OverUnity Research

Not sure that the output power evaluated from the lamps brightness is exceeding the 1KW input power, isn't it?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

It's easy to duplicate but I have not an induction cooker and I won't buy one for nothing.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.12.31, 14:35:30
Not sure that the output power evaluated from the lamps brightness is exceeding the 1KW input power, isn't it?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

It's easy to duplicate but I have not an induction cooker and I won't buy one for nothing.

It shouldn't be that difficult to knock up your own induction coil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking

or get one from a scrapped induction hob at a recycling centre. (How many cookers are scrapped
because they are the wrong colour or considered out of date? i.e. they work fine)

Maplins do a unit for £29

He is not using the bulbs brightness to measure the output power, he has at least 2 bulbs in series and maybe 3, even the halogen bulbs have the wire hidden, but if you look at the copper strips they run the wrong way for parallel so even these are 2 or 3 in series.
So the 240V bulbs would not be full brightness at 305 volts.

So he shows current and voltage, can anyone confirm those meters would read correctly, what frequency do induction coils work at a few hundred KHz?
If the meter were not capable of reading at this high frequency then surely they would under read.

It's great to see Tesla's coil finally put to use. O0

EDIT
I just realized Naudin went on to test the light level against a mains lit bulb and worked out it is only 91.4%

and then he used a scope and came to 173%
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene06en.htm

Maybe someone like Poynt may fancy looking at what he's doing in this one to see if 173% is correct or why it may not be.

I don't know where an error could come from, but the lamps brightness seems to contradict the measurement. I remember his (not yet explained) mistake of the kapagen measurement when one day he announced Out>>In and the next day, Out=In for the same setup. So I stay careful.

Nevertheless, Happy New Year 2013 to everyone!

[Please, don't whish a working free energy device for this year. This had been done for 2012 and we are still waiting for it  ^-^]


Update: see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JSvSFugWwI
The author realized a similar test as Naudin. At time 2:49 we see that the output signal is modulated by the mains frequency. If Naudin's device works the same way and he missed that, this could explain a false power measurement. With such a modulation, we would have to divide by two his measured power.

I'm suspicious of Naudin, what does he do ? He seems to just present apparent OU but never follows it up.
If he in fact had an OU device, just one out of the many devices he shows, why would he not follow it up
and get independent testing so as to prove the extra energy beyond doubt.

Also he mentions Utikin, who I think is disinfo (just my opinion) I think there is a group of buddy buddy scientific types
doing high class disinfo. The Iranian guy Keshe, Meyl, Naudin, Utikin, Don Smith, the list goes on.
None of them have actually proved any OU. If even one of them has actual OU then it would be ground breaking stuff
and yet they do little to nothing to actually prove anything.

Set the arrangement up and organize a qualified independent test person or two and lets see the result.

I can only assume that given there is no proven OU from Naudin in the past, that this is just another, more of the same.

If people believe this is real then people should be taking steps to replicate it. And show better evidence.

My question is what is the purpose of these people ? Because it's not to prove OU.
If they had OU and wanted to prove it they just would.

I'm not believing it. What happened to all his other "apparent OU" devices, was the OU not good enough ?

Things don't add up to me.

Cheers

Quote from: Farmhand on 2013.01.01, 22:07:18
I'm suspicious of Naudin, what does he do ? He seems to just present apparent OU but never follows it up.
If he in fact had an OU device, just one out of the many devices he shows, why would he not follow it up
and get independent testing so as to prove the extra energy beyond doubt.
...

I agree 100% with you. He rarely conclude that a device he experimented is not OU, in spite of negative final results and while it is obvious that he abandonned the concept in question. For me he is lying by omission (the best example being the MEG).
His quality is to well document his work and to make rather clean measurements (even if they are sometimes erroneous), what is unusual in this domain.

Quote from: Farmhand on 2013.01.01, 22:07:18
I'm suspicious of Naudin, what does he do ? He seems to just present apparent OU but never follows it up.
If he in fact had an OU device, just one out of the many devices he shows, why would he not follow it up
and get independent testing so as to prove the extra energy beyond doubt.

Also he mentions Utikin, who I think is disinfo (just my opinion) I think there is a group of buddy buddy scientific types
doing high class disinfo. The Iranian guy Keshe, Meyl, Naudin, Utikin, Don Smith, the list goes on.
None of them have actually proved any OU. If even one of them has actual OU then it would be ground breaking stuff
and yet they do little to nothing to actually prove anything.

Set the arrangement up and organize a qualified independent test person or two and lets see the result.

I can only assume that given there is no proven OU from Naudin in the past, that this is just another, more of the same.

If people believe this is real then people should be taking steps to replicate it. And show better evidence.

My question is what is the purpose of these people ? Because it's not to prove OU.
If they had OU and wanted to prove it they just would.

I'm not believing it. What happened to all his other "apparent OU" devices, was the OU not good enough ?

Things don't add up to me.

Cheers

Don't be so sure!

I used to keep up correspondence with Dr. Stiffler, and worked in several private forums with him. We had several discussions on Joseph Hiddink and his capacity switching device (parametrics). The good doctor had replicated it, and showed the public very little due to the inventor still being alive, and retaining rights (Despite what many say, I always found Dr. Stiffler to be very respectful). From what the good doctor told me, it was VERY successful in what it claimed. Intrigued I improved upon the initial concept by using the plasma in the tube as a third capacitor plate bridging the first two, removing the need for a complicated HV switching system. It worked VERY well as a capacity switching device.

http://www.rexresearch.com/hiddink/hiddink.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDGoyTdiFsQ


Jean Louis Naudin also must have thought this to be a viable system, as it is his only patent to date I can find!!! (modified of course, much like I did), yet absolutely based off of the same concept.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=0xOTAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

I would think filing a patent would count as "following up".

Perhaps there are those out there (who knows maybe they are on this forum) who investigate, prove to themselves, and share concepts without releasing enough to do damage to themselves.

Take care!

Hi Armagdn03, I was wondering did Naudin show his experiments and measurements with that patented device on his website ?
Seems to me if he did then he would not have been eligible for a patent. I was referring to follow up of devices he shows on the website
as OU.  And just because a patent says a device can show efficiency over one, doesn't make me believe it,
a properly conducted demonstration of the measurements might though.
I think there are a few patents that claim over 1 performance from memory, the question is who are they granted to,
I have a list of guru types I think are suspect, if a OU patent is granted to one of them I think nothing much of it.

OK then so we should replicate the patent ? If this patented device can be replicated and show over 1 performance then it should rock the world.
If it doesn't show OU what then ? How would it be explained that an OU patent was granted. Don't forget either the patent process is flawed and corrupt or it is not.
Which is it I wonder. Are all patents legitimate or are OU patents suppressed.

To me this is promising but suspicious.

Cheers

OK what does the underlined words mean in the section from the patent ?

As far as the patent system and OU devices go, I think there is an oxymoron element to it.

eg. If I were a patent examiner and a patent of over 100% performance was put in front of me, without a valid explanation of where the extra energy is coming from
I would want a demonstration and third party verification of the in/out and if I was a patriot to the current system of things or ignorant of it
I would immediately inform the relevant authorities for the possibility of national defence implications.

If the extra energy is explained then i would still want a third party validation and a demonstration, what happened then would
depend on the nature of things.

But I would think that for a device that was claimed to break any existing laws would not be granted unless it was first checked out by the
ones who would look out for the government or national interest. If there are suppressors then one place they would keep a close eye on is the patent apps.

I only had a quick look at that patent, and I don't claim to understand fully the processes involved, or the wording.

What exactly does this patent claim, in layman's terms ? Is it a granted patent to an over 100% efficient device ?

Cheers

P.S. In fact the patent says that the extra energy is from the work of the "observer" removing the plates. I don't think that strictly makes sense,
because an observer would not be just an observer if the observer inputs energy into the system.

Maybe some tricky wording there.

..

Quote from: Farmhand on 2013.01.04, 02:38:43
...
P.S. In fact the patent says that the extra energy is from the work of the "observer" removing the plates. I don't think that strictly makes sense,
because an observer would not be just an observer if the observer inputs energy into the system.
...

When we change the capacitance of a charged capacitor, it's well known and easily verifiable that the work comes straightforwardly from the mechanical work done against the Coulomb force. What doesn't make sense is not the fact that the energy comes from the work for removing the plate, but that the term "observer" is unappropriate when the observer is also an active participan. Just a question of semantic.
There are plenty of patents of perpetual motions, so I don't think it's a problem. Any hypothetical source of energy can be suggested in the patent for more credibility (nuclear, zpe, heat...), but it's not required. A patent describes a process, not a theory.

New today measurement confirming the previous one: http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene09en.htm

Naudin takes into account the HF modulation by the mains frequency.
I persist to say that the apparent luminosity doesn't correspond to the alleged output power.
There is a suspicious factor 2 involved in the measurement. As the output power is pretended to be about twice the input, it should be easy to loop the device. A simple diode bridge rectifying the signal and followed by a rough 50Hz low-pass filter can rebuild a 50Hz signal similar to this from the mains and that can be connected back to the input. Such a attempt generally permits to reveal the mistake. Until now all claimers of OU failed in looping their device.

Naudin would do better to use a insulated water heater tank and measure the rate of rise of temperature or time to boiling by driving the built in heater.

He could then compare this to the same heater driven off the mains, to get a comparative data set.

Driving banks of lamps to some arbitrary brightness level, and adding up the box labelled wattage is not good science.

Getting a rough cut handle on things using tried and true technique is much better (to me) than fancy scope measurements especially when high frequency signals are involved.

The text in the patent you are referring to has to do with mechanical separation of the plates. What is odd, is that a mechanical separation of the plates takes work, and energy is "gained", however when left free, their mechanical tendency is to come back together, creating an oscillation both in voltage and energy if done repeatedly, hence the concept of the charge conserving capacitive spring.

"By separating the plates of the capacitor, you have raised the energy of the entire system. In doing so you have caused a finite amount of charge to move across the load for a given time, giving you your power. The force exerted will be given by the integral of the equation for force between the plates, so that we can see the total force required to pull apart distance X.

What is interesting is that while it requires X force to pull the plates apart, they still have a tendency towards moving back together due to the electric forces. -X energy will be exerted by the system returning the plates to their initial position of 10 farads.

Energy to pull plates apart = X
Energy to return to initial state = -X

Total energy = X+ (-x) = 0

For each investment of mechanical energy in the direction of plate separation, the system returns the energy in the next stroke returning to initial conditions."


What is more interesting about this, is the mechanism for achieving the results is not mechanical. It is has to do with phase transitions and superluminance of the gas being ionized. This is a new game, but to my knowledge, Jean Naudin never posted his findings on his website. What I know of about its functionality comes from experimentation of my own, and many conversations with Dr. Stiffler.

Here is another interesting variation
http://www.google.com/patents/US4074129?pg=PA1&dq=4,074,129&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4T_nULKLNcnzqAH9ioAo&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=4%2C074%2C129&f=false

Other points as energy from a parametric change of electric or magnetic circuits are surely very interesting but this thread being dedicated to Naudin's "gegene", they should be discussed elsewhere or their link with the "gegene" should be given.

Quote from: ION on 2013.01.04, 16:19:43
Naudin would do better to use a insulated water heater tank and measure the rate of rise of temperature or time to boiling by driving the built in heater.

He could then compare this to the same heater driven off the mains, to get a comparative data set.

This method is needed when the COP is not much and would prevent to loop the device. With a near 200% COP, it seems much easier (and more convincing) to electrically loop the device. Even an as bad efficiency as 60% for the back connexion would be enough to lead to a self-sustaining device.

Quote
Driving banks of lamps to some arbitrary brightness level, and adding up the box labelled wattage is not good science.

Getting a rough cut handle on things using tried and true technique is much better (to me) than fancy scope measurements especially when high frequency signals are involved.

I agree.

@Exn

QuoteOther points as energy from a parametric change of electric or magnetic circuits are surely very interesting but this thread being dedicated to Naudin's "gegene", they should be discussed elsewhere or their link with the "gegene" should be given.

I would think the discussion is very much on topic for a change and you just lack the understanding to see it. You see the coil used in the Gegene is Tesla Patent #512340 "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" and in this patent Tesla states---

QuoteWhat I claim as my invention is—
1. A coil for electric apparatus the adjacent convolutions of which form parts of the circuit between which there exists a potential difference sufficient to secure in the coil a capacity capable of neutralizing its self-induction, as hereinbefore described.

2. A coil composed of contiguous or adjacent insulated conductors electrically connected in series and having a potential difference of such value as to give to the coil as a whole, a capacity sufficient to neutralize its self-induction, as set forth.

Quote: "to secure in the coil a capacity capable of neutralizing its self-induction", again ***TO SECURE IN A COIL A CAPACITY CAPABLE OF NEUTRALIZING IT'S SELF-INDUCTION***.

Now if we are speaking of capacitance there is no need to digress to the archaic notion of "plates" or the equally archaic notion that someone should have to move them. Here Tesla has stated that he has found a means to increase the capacitance of a coil to neutralize it's self induction. As well if we are speaking of capacitance then we are speaking of the storing of energy in the form of an electric field -- where is this electric field?. If there is an electric field and it's energy is stored within the coil somewhere then it only makes sense that this energy could act parametrically.

Exn please do not dismiss relevant discussion simply because you do not understand it as it would seem to me the only person actually making an attempt to understand what may be occurring in this circuit is Armagdn03.
Let's look at the facts, how many here have offered any opinion as to how or why this device could actually work? All these critical posts and only one person has the intelligence to actually question how it may work in reality and then you want to change the discussion, lol, Exn you really are a piece of work I will give you that.


AC

@Armagdn03

QuoteWhat is interesting is that while it requires X force to pull the plates apart, they still have a tendency towards moving back together due to the electric forces. -X energy will be exerted by the system returning the plates to their initial position of 10 farads.

Energy to pull plates apart = X
Energy to return to initial state = -X

Total energy = X+ (-x) = 0

That is interesting, now if we had a capacitor in the form of a coil and this coil would store the energy from an unwanted effect as an electric field and discharge this same energy later as a beneficial effect we could improve the efficiency. As well we tend to consider many effects as Action A produces Reaction B however there may be alternatives. A=B applies to closed systems and A must always equal B in a direct sense because we have set the pre-conditions such that this must always be the case.

I use a different equation, Action A produces Reaction B which produces more A due to C. Now if in any given time frame A cannot equal B because there is more A due to C then A-B cannot be equal. What is C?, C is every and any form of energy exterior to the imaginary closed system most people have fabricated in their minds.

AC

Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.05, 15:35:44
@Exn
I would think the discussion is very much on topic for a change and you just lack the understanding to see it.
...
Exn please do not dismiss relevant discussion simply because you do not understand
...

@ac
Your discussion is not relevant. Your speech is vain, it's just noise: you give links without being able to explain how they are related to the gegene, and you don't answer the objections. Same thing in the other thread of the "Replicated self-runner" where you mock Farmhand of refering to wiki, although wiki well explains the nantenna principle in agreement with all academic publications, and although you was unable to explain the technical points why we should not refer to wiki. If I adopted your insulting attitude, I would say: if you want understand the bases, see www.google.com.   ;D

The patent mentionned by Armagdn03 is interesting but not related to the Naudin's gegene, except if you can say how and why the gegene would be a parametric device. It's not because there a coil in a device and the same coil in another device that the two devices are related. It's not because the coil is from Tesla, that the coil will make miracles! The flat double-wire Tesla coil is just an ordinary coil with a constant inductance, its only particularity being an optimized parallel capacity between turns. It perfectly obeys the physics laws until proof of the contrary.
You mix anything with anything, using fuzzy and irrelevant layman's terms. Not a problem, the ignorance can be easily remedied by studying, question of will. The problem appears when an ignorant thinks he is a prof. You should rather ask yourself about your own lacks, for example in electronics, instead of accusing others of misunderstanding. And then explain the discrepancy between the lamps brightness and the power measurement, and why the skilled people in electronics who duplicated the device and who know the state of the art of the electronics measurement don't confirm OU but an efficiency around 80%!

