PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Benches > Itsu (Moderator: Itsu) > Itsu's workbench / placeholder.
2024-05-03, 11:50:54
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39
Author Topic: Itsu's workbench / placeholder.  (Read 107739 times)
Topic Options img
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #825 on: 2022-02-23, 20:49:34 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-02-23, 17:10:35
Good point, Itsu! In the simulation, the oscillation cannot come from the intrinsic capacitance of the coil because by default C=0 and I did not change this value.

But you are right, the frequency is much higher than what we would expect with 10µF, I should have seen it.  >:(

I thought it could be a question of the diode's capacitance because I used a real diode (1N5179). So I just redid the simulation with an ideal diode: no oscillation (see attached picture).

I added a 70 pF capacitor (value found in a datasheet of the 1N5819) in parallel on the perfect diode, and bingo, the oscillations came back!

But removing the capacitor from the perfect diode and putting it in parallel with the coil, the oscillation also occurs. It is therefore the set of parasitic capacitances around the inductance that contribute to the oscillation.

So I was wrong to attribute the oscillation to the pure LC circuit and Jagau is right but not 100% because of the forgotten capacitance of the diode which is also the cause of the oscillation.


I think you're right, and that it was Chris' sometimes unserious comments in his video that made me think that Jagau, who I thought was the same person, was not completely reliable. So don't be influenced by appearances...   :(


Good idea to use a perfect diode instead of the 1N5819 to show it is this diode capacitance that is causing the ringing.

I always try to use real world components from the LTSpice database to build my sim circuits just to avoid these "perfect" components errors.

Itsu
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #826 on: 2022-02-24, 10:12:44 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
Quote from: Itsu on 2022-02-23, 20:49:34
...
I always try to use real world components from the LTSpice database to build my sim circuits just to avoid these "perfect" components errors.

Itsu

I agree that it is a good idea when you want to design a real setup or to reproduce one.

When you try to understand the principle, real components have a lot of hidden properties which can be the main cause of the observed effect. But these do not appear on the schematic, like those parasitic capacitances, like the inductances in series with the outputs of the transistors which are problematic at very high frequencies, like the leakage currents of the diodes in reverse and so on.

There are equivalent schematics to simulate a real component by several ideal components, so we have visibility and control of all the parameters, but it is not easy, that's why they are hidden in the parametric package of the real component that we take in the LTspice library.
When you do it manually, you have to simplify by keeping only the important parameters, like the parallel capacitance of any real inductance or of any diode in "real life".
As an experienced experimenter you know all this, but it is far from being the case for everybody, that is seen in the delirious comments on some videos where they invoke extraordinary phenomena when they are only due to the imperfections of the real components.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #827 on: 2022-03-30, 16:44:06 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Following member "Jagau" on www.aboveunity.com in his thread "Melnichenko's Effect" he pointed to a way to measure the difference in energy between building up a magnetic field in an air coil and the collapsing of that magnetic field.

It seems that the difference is in favor of the collapsing of that magnetic field.


Jagau's thread and measurements are here:  https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/melnichenko-s-effect/?order=all#comment-4add90dd-c710-4805-9308-ae600122bc0e

Its a method used by JL Naudin in his 2Sgen project (Solid State Generator) from 2010 shown here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/html/s2genep7en.htm
JL Naudin references a paper written by Nikolay E. Zaev where the theory behind this is explained: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/demag.pdf

Jagau mentions a difference ratio (calling it the: "magnetic power coefficient") of 27.77, while JL Naudin found 13.7 and N Zaev 16.3.
The measurement uses a 10K load resistor with a 22uF capacitor parallel on both the magnetization as the demagnetization phase, see top part diagram:



Searching the web, i found an old thread on Overunity.com where this setup was mentioned and where the late MarkE showed that the claimed difference
should be zero:  https://overunity.com/13551/magnet-coil-cores-demagnetization-power-and-lenz-delay/msg425491/#msg425491

But that does not tell why there is a considerable difference in stored energy in the both 22uF caps, see my setup below where i measure:
(E = 1/2 * C * V²) magnetization energy (4.184V) =     0.19256mJ and
                           demagnetization energy (11.33V)  = 1.412mJ                   (using 22uF caps).



