication then several versions, measuring n>1 but by a different method which was challenged...  Chris found that sometimes the circuit would stop producing n>1 (by his measurement), and he worked on the stability of the circuit.  He is attempting to build a self-running version as am I.

7.  A few others built or are building replications, but again the power-measurement is a difficult issue, especially for the output power.  

8.  We discussed various power or energy measurement methods to check/complement the math-mean method using an advanced scope to evaluate power, including use of capacitors and use of a calorimeter.  But the self-running system would be the most compelling (in my opinion and that of others).

9.   It was noted that Russian work shows an apparently similar long-running blocking-oscillator circuit, again all solid state, but the Russian is hard to read and how long it runs is not yet understood.

Thanks for this link too and if you happen to figure out info on the runtime, please mention it here.

Gyula

Agreed -- again the link to the Russian blocking oscillator is here:  http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/vladimir_pantiuhov/   I have been to Russia for conferences on fusion energy a couple of times, but I do not read enough Russian to be of help in understanding Pantiuhov's work.  If someone could post the "best" schematic from this Russian research, it would be appreciated.

10.  As for myself, I'm planning to work on the circuit using first the method of capacitor-in and output-capacitors -- in order to better understand energy-flow in this circuit.  Then I will proceed with an effort to build a self-runner.  This may take several days or even weeks -- patience requested.

(Posted also at OU.com, where Chris has posted his development of this circuit, along with others.)
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3213
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Thanks for the summary Professor.

:)

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Professor,

Glad you are back to work. This is a good summary!

I'd like to propose a self-runner schematic, which is quite simple and direct I think. Instead of a bifiler toroid, here we will need a tri-filer toroid. A big Cap Cs is used to collect the output and power the circuit (a Zener's Diode is used to keep it from running away -- this is possible when n is big enough). The battery should be switched off when the Cap is fully charged. The breakdown voltage of diode Z should be a little higher than the battery voltage.

lanenal
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
I have been testing these types of circuit for a couple of years now.
The closest I ever did come to COP=1 (circuit was COP<1) is the
attached mosfet version. However, I did find that the circuit was an
excellent light dimmer for 12 Volt light bulbs. The circuit itself do
not heat up and all the input energy goes to the light bulb.

GL.
   
Group: Guest
Here is a simulation of the self-run circuit. Of course, it did not turn off the battery. Just a proof of concept.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-18, 09:44:42