I did some reading on induction stoves a while back, and I think most use a square wave with pulse width control.  Therefore, the sharp pulse transitions contain and can excite tank circuits of higher frequency than the pulse repetition rate.  Now, we need to understand that the flat tesla coil is a resonant tank circuit at the correct frequency determined by it's inductance and capacitance per length.  So the induction stove will excite it and will ring.

But it's more fun to build your own exciter if you have electronic experience.  If not I guess you'll have to spend some money on a stove.

Has anybody driven a long tesla coil secondary from an induction stove?

EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.05, 17:20:44
I did some reading on induction stoves a while back, and I think most use a square wave with pulse width control.  Therefore, the sharp pulse transitions contain and can excite tank circuits of higher frequency than the pulse repetition rate.  Now, we need to understand that the flat tesla coil is a resonant tank circuit at the correct frequency determined by it's inductance and capacitance per length.  So the induction stove will excite it and will ring.
...

It will not ring, or only very weakly on very high harmonics. This can be seen on the scope shots, the peak voltage doesn't exceed the voltage expected from the ratio of turns of the emitting and receiving coils, which is about 1. The receiving coil is designed for the same diameter and about the same number of turns as the emitting coil, question of required output voltage and current. That is why the output voltage/current are about the same as in the primary coil.
Considering the low number of turns and consequently also, the low parallel capacity of the coil, the resonant frequency should be much higher than the working frequency which is 20-30 Khz; according to many previous setups using coils, I would say it should resonate at some hundreds Khz, possibly even in the Mhz range. At this frequencies, the energy in the harmonics of a square pulse of 20 to 30 Khz is negligible, even if the IGBTs were designed for high frequencies and so could provide sharp pulses, which is not the case.

What is puzzling about the Induction Cooker
experiment is that there seemed to have been
an expectation of potential energy gain.

The test circuit is essentially a high frequency
(19 KHz ~40 KHz) transformer where the two
windings are of necessity tightly coupled.

That power is made available from the secondary
winding with an efficiency of approximately 85%
is not surprising.  The type of loading is critical
due to the induction cooker protective circuits.

The Wiki article referenced earlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking) is a very good
explanation of how the induction field is generated
and what its properties are.

Aye, it is very strange that anyone would expect
some sort of overunity from this sort of an
arrangement.  Is "Tesla's Coil" supposed to be the
magical aspect?

EX, so if there is no resonance, he is just using it as a transformer, except of course it operates at higher frequency than 50 Hz? Oh well  If there's no resonance it's boring.  

Dumped, we are supposed to bow down and worship when the name "Tesla" anything is mentioned. Didn't you know? lol

@Exn

QuoteThe patent mentionned by Armagdn03 is interesting but not related to the Naudin's gegene, except if you can say how and why the gegene would be a parametric device.

How do we know the Gegene is not a parametric device if the device's operation is in question?, hence the debate and while you may not agree with it you do have the option of not participating.

QuoteIt's not because there a coil in a device and the same coil in another device that the two devices are related. It's not because the coil is from Tesla, that the coil will make miracles! The flat double-wire Tesla coil is just an ordinary coil with a constant inductance, its only particularity being an optimized parallel capacity between turns. It perfectly obeys the physics laws until proof of the contrary.

If it is an ordinary coil then why is it not wound like one, why was Tesla granted a patent which must be new or unique in some way if it is ordinary?. Why would Tesla state it may quote "secure in the coil a capacity capable of neutralizing its self-induction". As well I never implied it breaks the laws of physics nor would I.

QuoteAnd then explain the discrepancy between the lamps brightness and the power measurement, and why the skilled people in electronics who duplicated the device and who know the state of the art of the electronics measurement don't confirm OU but an efficiency around 80%!

Obviously we have a discrepancy which may be the reason why we were debating how the device could give readings which we would not normally expect. If we are unwilling to debate how the output could change according to the claim then it isn't actually debate of anything is it?.

AC

@Em

QuoteDumped, we are supposed to bow down and worship when the name "Tesla" anything is mentioned. Didn't you know? lol

I would not go that far however how many here have ever considered integrating a capacitance into the coil itself to neutralize the self-inductance?. My guess is nobody but Tesla thought of it almost 100 years ago which is why he was such a successful inventor, it's hard to argue with success.

AC

Absolutely, that coil has higher capacitance so it oscilates at lower frequency, just like he wanted to avoid radiation losses as much as possible.  Tesla was very cutting edge in this line of work.

@Em
I know some people like to criticize Tesla and all that kind of nonsense but I think he was a great inventor and he had some very creative idea's. That creativity is why I find his work so interesting and not so much breaking the laws of physics as some might suggest. I never understood that, I bring up Tesla and one of his creative views on a subject and all of a sudden people starts ranting on about OU and the laws of physics.
He was an inventor, a very good one and he made some great contributions to science.

I built many of these coils to spec and the biggest issue I found is that they cannot be operated as a standard coil or it will act just like a normal coil. It has the property of capacitance so it is this quality that should be accentuated. A capacitor stores more energy at higher voltages so we should use higher voltages. As well we should use extremely fast rise and fall times or a rate of change so that the load attached to the coil resists these changes. Output current flow should be impeded so the voltage rise is forced into the capacitance of the coil otherwise we may as well just use an ordinary coil.
No laws broken, no mysteries or magic, just simple physics nothing more.

AC

Quote from: AllCanacian
I bring up Tesla and one of his creative views on
a subject and all of a sudden people starts ranting
on about OU and the laws of physics.

Aye, Tesla's good name has been exploited in
commerce by merchants striving to capitalize
for monetary gain.  The legacy of Tesla himself
has been Trance-Formed into a cult following
which has made him into something other than
what he really was or really stood for.

The Laws of Physics can/will never be broken.

Our pitiful understanding of those laws is
at all times subject to change...

QuoteThe Laws of Physics can/will never be broken.

As Rod Serling would say 'I submit for your approval'. What if our scope or reality is merely a bug splat on the windshield of a much larger view?

Some contend that the veldt that encompasses us is not really matter at all but pure figment. There fore we make or uphold the limits. Boundaries are made to be broken only by those willing to get bruised.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.05, 19:33:28
EX, so if there is no resonance, he is just using it as a transformer, except of course it operates at higher frequency than 50 Hz?
...

Exactly.

Quote
Oh well  If there's no resonance it's boring.  

It's not boring if nevertheless it provided extra-energy! And that's the question.

It's the opportunity to recall that unlike "abracadabra", "resonance" is not a magic formula that would be the only condition to get extra-energy. It's only an accumulation of energy introduced step by step, at each period, and going back and forth between two places where it is temporarily stored, for instance in the magnetic field of a coil and the electric field of a capacitor. Even if the gegene had resonance, which is not the case, considering the considerable load of the lamps that would totally reduce the Q factor, the effect would be weak and probably not even noticeable.

Quote from: giantkiller on 2013.01.06, 04:03:12

Quote
The Laws of Physics can/will never be broken.

1) it is obvious that the Laws of Physics can/will never be broken, because if they were broken, this would mean that they were not the laws of physics!  C.C
2) so I suppose you meant:

Quote
The known Laws of Physics can/will never be broken.

The scientists don't say this, because they are the firsts to broke the known laws of physics that they previously discovered themselves, the best examples being the general relativity proving that the Newton mechanics was formally false or the quantum mechanics showing that either the principle of locality or of reality should be abandonned. Nevertheless it doesn't mean that the current known laws are false, but that they are incomplete (for instance the Newton mechanics can be still used instead of GR, only its domain of validity has to be reduced).

Quote
As Rod Serling would say 'I submit for your approval'. What if our scope or reality is merely a bug splat on the windshield of a much larger view?

Some contend that the veldt that encompasses us is not really matter at all but pure figment. There fore we make or uphold the limits. Boundaries are made to be broken only by those willing to get bruised.

It would be a good idea that the smooth talkers show us something real instead of endlessly arguing.

Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.05, 21:20:22
@Em
I know some people like to criticize Tesla and all that kind of nonsense but I think he was a great inventor and he had some very creative idea's.
...

Nobody doubts that Tesla was a great inventor. A great inventor is a human and even a great inventor can be sometimes wrong, but the problem is not even there.
The duty of his followers is to use his ideas and inventions with discernment, not to spread bullshit coming from their misunderstanding of his work, invoking his patents as disciples of Mohammed invoking the Quran.

Remember that Tesla was an electrical and mechanical engineer, not an ignorant playing in his garage with gears or transformers. Those who have not the engineer's background of Tesla and don't even want to acquire it under the pretext it's conventional knowledge, can't understand his work and like religious believers facing the mysteries of a world that they don't understand, they take him for a God and his patents for sacred texts. The less you know, the more you imagine, and this led to transform the Tesla's technological work into childish fairies.

Some years ago, a humorous cartoon appeared in a satirical journal. We saw Allah encircled by fervent believers invoking the jihad, and the following words were placed in his mouth: "it's hard to be loved by cunts"  ;D. In our context where the jihad is to fight the alleged big conspiracy of the academic science, I'm afraid that the same message is often relevant by replacing Allah by Tesla.

@Exn

QuoteNevertheless it doesn't mean that the current known laws are false, but that they are incomplete (for instance the Newton mechanics can be still used instead of GR, only its domain of validity has to be reduced).

I would agree, there is also the issue of interpretation as we may have a known law however many may not agree on exactly how, when or where it applies. The homopolar generator is a good example and we could have 100 engineers and scientists in a room and almost none would agree on the exact mechanisms taking place, where they take place and when. This does not mean any laws have to be broken or that new one's need to be invented, it simply means we cannot agree on exactly how the laws we have apply.

QuoteRemember that Tesla was an electrical and mechanical engineer, not an ignorant playing in his garage with gears or transformers. Those who have not the engineer's background of Tesla and don't even want to acquire it under the pretext it's conventional knowledge, can't understand his work and like religious believers facing the mysteries of a world that they don't understand, they take him for a God and his patents for sacred texts.

I understand your point however we should also understand that Tesla was once an ignorant playing in his garage as were you and myself. If I could travel back in time to when you were 16 should I call you an ignorant?, should I say you are stupid and misguided and have no idea what you are talking about?. We should remember that we all have different levels of education, levels of knowledge and resources at our disposal. To say one person is ignorant does not imply this must always be the case as life is a learning experience and we are always gaining knowledge on different levels.

AC

In a new test http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene13en.htm, JL Naudin tries to loop the gegene. He took the rather surprising option to do it with a GTI, i.e. to convert the AC Khz output into CC, CC to 50Hz, and 50Hz back to the input.
He failed and the alleged reason is an insufficient power of his GTI.

We must reckon that the output signal is a carrier frequency of about 20 Khz, amplitude modulated by the mains frequency (50 Hz in France). It's identical to an AM radio signal. A simple diode or a diodes bridge followed by a low pass filter would be enough to rebuild the 50Hz signal that has to be fed back to the input.
A resonant 50Hz LC filter instead of the low pass filter would be better because when looped, it would be a means to fix the frequency which is no more imposed by the grid.

I wonder why he choose a complicated and inefficient method instead of this one. I will not try to duplicate his setup for two reasons: the lamp brightness is indicating much less power than alleged, and people more skilled in electronics than him failed (see here (http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1031&st=150&#entry26957), in French). Nevertheless the believers should try this method rather than the Naudin's method.

Well the GTI is well under powered @ 500watts. I will have to look at the video again but I seem to remember that the power input from the grid did go down by the inverter input.

All this apart the Tesla coil does show interesting results in an item of some work I have done a while back, It seems that it has a great ability to pass higher current at HF, this maybe the inherant capacitance built into it!

I agree on the low pass filter

Mike 8)

It has been pointed out to me that the Tesla coil is a "parallel" LCR which gives current spikes as opposed to voltage spikes in a series circuit, now this would be best if there was some sort of resonance reached. Is this possible when connected to resistive loads?

Mike 8)

Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.05, 19:59:01
@ExnHow do we know the Gegene is not a parametric device if the device's operation is in question?

From the knowledge of the common materials that are used.

Quote
If it is an ordinary coil then why is it not wound like one, why was Tesla granted a patent which must be new or unique in some way if it is ordinary?

A coil is an inductance. Whatever the kind of winding, an inductance remains an inductance from an electric viewpoint, the winding being circular, square or anything else.
But a coil is not an ideal inductance. There are also a series resistance, a parallel resistance, and a parallel capacitance. A double wire Tesla coil is simply a winding that increases the parallel capacitance.

Quote
Obviously we have a discrepancy...

Obviously we face a guy who pretends that his device outputs twice the input power, while the apparent output power from the lamp brightness doesn't fit the alleged output power, while nodody else than him is able to duplicate the alleged effect, while he is unable to loop the device in spite a tremendous COP and while he doesn't even try to do it, conscious that the problem lies in its measurement but avoiding any experiment to show it, to not disappoint himself.

The most ridiculous is that he is now using the gegene to produce HHO when he is supposed to have a free electricity generator much more useful than any gas!  C.C

Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.01.10, 18:22:57
It has been pointed out to me that the Tesla coil is a "parallel" LCR which gives current spikes as opposed to voltage spikes in a series circuit, now this would be best if there was some sort of resonance reached. Is this possible when connected to resistive loads?

Mike 8)

The more a LCR circuit is loaded, the less the resonance effect, question of decreasing Q factor.
There is no significant resonance in the gegene for at least two reasons: resonance frequency (estimated from the setup) much higher than the working frequency and  harmonics, and a high load implying a collapse of the Q factor.

Fron Ex:

Ob

Quoteviously we face a guy who pretends that his device outputs twice the input power, while the apparent output power from the lamp brightness doesn't fit the alleged output power, while nobody else than him is able to duplicate the alleged effect, while he is unable to loop the device in spite a tremendous COP and while he doesn't even try to do it, conscious that the problem lies in its measurement but avoiding any experiment to show it, to not disappoint himself.

I agree completely. Looping such a device would be extremely easy. People distract themselves from this to avoid reality and obfuscate an easily revealed truth.

He could simply bridge rectify the output of his pickup coil (using Schottky or fast recovery diodes) and feed the DC directly into the power supply of the unit, post the device's internal bridge rectifier. In this way, the loop need not be interrupted and mains power input can be switched off or slowly reduced to zero.

We had a discussion on this over at EnergeticForum, I will recap, as what has been said here is not 100%.

Quote (wrtner):

QuoteThe pancake circuit, the secondary, will have some L, C, and R,
along with an output load. Presumably, the driving frequency will
be that of the cooker and the values of circuit elements will need
to be such as to resonate with it.

Reply (Armagdn03):

QuoteThat is a good start on understanding the topic, however its not quite so straight forward. This receiving coil does not act only like a lumped element tank circuit, rather it has multiple resonance modes, some of which act like a parallel, some of which act like a series tank, much more similar to transmission line theory than lumped element. It would be smart to first define the operational modes of the receiving coil, then build ones to match the modes to the driving elements, each will probably give very different results.