Anyway, i tried to replicate this setup by using a finemet (Nanocrystalline) FT-3K50T ferrite toroid as the flux gating source:

mu = 50K @ 1KHz
Coil 200 turns
L = 618mH @ 1KHz without any neo magnets attached
L = 395uH @ 1KHz with a stack of neo magnets attached
R = 1.1 Ohm

The air coil:

L = 16.3mH @ 1KHz
R = 12.5 Ohm

Using 2x UF4007 as diodes, 2x 10K resistors, 2x 22uF caps and an IRF530 MOSFET with 4V on drain see modified diagram:



i get the following voltages on the 2x 22uF caps:
4.184V (magnetization) and 11.33V (demagnetization) and thus a "magnetic power coefficient" of 7.33 (11.33² / 10K) / (4.184² / 10K).

The screenshot shows:



White:  the gate signal into the MOSFET (1KHz @ 15% Duty Cycle)
yellow: the voltage across the air coil
green:  the current through the air coil
blue:   the DC voltage on the 22uF cap at demagnetization
purple: the DC voltage on the 22uF cap at magnetization

So its seems that we have more energy out of the air coil then was put in.

We do need to pulse the "flux gating source" with more power to achieve this, so overall COP below 1.

Video here:  https://youtu.be/P-VeWDYTgog





Questions:

# is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?
# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?
# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?
# in my video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show, JL Naudin shows his magnets are vertical.
   Why is that so in my case, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned me thinks.

Regards Itsu
« Last Edit: 2022-03-30, 20:42:16 by Itsu »
   
img  Centraflow
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #828 on: 2022-03-30, 17:42:58 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2838


Buy me a beer
Hi Itsu

What MarkE showed and said is correct for what he was showing, and as he said it is basically a boost converter.

 is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?

Yes it is the correct way to measure the in and out energy, by using the area, the difference is the pulse width, the voltage, and the current, as in boost converter.

# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?

Only if E out is greater than E in.

# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?

Should not read (voltages) but energy.

# in the video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show.
   Why is that so, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned?

The saturation field from the magnets on the "core" of the "toroid" goes either way around from where the magnets are attached towards the opposite point  (180º) on the other side. If vertical on the coil it will go through the coil, horizontal it will go across the coil when flat, horizontal but vertical causes a different field in relation to the coil where one way goes close to the coil and the other further away, here in lays the oscillations, not only capacitance!!!!

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"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.
   
img  Vasik041
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #829 on: 2022-03-30, 17:55:32 »
Group: Guest
Hi Itsu,

I think magnetic field lines go roughly like on the picture.
When gate coil is off ring core "absorbs" PM field.
When gate coil is on then PM field is "squeezed" out of toroid.

For correct power calculation you need to take into account energy balance in both gate and air coil like in any transformer.

Regards,
Vasik
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #830 on: 2022-03-30, 20:03:50 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: Centraflow on 2022-03-30, 17:42:58
Hi Itsu

What MarkE showed and said is correct for what he was showing, and as he said it is basically a boost converter.

 is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?

Yes it is the correct way to measure the in and out energy, by using the area, the difference is the pulse width, the voltage, and the current, as in boost converter.

# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?

Only if E out is greater than E in.

# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?

Should not read (voltages) but energy.

# in the video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show.
   Why is that so, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned?

The saturation field from the magnets on the "core" of the "toroid" goes either way around from where the magnets are attached towards the opposite point  (180º) on the other side. If vertical on the coil it will go through the coil, horizontal it will go across the coil when flat, horizontal but vertical causes a different field in relation to the coil where one way goes close to the coil and the other further away, here in lays the oscillations, not only capacitance!!!!

Regards

Mike


Mike,


Quote
# is this the correct way to measure the difference in energy going into and out off an air coil?

Yes it is the correct way to measure the in and out energy, by using the area, the difference is the pulse width, the voltage, and the current, as in boost converter.

I was not asking here if MarkE his answer (by using the area) is the correct way, i was asking if this whole setup (2 diodes with the 10K and 22uF caps) is the correct way to do so.

I know the voltage area alone (equal) does not mean much, its the Energy in total, therefor the different voltage on the both caps show there is a difference in energy (E = 1/2 * C * V²) magnetization energy (4.184V) = 0.19256mJ, and demagnetization energy (11.33V)  = 1.412mJ   (22uF caps).


Quote
# if correct, is there a way to harvest this difference and get some useful work out of it?

Only if E out is greater than E in.

Like shown above, it is.


Quote
# MarkE mentioned in the mentiond OU.com thread that the difference on the scope (voltages) are zero, so why do the voltages on the caps show different?