Quote (Gylua)

QuoteI would like to make an addition to the excellent Reply #31 above from Armagdn03.
Here is a link that shows a (multi) resonant tank circuit Bootstrap coax traps for antennas and it is actually a certain length of coaxial cable wound as a normal solenoid to make a single layer (cylindrical) coil and the inner conductor of this coax cable is connected in series with the outer conductor (shield or braid) of the same coax cable, exactly like it is connected for Tesla's bifilar pancake coils: ( http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap02.gif )
And the reason I mention this is that you can see how the impedance of this "coax coil" (connected as described) depends on the frequency, see this direct link: http://vk1od.net/antenna/coaxtrap/coaxtrap10.png where the peaks represent parallel (LC) resonances (i.e. high impedances) and the valleys represent series (LC) resonances (i.e. low impedances), so if you make a Tesla bifilar pancake coil you would surely experience similar impedance curves in the function of frequencies. For such cylindrical coaxial traps shown in the link there exists a computer program to calculate the needed resonant frequencies for the MHz ranges where radio amateurs mainly build antennas for the short wave bands. That computer program has a certain mechanical and electrical data base of known types of coax cables. If someone is interested in that software, it is free here www.qsl.net/ve6yp/coaxtrap.zip from this link http://www.qsl.net/ve6yp/CoaxTrap.html

There is not only a resonant mode of maximum impedance, but also one of minimum (and multiples), hence the patent saying that the capacity can neutralize the self induction, thereby reducing impedance that a coil would normally have. Keep in mind that these are much closer to transmission line and waveguide theory than lumped element.

Quote from: Armagdn03 on 2013.01.25, 23:05:43
...
There is not only a resonant mode of maximum impedance, but also one of minimum (and multiples), hence the patent saying that the capacity can neutralize the self induction, thereby reducing impedance that a coil would normally have. Keep in mind that these are much closer to transmission line and waveguide theory than lumped element.

The measurement don't show any overvoltage. Neither the frequencies nor the circuit are adjusted for any resonance. "Transmission lines" are concepts that have a sense only when the wavelength of the signals are shorter than the line, what is not the case here even for the 30th harmonic! And the high load is incompatible with a possible resonance.
So what are the facts sustaining the alleged resonance? Obviously none.

The two coils constitute a simple transformer.

Quote from: ION on 2013.01.25, 15:01:36
...
He could simply bridge rectify the output of his pickup coil (using Schottky or fast recovery diodes) and feed the DC directly into the power supply of the unit, post the device's internal bridge rectifier. In this way, the loop need not be interrupted and mains power input can be switched off or slowly reduced to zero.

In fact the IGBT are powered by rectified AC not by DC (I mean a not constant voltage but variable around a positive value). However the principle that you present works: the diode bridge must be simply followed by a low pass filter that removes the 20 Khz signal but keeps the 50 Hz envelope modulation (same role as a diode in an AM radio receiver, followed by a RC circuit feeding the audio amp).
It's so easy that it's unbelievable that JL Naudin didn't thought it, so it's his volontary choice to not do it, presumably for the above mentioned reasons.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.01.26, 10:47:50
In fact the IGBT are powered by rectified AC not by DC (I mean a not constant voltage but variable around a positive value). However the principle that you present works: the diode bridge must be simply followed by a low pass filter that removes the 20 Khz signal but keeps the 50 Hz envelope modulation (same role as a diode in an AM radio receiver, followed by a RC circuit feeding the audio amp).
It's so easy that it's unbelievable that JL Naudin didn't thought it, so it's his voluntary choice to not do it, presumably for the above mentioned reasons.

Yes Ex, perhaps I should have said "pulsating DC". The low pass filter is also a good idea and rather easy to implement.  Does anyone have or can point to a schematic for one of these devices? I would be interested to know exactly how they handle the mains input.

Here's a start. (http://www.imajeenyus.com/electronics/20060908_induction_cooker/index.shtml)

Follow the links which will lead to other
links.  Really good info.

I like this schematic best.  The simplicity of
low side switching has numerous advantages.

(http://www.imajeenyus.com/electronics/20060908_induction_cooker/images/cooker_driver.jpg)

Quote from: ION on 2013.01.26, 16:52:24
...
Does anyone have or can point to a schematic for one of these devices? I would be interested to know exactly how they handle the mains input.

Here is the principle :
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1610.0;attach=9228)

The role of the capacitor C is not to filter the mains frequency. At the C terminals, there is a double-rectified voltage only a bit smoothed by the capacitance that presents a rather high impedance at the mains frequency. But at the switching frequency C presents a low impedance, in order to provide a high current for the IGBTs.

I like Dumped schematic better, but regardless, Naudin is making a very interesting claim.  

I think there is a mathematical principle here with any feedback system.    You take a fraction of the output power and feed it back to the input.  Thus, you've lowered the input requirement.  Easy!  But remember, not all the input power goes to a load, just loops around back to the input, so it is deceiving.  In fact, if he turns off the lights,  he can have maybe 99% of the power input to the cooker be recycled and only 1% coming in from the grid to offset losses.   Do you see what I'm saying.  Looping the power back like that proves nothing, it is just an extra unnecessary complication!  So I must conclude that it is not over unity, because of the power meters, therefore, we must now ascertain how much the load is consuming. And measuring the power pulses is hard and inaccurate, but I'll give it a try.


edit:   I added the second picture from Naudin, where he shows the power measured.  Well judging from the current and voltage waveform he shows on his website, they are not perfect sinusoids, one side seems clipped, and as we know,  the average power in a sinusoidal waveform feeding a resistive load is 1/2 V I, where V and I are the amplitude values, and he did not take this into account for this graph, so there is 1/2 penalty there that we need to correct,  then because the waveform amplitude is modulated by 50 Hz, that's another 1/2 we need to take off, so his time averaged power is closer to 1000 watts not 4000 watts peak, however, because the waveforms are clipped on one side as I mentioned, I would take off another 30%,  so that puts us at around 700 watts, which is what the input is from the grid.

So no extra power, just a show for the naive.

EM

PS,  I added the third image to bring the point home about recycling the power and why higher power to the cooker, while lower power is input from the grid, is really not anything special at all and certainly does not mean overunity operation.

Thanks Dumped and Exn, it was a good read.

@EX

QuoteThe role of the capacitor C is not to filter the mains frequency. At the C terminals, there is a double-rectified voltage only a bit smoothed by the capacitance that presents a rather high impedance at the mains frequency. But at the switching frequency C presents a low impedance, in order to provide a high current for the IGBTs.

yes, that's correct,  in fact, all these extra components like the harmonic filter, capacitor C, choke, cap Ck, are there to keep the high frequency from leaking back into the power grid.  If C was intended to smooth the 50 Hz waveform it's doing a poor job judging from Naudin's waveform.  Maybe if there is no load on the cooker then perhaps it's smoothing the 50 Hz.

Now, why is there a resistor R on the 220 V input?   Is it to fix the power factor so the electric company does not get cheated out of some profits? Just remove it!   >:-)  


PS.  Do you guys remember that dude that was on overunity.com, and was doing pretty much the same thing.  He had some company that was making these electronic switching boxes right on the main line voltage, and was cheating the power meters.  remember him?

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.01.26, 23:01:49
Now, why is there a resistor R on the 220 V input?   Is it to fix the power factor so the electric company does not get cheated out of some profits? Just remove it!   >:-)  

'R' may or may not be required, depending upon the rest of the circuit. It would have little, if any, effect upon the power factor. If the possibility comes up, please don't remove it. Since the cooker runs off of higher frequency pulses generated from the DC bus the system power factor will be near unity.

The resistor is there to help with filtering garbage generated by the cooker before it goes out the power line.

In systems that do not have a large DC smoothing capacitor and are modulated by the line instantaneous voltage, power factor is much less an issue.

I suspect the resistor is more to quickly discharge Cx to prevent a possible shock hazard if the plug is accidentally touched after unplugging, in which case Cx could be momentarily charged to the peak of the AC waveform.

EM said:

QuoteLooping the power back like that proves nothing, it is just an extra unnecessary complication!

Perhaps true in Naudin's arrangement, however Ex and I were talking looping for a different reason i.e:

Looping proves everything if the system can still run with even a small load once disconnected from the mains. This would be far more convincing than possible faulty measurement.

ah, good point ION, safety first!  I hadn't thought of that.  It could also play the role of filtering like WW says, or perhaps it is intended for supressing transients when it is connected, that cap can ring with the inductance.

Anyway, regardless of its role, this resistor would have to have quite a high resistance so it does not burn unnecessary power during normal operation.  At 220 V RMS, burning 1 watt in that resistor would imply a resistor value of 48.4 k ohms, so maybe its a 100 k ohm resistor to burn maybe 1/2 watt,  so what's 1/2 watt when it comes to safety!  Besides, cooking  would be draining 1000 watts or more.   

EM

I agree also with Ion, the capacitor is surely for a security reason, because otherwise when you disconnect the device, it could possibly remained charged.

JL Naudin made a new test wednesday, using a heater for the load. Still not closed loop. So I just send the following message to the JLN forum. I don't know if it will be published, the forum is moderated.

Here it is:
"Proof of Gegene overunity beyond any doubt

In matter of overunity, a measurement is not enough to prove anything. Ockham's razor says that a measurement mistake is the most likely reason when energy seems not to be conserved.
Therefore a functioning in closed loop is required, because the strength of the proof must be at the same high level as the extraordinarity of the claim.
So the attempt shown here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene13en.htm is the right way. Nevertheless it failed due to an insufficient power of the GTI and/or the not enough efficiency of the method for power conversion.

A much efficient method would be to simply rectify the output current with a bridge of fast diodes, and then to roughly filter the rectified current to remove the 25 Khz and keep the 50Hz that can be fed back to the input. Possibly a resonant 50 Hz filter could be added in series in order to more or less lock the frequency around this value when the device is disconnected from the grid but must be still powered with a current at this working frequency which the device is built for.

This test should have the highest priority as it would prove overunity beyond any doubt. So I wonder why it is not yet attempted while useless tests are made instead (such using the output signal to produce HHO gas)."

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.01, 10:18:07
JL Naudin made a new test wednesday

So I just send the following message to the JLN forum. I don't know if it will be published

The test No. 18? His new coil has thew two windings side by side instead of the usual
one on top of the other. I would have thought that the winding closer to the primary
coil would shiled the magnetic field from the other winding.

Did you posted on Yahoo's JLNLABS? Donj't hold your breath. I posted a "lets get
going" type post and it nver got on the list. I think he has abandoned it.

wrtner. 

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.02.01, 10:55:29
The test No. 18?

Yes, http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene22en.htm
(the number in the url doesn't match the test number)

Quote
His new coil has thew two windings side by side instead of the usual
one on top of the other. I would have thought that the winding closer to the primary
coil would shiled the magnetic field from the other winding.

For me the way the winding is made doesn't matter, providing that it has about the same number of turns as the primary. The weak increase of the parallel capacitance due to the double-wire winding is surely irrelevant for a functioning around 25 Khz. A single wire coil should work in the same manner.

Quote
Did you posted on Yahoo's JLNLABS? Donj't hold your breath. I posted a "lets get
going" type post and it nver got on the list. I think he has abandoned it.

wrtner. 

I did send it to the Yahoo forum. Sure, the activity is very reduced.
I think that JLN is the moderator, so at least JL himself will see my post.   :)

I find this setup most interesting,infact my induction cook top is on it's way.
I have some thoughts about the setup,that im supprised JLN hasnt thought of himself.

It seems to me that things are reverse to what would work best-in the way of the coil arrangement.
Some testing would be needed,but i believe that a BPC produces a stronger magnetic field than a flat pancake coil for the same watt input of power.

Dose anyone here know how the induction cooker's are tuned(if they are)?
Do they tune the circuit so as it runs at the resonant frequency of the coil inside?
If so,will there be tuning pot's as such as we can retune the circuit if we install another coil?

The reason i think the setup is backward's is shown here in TK's video.
The induction cooker has a flat pancake coil(single wind),and nauden uses a BPC as the collector-should it not be the other way around?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE

So my next few days will be testing a flat pancake coil,and a BPC of the same amount of wire-useing the same amount of watts to drive them.
It would seem that TK is pumping the same amount of energy into each coil.
This can mean only one of 3 thing's
1-the BPC is indeed a better transmitter for the same amount of power.
2-The single wound pancake coil is a much better reciever than a BPC.
3-Or it maybe a combination of both.

So lets see if a BPC has a much higher magnetic field strength than a flat pancake coil-for the same amount of watts.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.01, 10:18:07
JL Naudin made a new test wednesday, using a heater for the load. Still not closed loop. So I just send the following message to the JLN forum. I don't know if it will be published, the forum is moderated.

Here it is:
"Proof of Gegene overunity beyond any doubt

In matter of overunity, a measurement is not enough to prove anything. Ockham's razor says that a measurement mistake is the most likely reason when energy seems not to be conserved.
Therefore a functioning in closed loop is required, because the strength of the proof must be at the same high level as the extraordinarity of the claim.
So the attempt shown here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene13en.htm is the right way. Nevertheless it failed due to an insufficient power of the GTI and/or the not enough efficiency of the method for power conversion.

A much efficient method would be to simply rectify the output current with a bridge of fast diodes, and then to roughly filter the rectified current to remove the 25 Khz and keep the 50Hz that can be fed back to the input. Possibly a resonant 50 Hz filter could be added in series in order to more or less lock the frequency around this value when the device is disconnected from the grid but must be still powered with a current at this working frequency which the device is built for.

This test should have the highest priority as it would prove overunity beyond any doubt. So I wonder why it is not yet attempted while useless tests are made instead (such using the output signal to produce HHO gas)."

You and I, and perhaps a handful of others know the answer to the last statement in bold, and why it will not be performed.
It would be "game over" and perhaps he intuitively knows this. Better towards diversion and complexification.

Quote from: ION on 2013.02.07, 14:57:46
You and I, and perhaps a handful of others know the answer to the last statement in bold, and why it will not be performed.

Possibly because it is complicated and beyond the ken of many.

Remember Occam's Razor:
Whatever was wrong with the kettle method?

I think there is a much easer way to loop the system.
HD FWBR made from fast diode's charging a 12 or 24 volt battery bank.
Battery bank running a 2500 watt inverter.
And inverter running the induction cook plate.

@tinman link=topic=1610.msg28595#msg28595 date=1360318579]
I think there is a much easer way to loop the system.
...
[/quote]

I agree.
My post to the JLN group mentioned above in my reply #53 and proposing a better way of looping, is not yet published. So while it is not published, I must consider that JLN prefers to foster the illusion of overunity in his device rather than to challenge it and the conclusion is that he knows that his device is not OU and why.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.08, 11:24:47
@tinman link=topic=1610.msg28595#msg28595 date=1360318579]
I think there is a much easer way to loop the system.
...


My post to the JLN group mentioned above in my reply #53 and proposing a better way of looping,

You shouldn't hold your breath. I think that list is dead, except that a couple of people
appear to have unmoderated access which he may have forgotten about.

What we need is good COP data (without trying to estimate the area under scope shots) and the
looping, however elegant, can come later.

The kettle does this:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene07en.htm

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.08, 11:24:47
@tinman link=topic=1610.msg28595#msg28595 date=1360318579]
I think there is a much easer way to loop the system.
...


I agree.
My post to the JLN group mentioned above in my reply #53 and proposing a better way of looping, is not yet published. So while it is not published, I must consider that JLN prefers to foster the illusion of overunity in his device rather than to challenge it and the conclusion is that he knows that his device is not OU and why.

Agreed

Only the very highest minded of scientific experimenters have the courage to challenge their own findings, and they will challenge their own work from many different angles to find truth.

We often see the opposite attitude here, where the same test method routinely produces similar (and often flawed) results, but other test methods that could double check or challenge those results are not considered.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.02.08, 15:03:26
You shouldn't hold your breath. I think that list is dead, except that a couple of people appear to have unmoderated access which he may have forgotten about.

I don't think so.
Is it a simple hypothesis or do you hold a real information that people would have unmoderated access?

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.02.08, 15:03:26
...
What we need is good COP data (without trying to estimate the area under scope shots) and the looping, however elegant, can come later.
...

We have already the data. It's clearly OU.
"Later", it's now. But no loop. Why? Likely experimental mistakes.

JLN did the same with the Kapagen. One day, step 1, he measured OU. The next day, step 2, he measured no more OU. He has never confessed why he was mistaken. With the gegene, my impression is that he has only skipped the step 2, maybe to avoid to be ridiculous a second time.

I forsee a problem with my way of looping the system.
If i use my 2500 watt inverter to run the induction cook top at 1800 watt's, i will need to be pulling in excess of 150 amp,s from the 12 volt batterys.
That in itself isnt a problem,but where to get ultra fast diode's that will handle 150 amp's?,so as i can charge the battery's?

Quote from: ION on 2013.02.08, 15:04:44
...
Only the very highest minded of scientific experimenters have the courage to challenge their own findings, and they will challenge their own work from many different angles to find truth.
...

I share this view. It's really the only method to prove that something is real: to remove all possible flaws and holes of the measurement and the protocol by testing, and then to publish the results and let the others analyse, duplicate and confirm it's really OU.

In matter of over-unity, we see under-exprimenters claiming OU first, then they try to confirm, but are never able to do it nor to give technical informations for the others to duplicate. When you have no doubts because you believe, why would you challenge your faith?
Finally they never confess that they were wrong, cultivating the rumor for the benefit of their status of great prophet of the free energy, and we see even some of these guys always claiming new OU devices 10 or 20 years later! (Bedin i). The worst is that they have followers  ;D.

The truth can come only from skeptics. Most of those who make the real science are skeptics, they have to convince themselves, removing their own doubts one by one, then to succeed in convincing the other skeptics and that is why the final result is real science with practical applications.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.08, 16:41:34
I forsee a problem with my way of looping the system.
If i use my 2500 watt inverter to run the induction cook top at 1800 watt's, i will need to be pulling in excess of 150 amp,s from the 12 volt batterys.
That in itself isnt a problem,but where to get ultra fast diode's that will handle 150 amp's?,so as i can charge the battery's?

I have proposed another method using a higher voltage, the voltage of the output. In this case 10A diodes should be enough (see reply #53).

And if you really want an inverter, you may build one for operating under a much higher voltage than 12v and so with a weaker current.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.08, 16:10:12
I don't think so.
Is it a simple hypothesis or do you hold a real information that people would have unmoderated access?

Look and see for yourself.

Your message is not up. Neither did mine get published. What does is pretty
strange arcane stuff which relates to nothing that Naudin is doing.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.08, 16:18:03
We have already the data. It's clearly OU.
"Later", it's now. But no loop. Why? Likely experimental mistakes.

JLN did the same with the Kapagen. One day, step 1, he measured OU. The next day, step 2, he measured no more OU. He has never confessed why he was mistaken. With the gegene, my impression is that he has only skipped the step 2, maybe to avoid to be ridiculous a second time.

Is it your belief exnihiloest that it is indeed OU?
If so,are you going to replicate this setup?

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.09, 15:26:27
Is it your belief exnihiloest that it is indeed OU?
If so,are you going to replicate this setup?

The data show OU. It's only what I say.
Why should I replicate this setup? The data show a COP near 200%. It follows that it is extremely easy to loop the device, even with an inefficient method. We all know that it would be the definite proof of OU and it's the final goal of every experimenter in the field. But JLN doesn't try it or perhaps he tried and failed but doesn't say it. I conclude that he has good reasons for that. The main reason is: he is wrong with the data and he knows it. This is perfectly in agreement with the results from other experimenters who don't measure OU.
And thus, an easy reasoning has avoided a useless work...     ;)

I just looked at the JNL test with the heater,  and his numbers are:

Input Power:  1733 watts  (measured by watt meter)
Output Power:  1599 watts  (calculated from V and I)


His power difference is about 130 watts, which is about 7.6% of the input power.  The question is, how accurate are his calculations?  (I don't have time to download his software and data file, but he makes them available)


If the calculations are correct, than I think I know why JNL and others (like Lawrence Tesung) measure overunity from pulse systems, and I encountered this as well, and it deceived me.


Quite simply, the problem is the probes.   If the probes are not perfectly adjusted and calibrated, a pulsed or rapidly rising waveform can OVERSHOOT the actual amplitude, because of slight inductance that is not canceled.  This needs to be checked, and I think it affects Tesung more than JNL.

EM

In the test http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene16.htm:
Input power : 1165 W
Output power : 2061W

At http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene18.htm:
Input power : 1155 W
Output power : 1946W

At http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene19.htm
Input power : 1148 W
Output power : 2408W !

With so much available output over-power, only an idiot would be unable to loop the device.

Between the two last mentionned tests, only the way he was measuring changed. He got a 450W bonus simply by changing his method of measurement!  ;D
To handle properly high frequencies, high voltages and high currents is beyond the reach of a hobbyist. This guy should learn electronics.

I copied a portion of the script that JNL used to calculate the power,  and it is so obvious he does not know the basics.   (copied from the first link posted above by EX)

Look at the bold line, he apparently does not care about phase angle!   This simple mistake is all too common.




% compute the Average Power
%
pp=u1.*u2/r;
Pavg = VTG_rms * CUR_rms;
pmoy=trapz(t,pp)/(t(l)-t(1));
pwravg = zeros(l,1);
pwravg = pwravg + Pavg;
figure(3); clf;
plot(t,pp,'-g',t,pwravg,'-r');
xlabel('Time t (s)');
ylabel('Power (W)');
title('P = f(t) - GEGENE OUTPUT POWER');
axis([t(1) t(l) min(pp) max(pp)]);
disp(['---> OUTPUT AVG Power (VTG_rms * CUR_rms): ',sprintf('%0.1f',Pavg),' Watt ']);
disp(['---> OUTPUT AVG Power (Trapeze method) : ',sprintf('%0.1f',pmoy),' Watts']);
grid on
legend('U(t)',['AVG PWR =',sprintf('%0.1f',Pavg),' W ']);

To be honnest, he has shown that the current and the voltage are in phase. See the bottom views, the yellow and blue traces fit one another. So it is legitimate to do the product of the average values:

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/images/gegene13hscope.jpg)

I'm convinced that there is a flaw but it must be more subtle (integration step width?...).

Could you not just plug the light's into the main;s, and get the wattage usage along with a temp reading of each globe.
Then plug them into the system,get a wattage usage from the mains for the system-then measure temp on the globe's again.
If the temp on the globe's is higher than that of them running straight off the main;s,and the unit is useing less wattage than was consumed by the globe's pluged into the main;s-would that not indicate a higher output than input?

We could also do the same useing a light box and a solar pannel with a pure resistive load on it.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.02.11, 01:16:35
I copied a portion of the script that JNL used to calculate the power...

I still see the best way to handle power measurement is the kettle (calorimetry) method:
This is an early test of his:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene07en.htm

Here, he declares that the kettle runs at an efficiency of 72%, giving an overall efficiency of
the system as 96%.

As the miracle is presumed to come from the coupling with the marvelous bifilar coil, another way to prove an ordinary functioning would be to take the output power directly from the primary coil connection and to show that we have the same power or a bit higher power. This configuration being conventional, then it should be concluded that there is a measurement error.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.13, 09:11:10
As the miracle is presumed to come from the coupling with the marvelous bifilar coil, another way to prove an ordinary functioning would be to take the output power directly from the primary coil connection and to show that we have the same power or a bit higher power. This configuration being conventional, then it should be concluded that there is a measurement error.

I dont think that would work,as it would change the resistance that the circuit see's.
Also i would think that the circuit would be some what tuned to the coil ?

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.13, 10:36:41
I dont think that would work,as it would change the resistance that the circuit see's.
Also i would think that the circuit would be some what tuned to the coil ?

Exactly what do you think a transformer secondary such as the bifilar does when loaded with a resistance?

Secondary loads are reflected to the primary (driving coil) according to the coupling co-efficient and in consideration of stray or leakage inductance.

If one thinks there is some type of magic when utilizing pancake coils as opposed to conventional windings, one need only to construct a simple transformer using this technique and measure the input power vs. output power vs. frequency using a conventional benchtop pulse generator. All the theatrics with tabletop cookers and banks of lamps is diversion from basic measurement.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.13, 10:36:41
I dont think that would work,as it would change the resistance that the circuit see's.
...

Why do you think so?!

Quote from: ION on 2013.02.13, 12:48:28
...
If one thinks there is some type of magic when utilizing pancake coils as opposed to conventional windings, one need only to construct a simple transformer using this technique and measure the input power vs. output power vs. frequency using a conventional benchtop pulse generator.
...

Of course. It's the method for rational people: where the (alleged) extra-energy comes from? Thanks to which component? At what location in the circuit?
But a believer has not to test his faith, this is useless because he is intimately sure that the magic is in the way the coil is wound, and in any case, elementary measurements won't work because this magic can't be expressed by an impedance with L and C nor be exprimented with these stupid methods for academic physicists and engineers. And so, a big mess of electronics components is preferable to evade the issue C.C.

In constructing a pancake transformer, do you mean like placing a pancake coil on top of the induction heater pancake coil?

Mags

I dont think I have seen a Tesla pat. that shows 2 pancakes face to face.

What I did see is a primary, of few turns, around the perimeter or circumference of the pancake, on the same plane. Or the other way around where the pancake is the primary and the outer windings are the secondary. A step down.

If Tesla meant for the pancakes to be face to face, we might have seen drawings of that. If we look at the large vertical pancake sitting behind Tesla in one of the pics of him, you will notice that it doesnt look like the same size wire throughout. ;)

I believe that the outer edge of the pancake , on the same plane, is where all the action is.  Maybe even in the center, but I have not seen anything of the sort, unless we consider a Tesla coil, as we see them.  I have seen the primary of a tall tube Tesla coil be made as a pancake, with the tall secondary in the middle.

Mags

Quote from: ION on 2013.02.13, 12:48:28
Exactly what do you think a transformer secondary such as the bifilar does when loaded with a resistance?

Secondary loads are reflected to the primary (driving coil) according to the coupling co-efficient and in consideration of stray or leakage inductance.

If one thinks there is some type of magic when utilizing pancake coils as opposed to conventional windings, one need only to construct a simple transformer using this technique and measure the input power vs. output power vs. frequency using a conventional benchtop pulse generator. All the theatrics with tabletop cookers and banks of lamps is diversion from basic measurement.

Where not talking about loads of coils or transformers here.
Exnihiloest description was-output power directly from the primary coil connection
So the circuit will not be seeing a load from the coil,but directly from the lights them self.
When you add resistance(the globe's) to another resistance(the coil)you lower the total resistance-so the circuit will be seeing a lower resistance.
At those frequencies the coil will have a very high resistance due to the skin effect,although they try to eliminate that some what by useing litz wire.

As far as the BPC go's-they are far better transmiters and recievers than that of a standard coil of the same size and same amount of wire.
This has been shown many times by many people.

As far as naudens system go's-well i have no doubt that it is as you say-all smoke-no fire.
But i will say that it is possable to pull a load from the seconary of a transformer without it reflecting on the primary current supply-but it must be a rotational transformer/motor setup.
1 action-2 reactions

tinman said:

QuoteAs far as the BPC go's-they are far better transmiters and recievers than that of a standard coil of the same size and same amount of wire.
This has been shown many times by many people.

As far as naudens system go's-well i have no doubt that it is as you say-all smoke-no fire.
But i will say that it is possable to pull a load from the seconary of a transformer without it reflecting on the primary current supply-but it must be a rotational transformer/motor setup.
1 action-2 reactions

If BPC's are far better in a transmitter / receiver configuration than a standard coil of the same size / amount, then this should be able to be proven with a clear scientific investigation of power transfer.

Thus far all we have seen is folks lighting LED's with no attempt at accurate power transfer measurement. This is hard to take seriously.

As far as the second statement (no reflection of load in rotary transformer) kindly show an example of this claim, as the inventor would surely qualify for the OU prize and possible Nobel nominee.

The only case I know of a transformer violating the normal input / output relationship is in the case of a heavily saturated transformer core (large core loss) when there is no load on the secondary. Then the addition of a small load appears to not be reflected in primary current increase, where in reality power was shifted from large core loss to the load, and may actually appear as a slight input power drop. This mistake is often repeated.

Thane Heins has gotten away with this error for a long time. He fails to account for power shifted from heating the core to energizing the load, because in his measurements he does not consider heating losses.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.13, 17:56:12
Of course. It's the method for rational people: where the (alleged) extra-energy comes from? Thanks to which component?

Do you really not know the answerto that question? Maybe you are being sarcastic.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.02.14, 17:26:31
Do you really not know the answerto that question? Maybe you are being sarcastic.

The questions : "where the (alleged) extra-energy comes from? Thanks to which component?" are questions that anybody observing OU should ask himself, and so lead experiments to locate the elementary effect instead of leading stupid experiments as using the output power to produce HHO!
Output power>input power means that somewhere in the circuit, energy is added. In electronics circuits, it's very easy for any technician having access to each component, to see where. In the gegene, is it before or after the primary coil? Make the same measurement with the same equipement for the primary coil as for the secondary coil, and you will get the answer. So simple...

Quote from: ION on 2013.02.14, 13:30:25
tinman said:

If BPC's are far better in a transmitter / receiver configuration than a standard coil of the same size / amount, then this should be able to be proven with a clear scientific investigation of power transfer.

Thus far all we have seen is folks lighting LED's with no attempt at accurate power transfer measurement. This is hard to take seriously.

As far as the second statement (no reflection of load in rotary transformer) kindly show an example of this claim, as the inventor would surely qualify for the OU prize and possible Nobel nominee.

The only case I know of a transformer violating the normal input / output relationship is in the case of a heavily saturated transformer core (large core loss) when there is no load on the secondary. Then the addition of a small load appears to not be reflected in primary current increase, where in reality power was shifted from large core loss to the load, and may actually appear as a slight input power drop. This mistake is often repeated.

Thane Heins has gotten away with this error for a long time. He fails to account for power shifted from heating the core to energizing the load, because in his measurements he does not consider heating losses.

I will be starting a new thread soon on the rotory transformer.
It will be a pulse motor thread-but not the good old bendini brand.
The aim is to put the end product side by side against a normal electric motor,and see the difference in efficiency.
I dont see any Noble prizes comeing up,but maybe a different way to look at the operation of the simple electric motor.

As far as Thane Heins go's-well im with you on that one.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.15, 10:01:57
...
The aim is to put the end product side by side against a normal electric motor,and see the difference in efficiency.
...