Should not read (voltages) but energy.

MarkE mentioned that the colored area's (voltages) are equal, thus zero difference, so to me he there meant the voltages alone.
But as said above, the energy is NOT the same as shown by my calculations of the energy in the both 22uF caps.


Quote
# in the video it shows that the "flux gating source" needs to have its magnets positioned a specific way (horizontally), for the effect to show.
   Why is that so, i mean the magnets saturate the finemet core no matter how they are positioned?

The saturation field from the magnets on the "core" of the "toroid" goes either way around from where the magnets are attached towards the opposite point 
(180º) on the other side.
If vertical on the coil it will go through the coil, horizontal it will go across the coil when flat, horizontal but vertical causes a different field in
relation to the coil where one way goes close to the coil and the other further away, here in lays the oscillations, not only capacitance!!!!

Hmmm,  why then does JN Naudin shows a vertical stack of magnets in most if not all of his setups, see:  http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm



Thanks,  regards Itsu
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #831 on: 2022-03-30, 20:10:24 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2022-03-30, 17:55:32
Hi Itsu,

I think magnetic field lines go roughly like on the picture.
When gate coil is off ring core "absorbs" PM field.
When gate coil is on then PM field is "squeezed" out of toroid.

For correct power calculation you need to take into account energy balance in both gate and air coil like in any transformer.

Regards,
Vasik

Vasik,

thanks for the picture, you could be right  :P  I don't know.


I know for a power measurement i have to include input power into the "flux gating source" (4V @ 100mA), and i mentioned that if doing so the COP would be below 1, but that is not the point
of the project.

Its the question if the magnetic field of a (air) coil requires less energy to build as that can be collected when it collapses.

Itsu 
   
img  partzman
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #832 on: 2022-03-30, 20:45:52 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1671
Hi Itsu,

Interesting experiment!  What is the voltage reached at the IRF530 drain when the gate is turned off?  The BVds for the IRF530 is 100v max according to the data sheet so, if the drain is reaching this level and going into avalanche,  you need to calculate the energy produced during this time across the fet's drain to source and add that to the input energy.  Then check for any gain >1.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Vasik041
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #833 on: 2022-03-30, 20:54:38 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Itsu on 2022-03-30, 20:10:24
Its the question if the magnetic field of a (air) coil requires less energy to build as that can be collected when it collapses.

Itsu,

While I am open to pleasant surprises,  it seems very unlikely :)

There are some points to consider:
- flyback converters always have a core
- Zaev ferrokessor requires core
- there is no non-linearity in air core, at least at this times/frequencies/energy levels

Some interesting effects could come from standing waves in long coils but it is a different story.

Regards,
Vasik
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #834 on: 2022-03-30, 21:00:05 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: partzman on 2022-03-30, 20:45:52
Hi Itsu,

Interesting experiment!  What is the voltage reached at the IRF530 drain when the gate is turned off?  The BVds for the IRF530 is 100v max according to the data sheet so, if the drain is reaching this level and going into avalanche,  you need to calculate the energy produced during this time across the fet's drain to source and add that to the input energy.  Then check for any gain >1.

Regards,
Pm

Hi PM,

good catch, the voltage seems to be clipped to about 100V, see screenshot 1 (yellow voltage drain, green current through input coil).

But the focus is not the overall COP,  but the COP of the air coil input / output (building / collapsing magnetic field).

Screenshot 2 as with the same time base as in above earlier screenshot

Itsu
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #835 on: 2022-03-30, 21:06:26 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2022-03-30, 20:54:38
Itsu,

While I am open to pleasant surprises,  it seems very unlikely :)

There are some points to consider:
- flyback converters always have a core
- Zaev ferrokessor requires core
- there is no non-linearity in air core, at least at this times/frequencies/energy levels

Some interesting effects could come from standing waves in long coils but it is a different story.

Regards,
Vasik

Vasik,

OK,  so what you basically are saying is that this is NOT the correct way to measure the energy required to build a magnetic field in an air coil and what it yields when collapsing, as my measurements show the collapsing energy is bigger as what was needed to build it.

Itsu
   
img  partzman
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #836 on: 2022-03-30, 22:11:16 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1671
Quote from: Itsu on 2022-03-30, 21:00:05
Hi PM,

good catch, the voltage seems to be clipped to about 100V, see screenshot 1 (yellow voltage drain, green current through input coil).

But the focus is not the overall COP,  but the COP of the air coil input / output (building / collapsing magnetic field).

Screenshot 2 as with the same time base as in above earlier screenshot

Itsu

If you are running with a 4v dc supply for the PM biased toroid, then let's look at the numbers based on your scope pix attached below.  The duration of the charging cycle for the toroid is 152us.  The estimated mean charging current is ~800ma for an input energy consumption of 4*.8*152e-6 = 486uJ.  The mean current could be higher due to the non-linear ramp as 60% was an approximate guess on my part.

The mean discharge current of the toroid is 660ma and the duration is ~8us or a little over.  The discharge energy to the avalanched mosfet is .66*106*8e-6 = 559uJ which is greater than the charge energy!  This is all based on a power supply of 4v.

These numbers could be actually pretty close as there is a time anomaly in that the discharge cycle is much smaller for the toroid than for the air coil!

It would be interesting to know the coupling factor between the two coils in their correct positions.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #837 on: 2022-03-31, 09:37:15 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102

PM,

nice calculations, i will see if i can verify your assumed data from the scope by using cursors on the scope to measure the mean and time value's.

So what you are saying is that already in source (the flux gating toroid) there is more energy out (used as input for the air coil) then in (559uJ versus 486uJ).


Concerning the coupling factor, that would be hard to find out i guess, and i even thought that there should be no coupling to start with for this effect to show up (therefor the 90° offset of the coils) as JL Nauding mentions in his 2SGen Episode 6 here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#hidden where he says:


Some important keys to get an excess of energy:

The output coil must be fully EM decoupled from the input coil (no mutual inductance), so this why the toroïdal coil is used as the input coil and a cylindrical or a flat coil set at 90° as the output coil.

The magnet is used only to set the operating point in the MH curve of the toroïdal core. The magnet is not the source of the excess of energy. The ferromagnetic core is used on the highly non linear portion of the MH curve (where the core permeability drops quickly)

Shorter the clock pulse (low DTC) is, lower the energy spent for the magnetization process will be.

The 2SGen is not a transformer: The excess of energy tapped on its output comes from the magnetic material itself (during the demagnetization process). The volume of the ferromagnetic core used is important to get more power: greater the volume of the core is, higher the power at the output will be.

The pulse period must be greater than the time required for the magnetization/demagnetization process and this is fully dependent of the performance of the magnetic core used.

The best tuning is done when there is no change in the measured DC input power while the output coil is loaded.

Don't forget that energy of the magnetization pulse is the cost to be paid for obtaining the excess energy from demagnetization.



Regards Itsu
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #838 on: 2022-03-31, 13:53:58 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102

PM,

I measured more accurate the several data using cursors on the scope and my Fluke 179 DMM, see table:




It seems the discharge time is much less (4.4us) then your estimate (8us), see screenshot where i zoomed in:





So the discharge energy is less then the input consumption!

But this shows uJ (micro Joules) while my aircoil charge / discharge energy shows mJ (milli Joules), so something is wrong here.

Itsu 
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #839 on: 2022-03-31, 13:55:20 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
Quote from: Itsu on 2022-03-31, 09:37:15
...
Episode 6 here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#hidden where he says:


Some important keys to get an excess of energy:

The output coil must be fully EM decoupled from the input coil (no mutual inductance) [...]

The magnet is used only to set the operating point in the MH curve of the toroïdal core.[...]

The 2SGen is not a transformer [...]

Hi Itsu,

Naudin's assertions are incompatible with each other.

The permeability of the core of the toroidal coil decreases in the axis of the permanent magnet, because at this point it tends to saturation. The permeability is no longer uniform along the torus.

As a consequence, the magnetic flux in the torus is not uniform either. The field lines pop out of the torus, around the low permeability part because of the magnet. That is to say that the part of less permeability behaves like an air gap, the coil leaks, and consequently the cylindrical coil receives this flux and behaves like the secondary of a transformer, allowing to light the LEDs.

So what Naudin said is wrong. The magnet is NOT only used to set the operating point in the MH curve, so the output coil is NOT fully EM decoupled from the input coil, and the 2SGen is indeed a transformer.


I had done some tests in this area a few years ago. Only a cylindrical magnet placed concentrically to the torus allows to change the permeability homogeneously, eventually to saturation, but transversally. So nothing changes along the torus because a saturation has the direction of the field that gives it birth. The inductance keeps the same value.