The efficiency of the best conventional electrical motors exceed 95%, so imho the interest to try to improve such a high level is very weak. Only OU could be a real progress and for that, we don't need to compete with conventional technology, we have just to show a self-sustaining device.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.15, 10:57:42
The efficiency of the best conventional electrical motors exceed 95%, so imho the interest to try to improve such a high level is very weak. Only OU could be a real progress and for that, we don't need to compete with conventional technology, we have just to show a self-sustaining device.

Self sustaining devices have been around for a long time,so i dont think they are quite the words to use.
What you guys are looking for is some complicated system that pull's in some magical energy from some mystical place.
Then we want all these complicated measurments taken,so as we can proove that our system make's more energy than it consume's.
Then we get things like-the meters are reading it wrong,the scope is seeing this insted of that,or all you have is some sort of battery effect taking place-and the battery will die soon.
Free energy devices are already here-overunity devices in that they put out more than they consume can not exist,as the energy has to come from some where.
They fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed makes the above true.

So if we already have self sustaining devices,and overunity can not be achieved-what exactly are you expecting or wanting to see?
All i see that can be done ,is improvements to what we already have.
If the best motors are at 95% efficiency,then lets aim for 97%.
There is no harm in trying something new.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.15, 15:05:38
Self sustaining devices have been around for a long time,so i dont think they are quite the words to use.
What you guys are looking for is some complicated system that pull's in some magical energy from some mystical place.
Then we want all these complicated measurments taken,so as we can proove that our system make's more energy than it consume's.
Then we get things like-the meters are reading it wrong,the scope is seeing this insted of that,or all you have is some sort of battery effect taking place-and the battery will die soon.
Free energy devices are already here-overunity devices in that they put out more than they consume can not exist,as the energy has to come from some where.
They fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed makes the above true.

So if we already have self sustaining devices,and overunity can not be achieved-what exactly are you expecting or wanting to see?
All i see that can be done ,is improvements to what we already have.
If the best motors are at 95% efficiency,then lets aim for 97%.
There is no harm in trying something new.

If this is your position statement, it speaks volumes.

Quote from: ION on 2013.02.15, 15:59:45
If this is your position statement, it speaks volumes.

Ok Ion-i have to say that i dont understand your statement?

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.15, 16:30:33
Ok Ion-i have to say that i dont understand your statement?

Nor do I understand your statements contained in the quote I referenced. Not sure what you are trying to say and with so many possible interpretations, it speaks volumes.

Maybe a clearer statement would help, or am I just not getting it?

Quote from: ION on 2013.02.15, 16:39:27
Nor do I understand your statements contained in the quote I referenced. Not sure what you are trying to say and with so many possible interpretations, it speaks volumes.

Maybe a clearer statement would help, or am I just not getting it?

Well the quote you stated of mine was a reply to exnihiloest post.
He stated that-Only OU could be a real progress
To which i replied-overunity devices in that they put out more than they consume can not exist,as the energy has to come from some where.
The fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed makes the above true.

He also stated-we don't need to compete with conventional technology, we have just to show a self-sustaining device.
My reply was-Self sustaining devices have been around for a long time,so i dont think they are quite the words to use.
His other staetment was-The efficiency of the best conventional electrical motors exceed 95%, so imho the interest to try to improve such a high level is very weak.
I said there was no harm in trying to get more efficiency,maybe 97%.

So im not sure as to why you think my comments speak volume's?
But anyway,only answers can be found through experimentation.

Perhaps a clear definition of a "self sustaining device" is necessary to add some light to the confusion.

Regarding your statement :

QuoteI said there was no harm in trying to get more efficiency,maybe 97%.

True, incremental improvements are worthwhile and are being pursued worldwide to alleviate the energy crisis, and is the subject of many other forums, however the intent of this forum is overunity research. In that regard we can view EX's statement:

QuoteOnly OU could be a real progress

as true in regards to OUR intent.

Then your statement:

QuoteThen we want all these complicated measurments taken,so as we can proove that our system make's more energy than it consume's.
Then we get things like-the meters are reading it wrong,the scope is seeing this insted of that,or all you have is some sort of battery effect taking place-and the battery will die soon.

Could you clarify this one as it seems you are against accurate measurement?

I've observed the FE  claims for over 30 years and have found that most of the "eurekas!!" are due to faulty measurement or inexperience in observing or interpreting data. Do you imply that we should not measure and record?

Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.15, 15:05:38
...
Free energy devices are already here-overunity devices in that they put out more than they consume can not exist,as the energy has to come from some where.

It is a banality to say it.  "Overunity" is relative to an apparently closed system. If it produces more than it consumes, naturally there is a strong suspiscion that the system is not closed and the energy comes from an unknown source elsewhere.

Quote
They fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed makes the above true.

Energy conservation is an observed fact. Now there is no absolute rule. For example, in a multiverse theory such this from Everett, where two universes interfer, energy could pass from one to another.
Science is not the "truth". Science is the best human knowledge of our world, at a given time. It must be known but it's not the bible: if it is confirmed that observations contradict a theory, the theory must be abandonned or revised.

Quote
...
All i see that can be done ,is improvements to what we already have.

Imagine that you said this in year 1800 when only stream engines were known. You would have worked to improved engines limited by the Carnot cycle. But in 1820, Oersted would have shown you that electricity can exert a mechanical force, and this discovery led to electrical motors with a potential efficiency exceeding 95% in practice, much better than your heat engines.
For improving the actual technology, there are many engineers and scientists working every day in the public and private sectors. They don't need help. Only a breaking technology is needed, as was electricity relative to heat engines.

Quote
If the best motors are at 95% efficiency,then lets aim for 97%.
There is no harm in trying something new.

No interest at this level, it's "overquality": much work for almost nothing, useless to solve the energy crisis.
If you really want work on conventional devices, only heat engine need to be improved, or thermoelectric converter...

while we argue about OU,  JNL is lighting up 1800 watt bulbs, while making tea and heating up his room, all this from an innocent looking induction stove box, with a nice LCD display on the front.   LOL    :D

Quote from: ION on 2013.02.15, 18:25:40
Perhaps a clear definition of a "self sustaining device" is necessary to add some light to the confusion.

Regarding your statement :

True, incremental improvements are worthwhile and are being pursued worldwide to alleviate the energy crisis, and is the subject of many other forums, however the intent of this forum is overunity research. In that regard we can view EX's statement:

as true in regards to OUR intent.

Then your statement:

Could you clarify this one as it seems you are against accurate measurement?

I've observed the FE  claims for over 30 years and have found that most of the "eurekas!!" are due to faulty measurement or inexperience in observing or interpreting data. Do you imply that we should not measure and record?

No Ion,i am in no way against accurate measurements-infact quite the opposite.
I have almost been tricked myself with what seem'd to be OU measurements,but by listening to others -i could see where my error was being made.
My point was and as is yours,accurate measurements are hard to make in some system's-and all to often lead to faulse eureka moment's:as you put it:

My aim is to have a motor/generator setup running off of caps only,with enough energy left over to run 1 LED.]
This in itself would require no complicated measrements,as long as the caps maintained a constant voltage while the system was running from only those cap's.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.02.16, 05:13:02
while we argue about OU,  JNL is lighting up 1800 watt bulbs, while making tea and heating up his room, all this from an innocent looking induction stove box, with a nice LCD display on the front.   LOL    :D

and because of him, the price of induction cookers has been multiplied by 100 in France due to additional taxes from the government sensing the jackpot ;D.

From tinman;

QuoteMy aim is to have a motor/generator setup running off of caps only,with enough energy left over to run 1 LED.]
This in itself would require no complicated measrements,as long as the caps maintained a constant voltage while the system was running from only those cap's.

This is a worthy goal, and the use of caps will allow you to make a quick assessment of viability. Batteries will fool you every time in the short run. Such a system (using batteries) with just a  single LED would have to be run for a very long time to prove OU , and would require precise measurement and stable temperature.

Capacitors will cut the time and measurement work considerably.

From Em:

Quotewhile we argue about OU,  JNL is lighting up 1800 watt bulbs, while making tea and heating up his room, all this from an innocent looking induction stove box, with a nice LCD display on the front.   LOL   

Prediction: When he gets all his measurement errors untangled, he will find he has built an "Electronic Rube Goldberg"

Wet Blanket: A plain old resistive heater (with digital readout if you like) plugged directly into the mains will accomplish the same heating task with far fewer components, practically zero EMI and will have a much longer life expectancy, not to mention a lower shock hazard.

Thanks are due to moderators for cleariing the ordure out of the Aegean Stables.
I doubt that even Hercules would have been up for that.

I see three tasks:

1. Use multiple secondary BPCs, placed one on  top of each other.

2. Put a secondary either side of the primary.This means dismantling the cooker, of course.

3. Check whether we should be ensuring that the secondary circuits are resonating.

I think that the only task (now) would be to check Naudin's measurement with the same setup.
The problem is that this has been done and at my knowledge, nobody else than him have measured OU with an induction cooker.
So for the OU effect to appear, it's to be concluded that the experimenter must be named "Jean-Louis Naudin". This is a rather difficult parameter to set by others for the experiment...   :)

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.24, 10:14:32
I think that the only task (now) would be to check Naudin's measurement with the same setup.
The problem is that this has been done and at my knowledge, nobody else than him have measured OU with an induction cooker.
So for the OU effect to appear, it's to be concluded that the experimenter must be named "Jean-Louis Naudin". This is a rather difficult parameter to set by others for the experiment...   :)

No wait-there is another. Romero uk.
Might be worth a look at his video.He is using a GTI to put power back into the cook top,as well as running a heap of lights.Now i paused the video at one point to see the two watt meter readings.In this time frame i see the grid supply watt meter reading 777.7 watts,and the watt meter that is conected to the cook top after the return power from the GTI reading 892.8 watt's.So now im asking myself,where is the extra 115.1 watts comeing from?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8_zj4cRXYk

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.24, 12:59:50
So now im asking myself,where is the extra 115.1 watts coming from?

The usual, probably.

Since Jean-Louis appears incommunicando, Ex is right. All we can do is duplicate
the experiments, the kettle setup being, in my view, the best.

I am preoccupied with making BPCs out of the primary wire from MOTs. It is
as cheap as chips, and very nice quality. (It may overheat, but I'll jump that
fence if it comes).

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.24, 12:59:50
No wait-there is another. Romero uk.
...

Seriously?  C.C
Naudin doubled the input power. Here we see around 793W in, 930W out. We are far from having two experiments with concordant results. The input/output difference here is not beyond the experimental error: did you ever see the output from a cheap inverter? The signal is not sine, it's between sine and square often with an irregular shape.
And obviously the output wattmeter is not RMS nor it is designed to handle the high frequency components of the output signal.

Romero Uk announces at the begining: "I'm not trying to prove anything". On this point, he is right: not only he didn't prove anything but the way he made the experiment, with inappropriate equipments, is misleading.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.26, 08:52:12
Seriously?  C.C
Naudin doubled the input power. Here we see around 793W in, 930W out.

Gegene:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

Which of Naudin's "Test #" are you referrring to ?

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.26, 08:52:12

And obviously the output wattmeter is not RMS nor it is designed to handle the high frequency components of the output signal.

This is something I come across often. People fail to realise that standard multi-meters - ammeters, voltmeters, power meters, etc - are designed around measuring mains AC 50/60Hz sine waves and not all manor of high frequency signals. It is no wonder we see so many 'unusual' and 'spurious' results. And this will always be the case until people understand and recognise the limitations of their test gear. 

Ex & Farrah
I fail to see where you are finding these high frequencie's from?
Romero is comeing from the coil,through a FWBR and a smoothing cap then to a Grid Tie Inverter.A normal inverter dose have a rugged wave form,but i thought grid tie inverters were suppose to match the ac wave form from the grid input at 50 or 60 Htz.
So where might this high frequency you are talking about be comeing from?,as at the frequency that cook top is running at-there would be very little if any ripple across the cap.

Hi Tinman, I might have piped up out of term here as I find this issue cropping up all the time with folks that pulse electrolysers at high frequencies, so if this is not the case here, then please just ignore me. Tho' I'm sure Ex will elaborate if need be.

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man [or a woman ] in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation.

There are other principles at work here as
well.  ;)

As an electronic device, the Induction Cooker
is not really unique.  It makes use of the well
established principles of LC resonance and
near field loading of a Tank to induce eddy
currents into metallic surfaces.

It is power factor enhanced and therefore
produces a line modulated RF envelope at the
desired frequency of operation.

Using it as a source of input power to an air
coupled secondary does verify the principles
of induction and transformation.

What is truly puzzling though is how the principle
of excess energy or overunity may be thought to
exist and manifest in this case.

Where true excess energy or overunity has been
found to manifest the output of the device is
hundreds of times greater than any input.  What
is nearly impossible to comprehend is that certain
of the devices output electrical energy with no
apparent or visible input at all.

Where are these devices one may ask?  They're
presently carefully guarded secrets in dark places.
Naudin's Gegene surely isn't one of them...

This is not to say that experimenting with Induction
Cookers is a dead end project;  all experimentation
is potentially beneficial and enlightening even when
the results are disappointing.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.26, 12:22:43
Gegene:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm

Which of Naudin's "Test #" are you referrring to ?

See reply #71

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.26, 13:25:45
Ex & Farrah
I fail to see where you are finding these high frequencie's from?

1) the coupling with the flat coil is at around 20 Khz thus the output current is at the same frequency
2) an inverter uses also frequencies at tens of Khz for operating.

Quote
Romero is comeing from the coil,through a FWBR and a smoothing cap then to a Grid Tie Inverter.A normal inverter dose have a rugged wave form,but i thought grid tie inverters were suppose to match the ac wave form from the grid input at 50 or 60 Htz.
...

If they match them at only 17%, it's not surprising that the output exceeds the input by 17% ( it's just an image, the percentage of non linearities and high frequencies being not directly related to the power).

Where can we see the waveforms of the Romeo UK signals? Where is his schematics? What is his measurement protocol? What are the specifications of the wattmeters? A youtube video is completely useless in matter of technical report.

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.03.26, 19:42:51
...
[the Induction Cooker]  makes use of the well established principles of LC resonance
...

No, it doesn't.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.27, 07:43:22

1) the coupling with the flat coil is at around 20 Khz thus the output current is at the same frequency
2) an inverter uses also frequencies at tens of Khz for operating.

If they match them at only 17%, it's not surprising that the output exceeds the input by 17% ( it's just an image, the percentage of non linearities and high frequencies being not directly related to the power).

Where can we see the waveforms of the Romeo UK signals? Where is his schematics? What is his measurement protocol? What are the specifications of the wattmeters? A youtube video is completely useless in matter of technical report.

This is exactly why we need Ex around here.

I for one always value his opinion... and should I become blinkered and need my eyes opening on one of my projects, then I can think of no one better than Ex to tear it apart.   :)

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.27, 07:43:22
See reply #71

1) the coupling with the flat coil is at around 20 Khz thus the output current is at the same frequency
2) an inverter uses also frequencies at tens of Khz for operating.

1)and is sent through a FWBR and smoothing cap.At 20Khz the cap wouldnt have to be to big to smooth the DC ripple)_maybe 40 000uf.
2) and is converted to a 50 or 60hz output-that is what they are designed to do.

Grid tie inverters or synchronous inverters have an on board computor that align the phase output with that of the grid's ac (unlike a standard inverter).The phase has to be within 1% of the grids phase-this is law.A good quality GTI also has a fixed power factor,so as the voltage and current perfectly lined up with the grid supply voltage and current.