With a magnet in another position, as in Naudin's experiment, the inductance decreases, but the torus is no longer homogeneous, so the flux is no longer looped only in the torus, it leaks.

The torus can also be saturated homogeneously along, e.g. by adding a strong DC current to the AC current of the coil. It is then as if we had a core of lower permeability, which is of very limited practical interest.





---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  partzman
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #840 on: 2022-03-31, 15:22:54 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1671
Quote from: Itsu on 2022-03-31, 13:53:58
PM,

I measured more accurate the several data using cursors on the scope and my Fluke 179 DMM, see table:




It seems the discharge time is much less (4.4us) then your estimate (8us), see screenshot where i zoomed in:





So the discharge energy is less then the input consumption!

But this shows uJ (micro Joules) while my aircoil charge / discharge energy shows mJ (milli Joules), so something is wrong here.

Itsu

Itsu,

OK, thanks for taking those measurements.  The discharge time was the major source of error in my calcs however, let's take your input energy of 457uJ and your discharge energy of 268uJ which leaves us with a net energy consumption of 189uJ.  Please note that the energy lost in the avalanche of the IRF530 does not to be that way.  The discharge energy could be captured in a capacitor of proper value at a voltage just below the level of avalanche.  This cap's energy would have to be periodically drained back to a/the power supply so the voltage remains below avalanche levels.  This is just one solution.

Then let's take the sum of your energy calcs for C3 and C1 of 193uJ and 1.412mJ respectively which equals 1.605mJ .  I see no other source of energy to your device so the apparent COP = 1.605e-3/189e-6 = 8.49!

To have a useful device from all this simply requires energy shuttling or transfer but even with additional losses, the COP would still be considerable.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #841 on: 2022-03-31, 15:32:20 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-03-31, 13:55:20
Hi Itsu,

Naudin's assertions are incompatible with each other.

The permeability of the core of the toroidal coil decreases in the axis of the permanent magnet, because at this point it tends to saturation. The permeability is no longer uniform along the torus.

As a consequence, the magnetic flux in the torus is not uniform either. The field lines pop out of the torus, around the low permeability part because of the magnet. That is to say that the part of less permeability behaves like an air gap, the coil leaks, and consequently the cylindrical coil receives this flux and behaves like the secondary of a transformer, allowing to light the LEDs.

So what Naudin said is wrong. The magnet is NOT only used to set the operating point in the MH curve, so the output coil is NOT fully EM decoupled from the input coil, and the 2SGen is indeed a transformer.


I had done some tests in this area a few years ago. Only a cylindrical magnet placed concentrically to the torus allows to change the permeability homogeneously, eventually to saturation, but transversally. So nothing changes along the torus because a saturation has the direction of the field that gives it birth. The inductance keeps the same value.

With a magnet in another position, as in Naudin's experiment, the inductance decreases, but the torus is no longer homogeneous, so the flux is no longer looped only in the torus, it leaks.

The torus can also be saturated homogeneously along, e.g. by adding a strong DC current to the AC current of the coil. It is then as if we had a core of lower permeability, which is of very limited practical interest.



Thanks F6FLT,

So what about the FEMM simulation here:  http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#simulation

In the video it says: "..the magnetic field outside the toroidal coil is null..."



This is with the magnets inside the toroid.


Anyway, so you think the signals measured in the air coil are there pure due to EM coupling of the leaking flux of the toroid coil.

What about the difference in energy measured in this air coil during magnetization and demagnetization?

Itsu
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #842 on: 2022-03-31, 16:05:28 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: partzman on 2022-03-31, 15:22:54
Itsu,

OK, thanks for taking those measurements.  The discharge time was the major source of error in my calcs however, let's take your input energy of 457uJ and your discharge energy of 268uJ which leaves us with a net energy consumption of 189uJ.  Please note that the energy lost in the avalanche of the IRF530 does not to be that way.  The discharge energy could be captured in a capacitor of proper value at a voltage just below the level of avalanche.  This cap's energy would have to be periodically drained back to a/the power supply so the voltage remains below avalanche levels.  This is just one solution.

Then let's take the sum of your energy calcs for C3 and C1 of 193uJ and 1.412mJ respectively which equals 1.605mJ .  I see no other source of energy to your device so the apparent COP = 1.605e-3/189e-6 = 8.49!