So this being the case,i dont think the watt meters would be very far off reading true watt's.
I guess the best thing would be to place a scope across the neutral and active,just befor the second watt meter to make sure it is recieving a steady AC wave at the correct voltage.

Quote from: exnihiloest

Quote from: Dumped
...
[the Induction Cooker]  makes use of the well established principles of LC resonance
...

No, it doesn't.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.27, 07:43:22

See reply #71

In reply #71, you say: "To handle properly high frequencies, high voltages and high currents is beyond the reach of a
hobbyist. This guy should learn electronics".

The alternative is to stick to calorimetric tests, his kettle. You can't argue with  a bulk of water
strating at T1 degrees and ending up at T2 degrees.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.27, 17:22:50
In reply #71, you say: "To handle properly high frequencies, high voltages and high currents is beyond the reach of a
hobbyist. This guy should learn electronics".

The alternative is to stick to calorimetric tests, his kettle. You can't argue with  a bulk of water
strating at T1 degrees and ending up at T2 degrees.

Agreed.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.27, 17:22:50
In reply #71, you say: "To handle properly high frequencies, high voltages and high currents is beyond the reach of a
hobbyist. This guy should learn electronics".

The alternative is to stick to calorimetric tests, his kettle. You can't argue with  a bulk of water
strating at T1 degrees and ending up at T2 degrees.

The calorimeter is an alternative, provided that the measurement is made twice, one using the output from the equipement to test, the other one with a controlled dc voltage/current. If the possible OU effect is strong and shows a real big difference, the test can be conclusive (otherwise it is even more complicated for a hobbyist who likely doesn't know thermodynamics better than electromagnetism).
Other simple alternatives are either a thermal wattmeter or an oscilloscope working at hundreds Msamples/s and with computing features, but both are expensive.

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.03.27, 16:50:56

Quote from: exnihiloest

Quote from: Dumped
...
[the Induction Cooker]  makes use of the well established principles of LC resonance
...

No, it doesn't.

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

There is nothing to elaborate.
The electronics is known. The typical schematics of induction heaters have already been presented here and you can get them every where on Internet.
Where do you see "resonance"?!

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.03.27, 08:59:18
This is exactly why we need Ex around here.

I for one always value his opinion... and should I become blinkered and need my eyes opening on one of my projects, then I can think of no one better than Ex to tear it apart.   :)

Thanks Farrah. It's not my goal, but I don't see other ways than doubts to be sure of a free lunch that the mankind is searching unsuccessfully for milleniums. The distant and also recent past give us good reasons to be skeptic. From what I see from you, you share equally this practice  O0.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.27, 20:28:27

Where do you see "resonance"?

Resonace is an issue wherever a circuit containg L or C is driven by an oscillating source.

On the primary side, the driver is 10khz or thereabouts, and the pancake coil will have
an amount of L, maybe not much. Tesla says that there will be some C.

On the secondary side, we have the same basic conditions.

Jean-Louis says that the load must be strictly resistive. Possibly this is to avoid
making the situation more difficult to tune.

Quote from: exnihiloest
Where do you see "resonance"?!

Examine the "Final" of the device.

Does not the RF PA utilize LC resonance
to "filter" the output to assure signal
purity while enhancing efficiency?

Do you see it? (Resonant Conversion)

Reference #1

Reference #2

- - - - - - -

ION,

You're welcome! (Following post)

Two excellent papers Dumped.

I read them with interest.

Thanks for digging them up.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.03.27, 22:21:36
Resonace is an issue wherever a circuit containg L or C is driven by an oscillating source.
...

The presence of L or C in a circuit doesn't imply resonance. A diode bridge following a transformer and filtered with a capacitor is the obvious example of L/C and no resonance.

"Resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate with greater amplitude at some frequencies than at others. Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are known as the system's resonant frequencies, or resonance frequencies"

This means an accumulation of energy at each period over a big number of periods, depending on the Q factor.

A switching circuit like that of an induction heater or an inverter is the opposite. It reaches almost instantly its "cruising speed". The fact that there is not one single frequency otherwise the signal would be a pure sine is just another clue that there is no resonance. All these facts are well known and understood even by any electronics technicians.

In matter of electronics, it is not enough to chant the magic word "resonance, resonance" for it to appear!

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.03.27, 23:17:20
...

Do you see it? (Resonant Conversion)

Reference #1 (http://www.cypress.com/?docID=35964)

Reference #2 (http://www.fairchildsemi.com/an/AN/AN-9012.pdf)
...

Do you understand what you read?!  C.C
Explain where is the resonance of an induction heater instead of spreading disinformation by lack of understanding.

Why the argument?

The papers cited by Dumped explain resonance, as used in the induction heaters, well enough. There can be no argument that both series and parallel LCR tanks are used in induction cookers.
The presence of a P-N junction in the circuit does not mean that the tank has no resonant point. All that means is that the tank is driven with an external energy source.

Yes, using the word 'resonance' conjures no magical result.

Quote
Explain where is the resonance of an induction heater instead of spreading disinformation by lack of understanding.

We should send a copy of this demand to both major chip manufacturers cited by Dumped.

Quote from: exnihiloest

Quote from: Dumped
...

Do you see it? (Resonant Conversion)

Reference #1

Reference #2
...

Do you understand what you read?!   C.C
Explain where is the resonance of an induction heater instead of spreading disinformation by lack of understanding.

Ex,

Surely you jest for the sake of argument?

Do you still not see it?

If you're really serious this is truly baffling.

Quote from: WaveWatcher
There can be no argument that both series and parallel LCR tanks are used in induction cookers.

Aye, it is a longstanding circuit topology
and well documented in all schematic
diagrams.

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.03.28, 12:15:03
Do you understand what you read?!   C.C
Explain where is the resonance of an induction heater instead of spreading disinformation by lack of understanding.


Ex,

Surely you jest for the sake of argument?

Do you still not see it?

If you're really serious this is truly baffling.


Aye, it is a longstanding circuit topology
and well documented in all schematic
diagrams.

Ex must be having a bad day,as many things have been shown-but blindness still becomes him?

I understand both points of view. I think the misunderstanding lies in the mixing of the terms  "resonance and quasi resonant".

One explanation (resonance) refers to an undamped  LC oscillation of High Q, where no energy is extracted and energy can accumulate to a higher level with each subsequent cycle until the internal losses prevent further accumulation of energy.

The other explanation (quasi resonant) refers to a carefully controlled energy input to an LC, severely damped or loaded by the workpiece, the amount of input energy carefully matching the load requirement on a cycle by cycle or even half cycle basis. That's why it is called " Quasi Resonant" instead of "Resonant". There is no cycle by cycle accumulation of energy as in the conventional explanation of "Resonance".

EX has correctly identified the differences in his earlier post #24.

While the series resonant half bridge is discussed on pages 10 -11 of the Fairchild document, the virtues of the quasi-resonant is preferred for low power tabletop cookers due to it's simpler implementation

Quote from: ION on 2013.03.28, 14:18:07
I understand both points of view. I think the misunderstanding lies in the mixing of the terms  "resonance and quasi resonant".

One explanation (resonance) refers to an undamped  LC oscillation of High Q, where no energy is extracted and energy can accumulate to a higher level with each subsequent cycle until the internal losses prevent further accumulation of energy.

The other explanation (quasi resonant) refers to a carefully controlled energy input to an LC, severely damped or loaded by the workpiece, the amount of input energy carefully matching the load requirement on a cycle by cycle or even half cycle basis. That's why it is called " Quasi Resonant" instead of "Resonant". There is no cycle by cycle accumulation of energy as in the conventional explanation of "Resonance".

EX has correctly identified the differences in his earlier post #24.

While the series resonant half bridge is discussed on pages 10 -11 of the Fairchild document, the virtues of the quasi-resonant is preferred for low power tabletop cookers due to it's simpler implementation

Hi ION
If resonance occurs when the collapsing magnetic field of the inductor generates an electric current  that charges the capacitor, and the discharging capacitor provides an electric current that builds the magnetic field in the inductor, (repeated)-then both must be resonant circuit's.

The difference being,one can be used to do useful work-while the other not so useful.We could look at the two like this.Lets take a child on a swing as an example.With our normal resonant circuit,we would be pushing the child on the swing from behind-or at the peak of the swing.This works well until a load is applied to the child,and the angle of his swing become's less.The person that was pushing the child is in a fixed position,and can no longer reach the child to give him that little push to keep him swinging-so all motion stop's.
Now the quasi resonant circuit could be looked at like this.The person that is pushing the child on the swing is now positioned at the center of the swing-or the pendulums apex.So now even if a load is applied to the child,and the childs angle of swing become's less-the person can still reach him to give him a push in the right direction,as the child still has to pass the center of the swing(0 volt/current line)

As this whole thread is about an induction cook top that is driving a load,and not about a free wheeling resonant circuit-then i believe it correct when it is said that the cook top is a resonant circuit.The quasi driver circuit is just how it maintains resonance while under load.

You are describing the differences a peak switched or zero voltage switched conversion systems. I have a patent on the latter from the 70's.

You said:
I

Quotef resonance occurs when the collapsing magnetic field of the inductor generates an electric current  that charges the capacitor, and the discharging capacitor provides an electric current that builds the magnetic field in the inductor, (repeated)-then both must be resonant circuit's.

You are correct, but note that when we absorb nearly all the stored energy in one cycle or even one half cycle, the swing needs another push to do any useful work. The process is not automatically "repeated", but requires another shot of energy input.

This, to me, is very different than a class C oscillator operating in "resonance" where nearly pure sine waves are produced and only a small portion of the Q is lost per cycle.

The definition of quasi: a combining form meaning "resembling," "having some, but not all of the features of," used in the formation of compound words.

Although it may "resemble" a resonant circuit because it has some of the features (L and C) it is not strictly a resonant circuit in the pure sense (by actual operation) or there would be no need for engineers and organizations that classify inverter types to use the term "quasi".

You may resemble your brother, but you are not your brother.

We may agree to disagree, both being correct from two differing perspectives.

In Switch Mode Power Supplies, where
Quasi-Resonant Soft Switching is most
commonly used, the development of a
full cycle of oscillation per driving pulse
is undesirable.

In Resonant Charging applications the
oscillation is typically squelched as well.

In the documentation for the Induction
Cookers the explanation progresses from
Quasi-Resonant Switching (an example)
to the complete diagram of the actual
RF Conversion stage where there are
significant differences in component
locations.

Is the output waveshape of the induction
cooker circuit symmetrical AC (RF) in
nature or does it appear to be asymmetrical?
That may be the telling clue.

Quote from: ION on 2013.03.28, 16:45:37
You are describing the differences a peak switched or zero voltage switched conversion systems. I have a patent on the latter from the 70's.

You said:
I
You are correct, but note that when we absorb nearly all the stored energy in one cycle or even one half cycle, the swing needs another push to do any useful work. The process is not automatically "repeated", but requires another shot of energy input.

This, to me, is very different than a class C oscillator operating in "resonance" where nearly pure sine waves are produced and only a small portion of the Q is lost per cycle.

The definition of quasi: a combining form meaning "resembling," "having some, but not all of the features of," used in the formation of compound words.

Although it may "resemble" a resonant circuit because it has some of the features (L and C) it is not strictly a resonant circuit in the pure sense (by actual operation) or there would be no need for engineers and organizations that classify inverter types to use the term "quasi".

You may resemble your brother, but you are not your brother.

We may agree to disagree, both being correct from two differing perspectives.

Yes,that is exactly what i was saying-peak switching and zero voltage/current switching-the later apparently more efficient.

I agree,i am not my brother-but we opperate in the same way.The more work we do,the more fuel we consume-as with the quasi resonant circuit.
So yes-i do agree with what you say ION,and ex is not incorrect with what he terms to be a resonant circuit.But myself and others here are looking at the brother that is doing useful work,while the other sits in his chair watching TV-just consuming fuel without doing any useful work.

But the question remain's-why dose the second watt meter in the video read more than the first?.There will be no high frequencies comeing from the GTI,as they are designed to match the Grid AC phase-this is why there called grid tie inverters.

It just seems to some that OU is not within our reach,and everything is dismised befor they them self do any testing.OU is very real,and it is right there with you-but blindly missed.You even touched on the existing OU machine your self ION-quote:You may resemble your brother, but you are not your brother.

Now lets look at how much fuel the human body consumes,and how much useful work it can do on that small amount of fuel-thats an OU machine if i have ever seen one.Nature provides the perfect energy converter,and maybe we should be looking more into how that all work's?.But it also makes it believable that an OU device can be built,and we should not dismiss something because of it's simplicity by means of faulse statements.

Quote Ex: 1) the coupling with the flat coil is at around 20 Khz thus the output current is at the same frequency
2) an inverter uses also frequencies at tens of Khz for operating.The input/output difference here is not beyond the experimental error: did you ever see the output from a cheap inverter? The signal is not sine, it's between sine and square often with an irregular shape.
And obviously the output wattmeter is not RMS nor it is designed to handle the high frequency components of the output signal.<<<What high frequency component of the output signal?.

As this is not a normal cheap inverter, this means nothing to the input or output of the GTI with the way romero had his setup.A rectified 20Khz ac frequency wouldnt need too much capacitance to get a smooth(or very close to)DC out.Looking at romero's setup,i would think 40 000uf would be more than enough.
Then comment 2-an inverter uses also frequencies at tens of Khz for operating.-What has that got to do with the AC output of the GTI? If this is how it converts the DC input to get it's AC output,then what dose that have to do with any part of what the watt meters are reading?.

These are comments that do not help in any way at all in finding out wether a system has merrit or not,and these kind of comments just confuse people even more.If i am to go out and spend $110.00 on a cook top,then i would hope that i would get information that will aid me in my reserch.To get anywhere,we must all stand together.This means putting forth information that has an effect on the outcome,wether that be good or bad for us.But negative comments that have no effect on the outcome ,just are not warranted.

Dumped remarked:

QuoteIs the output waveshape of the induction
cooker circuit symmetrical AC (RF) in
nature or does it appear to be asymmetrical?
That may be the telling clue.

This probably depends on the coupling efficiency to the cooking vessel and what material it is made of.

Ideally, it would reflect to the driving coil as a near short circuit. If this were possible, there would be no net inductance in the driving coil. Since coupling is far less than perfect, the coupling coefficient will go down and the inductance will appear on the drive coil and in the circuit. The inductance will appear to have a large value resistance in series with it (or small resistor in parallel depending on the configuration).

The current waveforms in the Fairchild app for Quasi Resonant Convertor show a very distorted (non sinusoidal)  wave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4wzJdd9Lb8
;)

Quote from: wings on 2013.03.28, 20:04:11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4wzJdd9Lb8
;)

Thanks for that, wings.  Is this fellow-researcher in Russia?  clever fellow...

I liked the way he removed the coil from the stove, then placed BPCoils on either side of it.
Also, nice test with the metal disk in the glass bowl + water.  Wish he had measured the temp rise, then compared the Qheating (KJ, convert to KW-h) with Energy input (KW-h).  I can do that... ;)

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.03.28, 10:05:08
Why the argument?

The papers cited by Dumped explain resonance
...

@dumped and ww

No, they don't. Misinterpretation or disinformation.

What is resonant in an induction heater? Wich compoents are concerned? Why?. No answer.