To have a useful device from all this simply requires energy shuttling or transfer but even with additional losses, the COP would still be considerable.

Regards,
Pm


Quote
The discharge time was the major source of error in my calcs however, let's take your input energy of 457uJ and your discharge energy of 268uJ which leaves us with a net energy consumption of 189uJ. 
Please note that the energy lost in the avalanche of the IRF530 does not to be that way. 
The discharge energy could be captured in a capacitor of proper value at a voltage just below the level of avalanche. 
This cap's energy would have to be periodically drained back to a/the power supply so the voltage remains below avalanche levels. 
This is just one solution.


What if i use a another MOSFET capable of handling the peak voltage, it would not avalanche and all energy would be accounted for.


Quote
Then let's take the sum of your energy calcs for C3 and C1 of 193uJ and 1.412mJ respectively which equals 1.605mJ .
I see no other source of energy to your device so the apparent COP = 1.605e-3/189e-6 = 8.49!


The FG adds some power (700uA, 730mV, for 147us), but can be neglected i guess.

But are those energy calcs (the 193uJ and 1.412mJ on C1 and C3 i mean) realistic as they are taken over a longer time period.
Should we not short the caps, fire 1 cycle, then measure etc.?


Itsu
   
img  partzman
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #843 on: 2022-03-31, 17:38:22 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1671
Quote from: Itsu on 2022-03-31, 16:05:28


What if i use a another MOSFET capable of handling the peak voltage, it would not avalanche and all energy would be accounted for.



The FG adds some power (700uA, 730mV, for 147us), but can be neglected i guess.

But are those energy calcs (the 193uJ and 1.412mJ on C1 and C3 i mean) realistic as they are taken over a longer time period.
Should we not short the caps, fire 1 cycle, then measure etc.?


Itsu
Itsu,

OK, I incorrectly assumed that the sequence to generate the voltage levels in C3 and C1 was over one cycle.  Yes, one cycle should be taken and then the energy levels compared but I think then it will come out conservative!

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Centraflow
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #844 on: 2022-03-31, 17:38:36 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2838


Buy me a beer
See the attached, it should explain what is happening.

Note that JLN's toroid is inside the solenoid along with the magnets, the magnets are the source of energy "compress and release".

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"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.
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #845 on: 2022-03-31, 20:24:48 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: partzman on 2022-03-31, 17:38:22
Itsu,

OK, I incorrectly assumed that the sequence to generate the voltage levels in C3 and C1 was over one cycle.  Yes, one cycle should be taken and then the energy levels compared but I think then it will come out conservative!

Regards,
Pm


Right, i agree,  but the overall COP was not the goal in the first place.

The goal is to show that in the air coil, the energy to create the magnetic field is less then the energy available when this magnetic field collapses.

My replication shows this is so, a real Solid State Generator, but one of the questions i asked in my opening post is if this method is the correct one
to measure the energy to build the magnetic field and to measure the energy in the collapsing magnetic field.

Itsu
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #846 on: 2022-03-31, 20:33:37 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: Centraflow on 2022-03-31, 17:38:36
See the attached, it should explain what is happening.

Note that JLN's toroid is inside the solenoid along with the magnets, the magnets are the source of energy "compress and release".

Regards

Mike

Mike,

one of JL Naudins setup has the toroid inside the solenoid along with the magnets as you show it, but many other setup's have not, see the below examples.

I choose to put the toroid ontop of the air coil with the magnets attached to the toroid and it seems to show the effect (generating energy).


My question is if the method i use to measure this (more energy out of a collapsing magnetic field then was put in to build it) is the correct one or that i get fooled somehow.

Itsu
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #847 on: 2022-03-31, 22:03:53 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1984
Quote from: Itsu on 2022-03-31, 15:32:20


Thanks F6FLT,

So what about the FEMM simulation here:  http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm#simulation

In the video it says: "..the magnetic field outside the toroidal coil is null..."



This is with the magnets inside the toroid.
...

I don't find Naudin's simulation clear. Which field is he talking about? The static one of the magnet, or the field generated by the AC signal? If it is the static one, then the symmetry of the setup with the magnets on a diameter of the toroid should provide a balance between the 2 halves, and this is not what we see. I have no experience of FEMM.

A simulation should show us the areas where the static magnetic field is strengthened, and therefore where the permeability is reduced, according to the curve he gives here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2SGenworkingzone.gif .