Neither Dumped nor you have been able to explain where and why there would be a resonance, and so giving whatever links not directly related to the exact point in discussion is the easy way to elude the subject and saving face. This is ridiculous.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.29, 10:03:30
@dumped and ww

No, they don't. Misinterpretation or disinformation.

What is resonant in an induction heater? Wich compoents are concerned? Why?. No answer.

Neither Dumped nor you have been able to explain where and why there would be a resonance, and so giving whatever links not directly related to the exact point in discussion is the easy way to elude the subject and saving face. This is ridiculous.

The papers explain it well enough.

Resonance is not as simple as the point at which all components in a circuit provide the highest possible stored energy. It is also the point where the least or most amount of impedance is provided against a signal or the 'forcefully controlled frequency of operations.

In the first and most commonly known example of a parallel resonance RCL tank the highest amount of energy is stored at the resonant frequency at a certain 'Q'.
In the second it is more properly known as anti-resonance as in a series RCL circuit which can be used as a high or low pass filter. In the third - yes, correctly known as quasi-resonance, it is a  controlled frequency of operation. That control is enforced by the use of switching devices inserted into the the RCL tank.

Probably the most prolific example of controlled resonance is with the use of a varactor - as is used in digitally tuned radio receivers. This example replaces the capacitive function with a voltage controlled capacitance or may use current controlled inductance.

In the case of the inductive heater examples the resonance is controlled by the switching of the energy source. Yes, this switched signal frequency is not the simple resonant frequency of the RCL but is varied to meet the total resonance of the coil plus the metal of the pan.

Another difference and I think the main reason that simple resonance is not allowed on the induction heater is because the best energy transfer would not occur at the simple resonance of the RCL and the pan. It must be forced to the zero sequence harmonics to produce the greatest ohmic losses. This would produce the quickest translation to heat in the pan.

This could then be why an induction heater can boil water much quicker than a radiant heater.

What resonance really boils down to is the point at which all devices in the circuit operate to the intended point. Resonance is not just the the F1 frequency of the plucked string.

In any case, disagreements in term definition is not a valid reason to insult those not agreeing with you.
 

Another simple method to test the efficiency of the pancake coil on an induction cooker.

1) Heat a known quantity of water in the induction container to a recorded temperature e.g. the boiling point 100C. Record elapsed kWhr.

2) Remove the induction vessel, cool it and refill with the identical amount of water.

3) Now place the pancake coil on the induction cooker, terminate it's output into a non inductive resistor that is immersed in the water induction vessel. The induction vessel is now a short distance away and not directly heated by the induction coil.

4) Now heat the water to boiling 100C using the immersed resistor while recording elapsed kWHr.

Conclusion: Did it take more or less elapsed kWHr input to heat the water using straight induction vs. pancake coil and resistive load on it's output?

A non-inductive resistor can be made from a length of carbon rod of the appropriate diameter and length with terminations. It should match the impedance of the pancake coil.

Just an FYI...

It is very possible a pancake coil is used simply because rotation would not occur with a solenoid coil even when the tank circuit is forced to operate at negative sequence subharmonics of the tank circuit. This would mean my idea of using zero sequence harmonics for best ohmic losses are off as using negative sequence subharmonics could create a rotation in the pan base which would be more efficient in the creation of heat.

Quote from: exnihiloest
Neither Dumped nor you have been able to explain where and why there would be a resonance, and so giving whatever links not directly related to the exact point in discussion is the easy way to elude the subject and saving face. This is ridiculous.

Each of documents explains the resonant
circuit comprised of the Coil and its parallel
Capacitor (Cr) which accomplishes the conversion
from DC pulses to RF energy. It is self evident.

It is explained how the DC pulses shock excite
the resonant circuit to generate the circulating
current;  how the control circuit monitors "loading"
to modify pulsing in order to maintain a large
magnitude of circulating current to effect efficient
energy transfer from the resonant circuit to the
metallic surface Load.

It is explained how Loading tends to decrease the
frequency of resonance and how the Control Circuit
compensates to assure adequate output power.

Its similarities to an RF PA in a high powered Radio
Transmitter are significant.

 So I'm climbing the learning curve on this one.

  As I read about induction cookers, finding that the heating of the pan is from two sources:

1.  Induced (Eddy) currents, and resistance in the pan

2.  Hysteresis losses, hence the "requirement" for a ferro-magnetic pan.  Some steel pans do not work well because of this (IIRC).

My question -- I assume a pancake coil picks up energy only by (1), and the needed resistance is in the load -- since copper is not ferro-magnetic. So, is "ferro-magnetic" not required? 

Am I missing something?

Naudin's latest updates don't show OU, just high efficiency.

This gives me an idea:  You should be able to increase the efficiency of a circuit by nudging the electrons with repeated kicks at the right rate.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.03.29, 20:37:21
So I'm climbing the learning curve on this one.

  As I read about induction cookers, finding that the heating of the pan is from two sources:

1.  Induced (Eddy) currents, and resistance in the pan

2.  Hysteresis losses, hence the "requirement" for a ferro-magnetic pan.  Some steel pans do not work well because of this (IIRC).

My question -- I assume a pancake coil picks up energy only by (1), and the needed resistance is in the load -- since copper is not ferro-magnetic. So, is "ferro-magnetic" not required? 

I'm sure ferromagnetic is a requirement on any induction cooker that does not use a planar coil and the planar coil drive does not create rotational eddy currents. I saw an 'all metal' induction stove top in a big-box store while in-tow by the Wife a couple of days ago.
If you are trying to 'cook' another planar coil then I think you have only made a transformer.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.03.29, 22:19:59
I'm sure ferromagnetic is a requirement on any induction cooker that does not use a planar coil and the planar coil drive does not create rotational eddy currents.

  Can you explain this further, WW?   How would such an induction cooker work?

I found this on induction cookware:

Quote"Not all pieces of cookware can be used on induction cooktops and stoves. Since induction technology uses the power of magnetism, the cookware piece itself must be magnetic and have a flat bottom. For this reason, cookware made from aluminum, copper or glass, including Pyrex will not work on its own.

Induction cookware must be made of a magnetic-based material, such as cast iron or magnetic stainless steel. Fully clad cookware brands, such as All-Clad Stainless, Viking cookware and Mauviel M'cooks stainless work on induction cooktops because they're magnetic. Cast Iron cookware also works on induction, like Staub.

If you're not sure if your cookware will work with induction cooktops, try sticking a magnet to your cookware. If it sticks, it should work; if it doesn't, most likely it is not induction compatible."

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.03.29, 20:37:21
So, is "ferro-magnetic" not required? 

I would say that if the receiver coil is loaded, it should appear as a load to the cooker as if a pan were there. Probably some differences if the receiver coil is reactive to the output freq of the cooker, and/or less or more load depending.

If the coil is not loaded enough, this might be why some need to start the cooker with a pan on top of the coil briefly and possibly once running and the pan is removed, the loaded coil is able to keep the cooker active after starting.

Mags

I am not paying attention to this subject to avoid becoming like butter spread over too much bread, as Bilbo would say, but a brief read of the latest posts suggests this information might be of use to you all:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramagnetic

RIM.

Quote from: ION on 2013.03.29, 23:19:20
I found this on induction cookware:
Since induction technology uses the power of magnetism, the cookware piece itself must be magnetic and have a flat bottom. For this reason, cookware made from aluminum, copper or glass, including Pyrex will not work on its own.

Yet, a copper BPC coil DOES work, as empirically observed.  I would like to understand why various informed articles say that the cookware MUST be magnetic, meaning will attract to a magnet, when a copper BPC coil + load works just fine, empirically. 

My thought -- Perhaps its just a matter of efficiency, that ferro-magnetic cookware will be heated by both eddy currents and by hysteresis losses...  Surprising anyway, and I do think this technology bears further scrutiny.

I just stopped back for a moment and see all the mentions that ferromagnetic cookware is required by ALL induction cookers.

Not a problem. I'm going back into town in the morning. I'll stop by the Sam's Club and request the manager remove the false advertising from that Panasonic cook-top.

I might also get a wild hair and stop by the scrap yard to demand they stop using that fake electromagnet to pick up the blocks of crushed aluminum cans  :)

Maybe ya'll should look at induction cookers developed after about 2010?

I would think anything that can create a backEMF against the cooker coil would work.It would seem that the cooktop needs to detect a load to keep running,and i would think that this is some sort of safety feature-so as when you remove your pot full of food,the cooktop go's into standby mode.

You will see in a lot of the video's,it is mentioned that !i should have more load on the output!.Some of the cheaper one's will start without detecting any load on the coil-this is probably because they dont have the auto standby mode.The induction cooker is nothing more than a transformer that needs to detect a load to opperate,and where the secondaries sole purpose is to create heat.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.03.30, 01:23:28
I just stopped back for a moment and see all the mentions that ferromagnetic cookware is required by ALL induction cookers.

Not a problem. I'm going back into town in the morning. I'll stop by the Sam's Club and request the manager remove the false advertising from that Panasonic cook-top....

OK -- so, what is the difference with this Panasonic,  compared to older induction cookers, that it does not require ferromagnetic cookware?

Also, WW -- what is the relevance of the newer models to the thread? -- don't Naudin (and replicators) use the older models?
They use the ones that call for ferro-magnetic cookware, right?

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.03.30, 01:44:27

OK -- so, what is the difference with this Panasonic,  compared to older induction cookers, that it does not require ferromagnetic cookware?

Found this link -- http://www.3ds.com/company/news-media/press-releases-detail/release/ibm-and-dassault-systemes-help-panasonic-home-appliances/single/2439/?cHash=2c34dfefd4f09663710f71f29cb724bc (http://www.3ds.com/company/news-media/press-releases-detail/release/ibm-and-dassault-systemes-help-panasonic-home-appliances/single/2439/?cHash=2c34dfefd4f09663710f71f29cb724bc)

In addition to my earlier statement:

QuoteI'm sure ferromagnetic is a requirement on any induction cooker that does not use a planar coil and the planar coil drive does not create rotational eddy currents.

I suspect that the controls switch from lower frequencies and non-rotational magnetics (ferrous pots) to higher frequencies and rotational magnetics (non-ferrous pots). Not having one myself I can only say those are my suspicions as they would make sense to me.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.03.30, 01:53:51
Found this link -- http://www.3ds.com/company/news-media/press-releases-detail/release/ibm-and-dassault-systemes-help-panasonic-home-appliances/single/2439/?cHash=2c34dfefd4f09663710f71f29cb724bc (http://www.3ds.com/company/news-media/press-releases-detail/release/ibm-and-dassault-systemes-help-panasonic-home-appliances/single/2439/?cHash=2c34dfefd4f09663710f71f29cb724bc)

In addition to my earlier statement:
I suspect that the controls switch from lower frequencies and non-rotational magnetics (ferrous pots) to higher frequencies and rotational magnetics (non-ferrous pots). Not having one myself I can only say those are my suspicions as they would make sense to me.

Well im off to buy one right now(need to look at things hands on)-so im happy to be the guinea pig for any here that would like to try different thing's with the induction cooker.

Any metal works when driven appropriately.

The ferromagnetic materials work "better" in that the frequency used can be lower, due to much higher self inductance and hysteresis losses (i.e. heat).

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.03.29, 15:11:41
The papers explain it well enough.

Resonance is not as simple as the point at which all components in a circuit provide the highest possible stored energy. It is also the point where the least or most amount of impedance is provided against a signal or the 'forcefully controlled frequency of operations.

In the first and most commonly known example of a parallel resonance RCL tank the highest amount of energy is stored at the resonant frequency at a certain 'Q'.
In the second it is more properly known as anti-resonance as in a series RCL circuit which can be used as a high or low pass filter. In the third - yes, correctly known as quasi-resonance, it is a  controlled frequency of operation. That control is enforced by the use of switching devices inserted into the the RCL tank.

Probably the most prolific example of controlled resonance is with the use of a varactor - as is used in digitally tuned radio receivers. This example replaces the capacitive function with a voltage controlled capacitance or may use current controlled inductance.

In the case of the inductive heater examples the resonance is controlled by the switching of the energy source. Yes, this switched signal frequency is not the simple resonant frequency of the RCL but is varied to meet the total resonance of the coil plus the metal of the pan.

Another difference and I think the main reason that simple resonance is not allowed on the induction heater is because the best energy transfer would not occur at the simple resonance of the RCL and the pan. It must be forced to the zero sequence harmonics to produce the greatest ohmic losses. This would produce the quickest translation to heat in the pan.

This could then be why an induction heater can boil water much quicker than a radiant heater.

What resonance really boils down to is the point at which all devices in the circuit operate to the intended point. Resonance is not just the the F1 frequency of the plucked string.

In any case, disagreements in term definition is not a valid reason to insult those not agreeing with you.
 

"What is resonant in an induction heater? Wich compoents are concerned? Why?"

Still no answer but general and vague digressions, misinterpretation of the scientific definition of "resonance" and pure invention about his meaning. Speech outside of science, not even disputable by lack of refutability.

Quote from: ION on 2013.03.29, 23:19:20
I found this on induction cookware:

Quote
"Not all pieces of cookware can be used on induction cooktops and stoves. Since induction technology uses the power of magnetism, the cookware piece itself must be magnetic and have a flat bottom. For this reason, cookware made from aluminum, copper or glass, including Pyrex will not work on its own.

Induction cookware must be made of a magnetic-based material, such as cast iron or magnetic stainless steel. Fully clad cookware brands, such as All-Clad Stainless, Viking cookware and Mauviel M'cooks stainless work on induction cooktops because they're magnetic. Cast Iron cookware also works on induction, like Staub.

If you're not sure if your cookware will work with induction cooktops, try sticking a magnet to your cookware. If it sticks, it should work; if it doesn't, most likely it is not induction compatible."

Induction heater is only electrical current induced inside a (resistive) conductor material. Thus it could theoretically work with non magnetic material but there are practical limitations.
Only the conductivity of the material, the path of the induced current and the quality of the coupling influences the heating.
If the induced current matches the source impedance, as a load at the secundary of a transformer matching the primary impedance according to the ratio of the turns of the windings, the power transfer is maximized. If the conductor is a good conductor (copper, aluminium), its resistance may be too low for a good impedance matching. If it is too high, same problem. The other point is that a ferromagnetic material increases the coupling, as does a ferromagnetic core coupling two windings. The interest of common cookware pieces containing iron is both that they present the good resistivity, and that their ferromagnetism enhances the coupling.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.03.30, 02:31:15
Any metal works when driven appropriately.

The ferromagnetic materials work "better" in that the frequency used can be lower, due to much higher self inductance and hysteresis losses (i.e. heat).

I agree

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.03.30, 01:10:31
My thought -- Perhaps its just a matter of efficiency, that ferro-magnetic cookware will be heated by both eddy currents and by hysteresis losses...

Naudin recdommends a resistive load and in order to achieve coupling, a steel sheet under the BPC. When current is establsihed
in the BPC, the steel sheet can be whipped out leaving the BPC to do its stuff.


SPECIAL OFFER ON HOBS TILL APRIL 16th:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/2kw-induction-cooker-636623

Well i went and bought an induction cooktop today,as it seems time to study this myself.I got a 2000 watt baumatic,which has 9 different setting's.The first thing i did was just to boil some water in a S/S pot.Now what i found with that one simple opperation is that this modle switches on and off on any setting below 5-just the on time changes.Only from setting 5 and up dose it stay on 100% of the time,and just draw more watt's.So this will make testing on the lower scale's a bit hard.