But this variation of permeability with the field is along the field lines. As the field of the magnet and the variable field along the toroid are not collinear, we know nothing about the permeability that the variable flux will experience. We only know that in the areas where the "AC" flux will be at a low angle to the "DC" flux of the magnet, it will be in an area of reduced permeability (I assume the "AC" flux is low compared to that of the magnet). In areas where the "AC" flux will be at a 90° angle to the "DC" flux of the magnet, it will be in an area of normal permeability, even though the permeability there will have been reduced by the field of the magnet, but only along the axis of the magnet flux.

When the permeability is variable with the magnetic field, which is the case here, it is modified by the magnetic field only on the axis of the magnetic flux, and if one turns with respect to this axis, it will be seen to be larger and larger until it returns to its normal value at 90°. Another flux at 90° to a saturating flux will not even feel the saturation. Permeability is not a scalar, it becomes a vector when it is no longer anisotropic under the effect of a field. AC flux and DC flux do not see here the same thing.
I think that the "AC" flux meeting permeability variations, leaks where they are the weakest.

[more on your other point tomorrow]


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  Centraflow
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #848 on: 2022-03-31, 23:28:03 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2838


Buy me a beer
Quote from: Itsu on 2022-03-31, 20:33:37
Mike,

one of JL Naudins setup has the toroid inside the solenoid along with the magnets as you show it, but many other setup's have not, see the below examples.

I choose to put the toroid ontop of the air coil with the magnets attached to the toroid and it seems to show the effect (generating energy).


My question is if the method i use to measure this (more energy out of a collapsing magnetic field then was put in to build it) is the correct one or that i get fooled somehow.

Itsu

Yes I understand that, but then the magnets are not set up the same with the toroid and the solenoid, but the effect I think is the same. What you can't have is too strong a magnet in relation to the input to the toroid. Note the solenoid coil is very flat on those others, that was for me a giveaway to what I'm thinking.

As PM says, with one cycle it will be conservative, but with more cycles, the time pumps up the output in the capacitor and gives a deceptive power output. The first pulse should be near equal, the second double, etc.

So your answer should be no, it is probably not the correct way. As MarkE showed, is, as the area is related to E even though the scope is showing voltage it is also showing pulse time (in and out are not the same duty).

It is a good topic for debate

Regards

Mike



---------------------------
"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.
   
img  Itsu
Re: Itsu's workbench / placeholder. « Reply #849 on: 2022-04-01, 09:18:46 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4102
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022-03-31, 22:03:53
I don't find Naudin's simulation clear. Which field is he talking about? The static one of the magnet, or the field generated by the AC signal? If it is the static one, then the symmetry of the setup with the magnets on a diameter of the toroid should provide a balance between the 2 halves, and this is not what we see. I have no experience of FEMM.

A simulation should show us the areas where the static magnetic field is strengthened, and therefore where the permeability is reduced, according to the curve he gives here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2SGenworkingzone.gif .

But this variation of permeability with the field is along the field lines. As the field of the magnet and the variable field along the toroid are not collinear, we know nothing about the permeability that the variable flux will experience. We only know that in the areas where the "AC" flux will be at a low angle to the "DC" flux of the magnet, it will be in an area of reduced permeability (I assume the "AC" flux is low compared to that of the magnet). In areas where the "AC" flux will be at a 90° angle to the "DC" flux of the magnet, it will be in an area of normal permeability, even though the permeability there will have been reduced by the field of the magnet, but only along the axis of the magnet flux.

When the permeability is variable with the magnetic field, which is the case here, it is modified by the magnetic field only on the axis of the magnetic flux, and if one turns with respect to this axis, it will be seen to be larger and larger until it returns to its normal value at 90°. Another flux at 90° to a saturating flux will not even feel the saturation. Permeability is not a scalar, it becomes a vector when it is no longer anisotropic under the effect of a field. AC flux and DC flux do not see here the same thing.
I think that the "AC" flux meeting permeability variations, leaks where they are the weakest.

[more on your other point tomorrow]


F6FLT,   

i agree that the FEMM simulation is not clear about what it simulates, in fact the more i read the whole 2SGen website, the more questions i have about things.

It almost seems like that a lot of info is not given or kept vague for some reason, perhaps to stimulate the replicator to use his brain / knowledge and find the answers he did not have, or just to keep the secret (if any) hidden.


Thanks for now,   itsu   
   
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-03, 11:50:54