The second thing i tried was to use an aluminum pot to boil some water-no go,all it did was beep.So ali is out for this one.The good thing about this induction cooktop is that it kick's the standard kettle's butt at heating water.It will boil 1/2 a ltr of cold water in under 2 minutes at setting 7(14oo watts)where as the kettle will draw 1730 watts and take 3.15 minutes to boil the same amount of water (maybe the kettle is cactus?)

Now that the kitchen tests have been done,it's off to the workshop tomorrow to build the BPC and start some testing with that.
First test will be to measure time taken to boil a set amount of water without the BPC,and then again with the BPC between the pot and cooktop.
Once we have that,i will then place a load on the BPC,and run the same test again.I will keep increasing the load on the BPC until we reach a 1000 watt load-then we can do some math of input's and output's.

Aluminum exhibits very weak paramagnatism 2.2 x10^-5

Quote"Materials that are called 'paramagnets' are most often those that exhibit, at least over an appreciable temperature range, magnetic susceptibilities that adhere to the Curie or Curie–Weiss laws. In principle any system that contains atoms, ions, or molecules with unpaired spins can be called a paramagnet, but the interactions between them need to be carefully considered."

Copper is also weakly paramagnetic, but when used in the BPC configuration, it is just the secondary of a transformer. With the BPC open, there will be little to no heating in the wire.

If the transformer coupling were perfect, and the secondary "shorted" the "L" part of the LC resonator would disappear leaving only the "C". Then the coil would heat from ohmic losses in the shorted copper secondary. In the real world, perfect coupling is not possible.

This case would probably be too extreme, the cooker would sense the high current peaks and not allow operation.

That's why earlier I suggested using a non-inductive resistor (carbon slug) matched to the BPC impedance and immersed in water as a load.

Attached is a paper on Resonant Mode Convertor Topologies

Quote from: ION on 2013.03.30, 13:17:35
Aluminum exhibits very weak paramagnatism 2.2 x10^-5

Copper is also weakly paramagnetic, but when used in the BPC configuration, it is just the secondary of a transformer. With the BPC open, there will be little to no heating in the wire.

If the transformer coupling were perfect, and the secondary "shorted" the "L" part of the LC resonator would disappear leaving only the "C". Then the coil would heat from ohmic losses in the shorted copper secondary. In the real world, perfect coupling is not possible.

This case would probably be too extreme, the cooker would sense the high current peaks and not allow operation.

That's why earlier I suggested using a non-inductive resistor (carbon slug) matched to the BPC impedance and immersed in water as a load.

Attached is a paper on Resonant Mode Convertor Topologies

Hi ION
I was thinking about loading the BPC with an element from an electric cook top-the resistive element type.Then placing this into a seperate pan full of water.
What are your thought's on this?

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.30, 13:35:55
Hi ION
I was thinking about loading the BPC with an element from an electric cook top-the resistive element type.Then placing this into a seperate pan full of water.
What are your thought's on this?

Electric cooktop elements are usually spiralled nichrome (or equiv) wire swaged into a metal tube with ceramic powder for insulation. They have some inductance, but may work. Unless you are careful, the ceramic material may absorb water and you might have a steam bomb. I would carefully insulate and waterproof the connections to the element. Probably better to use an immersion heater designed for underwater use, but it will still have the inductance issue.

The carbon rod would allow for accurate measurement of voltage using a scope. Then you could accurately compute power.

I'll measure the electric stove element if I can dig one up.

Just came back from the local Sam's club. Interesting  ;)

Declare what you wish. That Panasonic cook top boiled 2 cups of tap water in an all copper pan in under 30 seconds.

I went in as a complete skeptic - magnet in hand  ;) No noticeable attraction to the pan. No radiate heat from the cooking element.

The store folks knew nothing special except they said aluminum pans were not a good idea unless there was a fair amount of weight in the pot.

Good luck buying one. It is out of my financial reach.

As far as defining resonance -- sorry, I'm not limited to the physics definition. That definition is hampered by 'exciting frequencies being the same or very near those of the circuit'. That is ridiculous because anyone understanding even simple tank resonance understands that the exciting frequency need not be a frequency but can be components of a pulse or be a harmonic, undertone or overtone frequency.

Should we amend the AUP or TOS to forbid all but scientific or physics definitions?

Ex.,

You win. Not that you are correct. Just that I have better things to do. You may pursue others to follow your limited definitions.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.03.30, 16:25:45
Just came back from the local Sam's club. Interesting  ;)


As far as defining resonance -- sorry, I'm not limited to the physics definition. That definition is hampered by 'exciting frequencies being the same or very near those of the circuit'. That is ridiculous because anyone understanding even simple tank resonance understands that the exciting frequency need not be a frequency but can be components of a pulse or be a harmonic, undertone or overtone frequency.

Should we amend the AUP or TOS to forbid all but scientific or physics definitions?

Ex.,

You win. Not that you are correct. Just that I have better things to do. You may pursue others to follow your limited definitions.

Resonance is nothing more than a push in the right direction at the right time.Everything has a natural frequency,and a resonant frequency is a disturbance applied to that natural frequency at the correct time.Every system be it mechanical,gaseous or electromagnetic has resistance which will act  against it's natural frequency,and therefore needs an external force applied to it to maintain it's natural frequency.When this force is applied at the system's natural frequency at the correct time,the force is said to be resonant to that system.The greater the resistance against the natural frequency,the more force(at resonant frequency) we have to apply to the system to maintain it's natural frequency.

The simple tank circuit at it's natural frequency has a resistance fighting against that frequency-thus the very reason we have to apply a resonant force to maintain it's natural frequency.As the induction heater in question here uses the quasi resonant sytem,where as the external force is applied at the zero volt line of the tank circuit,then by definition it is a resonant system.It is no different than any other resonant system,as it applies the needed external force required to maintain the systems natural frequency when we increase the resistance(load) to that system.

As far as physics go's-well if you look in one direction,the scenery will never change.

Quote from: WaveWatcher
Ex.,

You win. Not that you are correct. Just that I have better things to do. You may pursue others to follow your limited definitions.

WaveWatcher,

Your abdication may prove to be unnecessary.

Once Ex gives the proposition some deep thought
he'll no doubt come to the correct conclusion.

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.03.31, 03:13:16

Quote from: WaveWatcher
Ex.,

You win. Not that you are correct. Just that I have better things to do. You may pursue others to follow your limited definitions.

WaveWatcher,

Your abdication may prove to be unnecessary.

Once Ex gives the proposition some deep thought he'll no doubt come to the correct conclusion.

It's not a question of abdication nor winning, it's not a question of persons but of scientific truth which doesn't depend on the intimate conviction of anybody.

Either we speak of "resonance" inside this rational frame (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance for a start point), and so the resonance has well defined and indispensable characteristics that can be identified in a device but that we don't see  in an induction heater, or we speak of an imaginary "resonance" that everyone interprets according to his fuzzy personal definition, such tinman's "Resonance is nothing more than a push in the right direction at the right time" which is by far not enough, and it's useless because from an operational viewpoint, nothing is said nor proved nor even refutable. This is the reason why we see further the term "quasi resonant" which is no more defined than "resonant" and therefore it's a door open to any arbitrary affirmations which are nonsenses out of ignorance.

In which components of the induction heater does the energy go back and forth? Where and how is injected the small amount of energy that maintains or increases the alleged resonance? How could an almost rectangular signal (meaning a wide spectrum) itself modulated (meaning non linearities) by the mains frequency, be compatible with a resonance which works at a single frequency? and so on... The laymen unskilled in electronics and physics and who reinvent the "resonance" are unable to explain it in operational terms because their indisputable and pretentious speech is only baloney with which they gargle and whose they prefer the pretty sound to the austere reality.

It's good if coupling is perfect and load resistivity match, but what if they do not match? Is there anything we can do?

I'm now intrigue by resonance.  The Joule Thief able to suck out juice from the battery, but at certain battery voltage (maybe .4V), the circuit stops working.  Resonance can amplify a low voltage to high voltage with high efficient. 

Imagine a 41 Hertz source driving a 1:1  one Henry transformer with 15 uf cap.  This is the resonance condition.  If you lower the transformer coupling, what happens to the tank circuit? 

I now have myself an induction cooktop,and this video is just me playing around a bit with the cooktop.The FWBR's i have dont seem to cope with the high frequency to well,as it keeps frying them.The system runs at 23.3Khz.So next i must find mysel some good resistive load's to try on the system,and also some good UF FWBR's.I am more than happy to try out anything you guy's might think is worth a go.

One other load i tried was a 10mm x 10mm x 60mm carbon rod as a load.The resistance measured 15 ohms from end to end.The rod exploded as soon as i turned the cooktop on-so that was a very short experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOMw487Vdr0

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.03.31, 15:06:28
It's good if coupling is perfect and load resistivity match, but what if they do not match? Is there anything we can do?

If they don't match, there is reactive power.

Quote
I'm now intrigue by resonance.  The Joule Thief able to suck out juice from the battery, but at certain battery voltage (maybe .4V), the circuit stops working.  Resonance can amplify a low voltage to high voltage with high efficient.

Resonance is not an "amplification" but an accumulation, a small amount of energy being added to the circuit at each signal period. An "amplification" is a product, not a sum.

Quote
Imagine a 41 Hertz source driving a 1:1  one Henry transformer with 15 uf cap.  This is the resonance condition.  If you lower the transformer coupling, what happens to the tank circuit?  

See here:
http://ressources.univ-lemans.fr/AccesLibre/UM/Pedago/physique/02/electri/mutuelle.html

It's in French but the simulation applet is easily usable (play with the cursors. Java is needed). M is the coefficient of mutual induction.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.31, 15:59:19
...
One other load i tried was a 10mm x 10mm x 60mm carbon rod as a load.The resistance measured 15 ohms from end to end.The rod exploded as soon as i turned the cooktop on-so that was a very short experiment.
...

Interesting. If it exploded almost instantly, it's surprising because carbon can resist to very high temperatures. So we can deduce that there is another cause than the heat (mechanical shock due to the current longitudinal wave or to an effect of the magnetic field?), provided that it's the carbon mass itself that exploded, not only at the position of the metallic contacts.
This should be to investigate...

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.31, 16:49:13
Interesting. If it exploded almost instantly, it's surprising because carbon can resist to very high temperatures. So we can deduce that there is another cause than the heat (mechanical shock due to the current longitudinal wave or to an effect of the magnetic field?), provided that it's the carbon mass itself that exploded, not only at the position of the metallic contacts.
This should be to investigate...

It shattered in the middle of the rod.The only large pieces that were left were the pieces in the alligator clips.At a resistance of 15 ohm's,i wasn't expecting that to happen.With the carbon rod as the load,the cooktop fired up without the s/s pot on top of the coil.I was expecting it to heat up to a high temp,but not instantly explode.I will see if i have any more of those rod's,and make a video for you to see tomorrow Ex.There was a very loud crack,and the carbon pieces were still cold to the touch straight after?.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.03.31, 16:26:25
If they don't match, there is reactive power.

Resonance is not an "amplification" but an accumulation, a small amount of energy being added to the circuit at each signal period. An "amplification" is a product, not a sum.

See here:
http://ressources.univ-lemans.fr/AccesLibre/UM/Pedago/physique/02/electri/mutuelle.html

It's in French but the simulation applet is easily usable (play with the cursors. Java is needed). M is the coefficient of mutual induction.

I meant what can we do do maximize energy transfer to the load.

Yes, it can accumulate voltage to a useful level from low voltage.

When I decrease the coupling in my example, the tank circuit voltage goes up exceeding the input voltage, then it climbs back down, the cycle repeats.  So if you have an oscillating voltage source of say .1V, you can't directly rectify into useful energy via diode, but with resonance, you can rectify it when the peak reach. 

 

Quote from: exnihiloest
...and so the resonance has well defined and indispensable characteristics that can be identified in a device but that we don't see  in an induction heater...

Ex,

Perhaps you'd provide your own explanation
of how the "conversion" takes place within
the Induction Cooker?  Where it is within the
Output Circuit (L & C) that "resonance" is
non-existent?

This would go a long way in helping to solve
the riddle...

Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.31, 15:59:19
One other load i tried was a 10mm x 10mm x 60mm carbon rod as a load.The resistance measured 15 ohms from end to end.The rod exploded as soon as i turned the cooktop on-so that was a very short experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOMw487Vdr0

Is the exploding rod in the video that you linked? 

The carbon rod may have absorbed some moisture and the steam buildup caused the rupture. This is unusual, I have never had this problem.

If you decide to try it again, bake the rod out in a toaster oven to remove moisture. Or run it up slowly on a variac first. Fifteen ohms is rather low, and would amount to 3840 Watts on a 240 volt line. If it was able to survive that it would be white hot. I suggest you need higher resistance, maybe near 60 ohms. Still there is too little mass there to couple the energy to the air, so it will get very bright.

What type of carbon rod was this?

Quote from: ION on 2013.03.31, 22:39:19
The carbon rod may have absorbed some moisture and the steam buildup caused the rupture. This is unusual, I have never had this problem.

If you decide to try it again, bake the rod out in a toaster oven to remove moisture. Or run it up slowly on a variac first. Fifteen ohms is rather low, and would amount to 3840 Watts on a 240 volt line. If it was able to survive that it would be white hot. I suggest you need higher resistance, maybe near 60 ohms. Still there is too little mass there to couple the energy to the air, so it will get very bright.

What type of carbon rod was this?

It was just the rod from a builders pencil,so im guessing carbon graphite.

@ Grumpy-no the exploding rod wasnt in the video.

tinman,


The graphite in a pencil is actually a mixture of graphite, clay, oil and wax. The high resistance you measured before applying a voltage would have been due to the content of all but the graphite. The resistance of graphite is quite low.

Graphite has a negative temperature coefficient so as soon as current flowed the resistance of your rod dropped (almost instantly). The sudden increase in current would have caused catastrophic failure of the rod.

There used to be information about making special resistors out of pencil lead which included burning out the wax and oil. If you don't, there should be an explosion when enough current is applied.
 

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.03.31, 18:58:24
Ex,

Perhaps you'd provide your own explanation of how the "conversion" takes place within the Induction Cooker?  

It's a switching circuit like those of power supplies, the input signal being here the mains voltage, double-wave rectified but not filtered unlike the case of power supplies. This is a very conventional technology.

Quote
Where it is within the Output Circuit (L & C) that "resonance" is non-existent?

This would go a long way in helping to solve the riddle...

The "non existence" being by definition outside of the reality, it's outside of science. Science is only what we observe. Therefore your question doesn't respect any elementary scientific method.
If you affirm that there is resonance, then it is observable, and you must show where it is and which phenomena you consider as evidence of this resonance. The burden of proof is only to you, it's on the side of the positive affirmation.

The time constant of the circuit determines the switching frequency. The signal is almost square and amplitude modulated by the mains, meaning that there is a wide spectrum, not a single frequency. The output signal appears and disappears almost instantly when we switch on or off the power, meaning that there is not energy accumulation.

So once again, "What is resonant in an induction heater? Which components are concerned? Why?". Will you continue to endlessly elude the question or may I expect for an intellectually honnest answer?

I too am curious about the proposed use of resonance in the Gegene, as I have never seen resonance produce energy.

Even Tesla himself stated that resonance was only a means to work up a small signal, and that one could often do better with an ordinary transformer.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.01, 13:56:33

Even Tesla himself stated that resonance was only a means to work up a small signal, and that one could often do better with an ordinary transformer.

Grumpy,i have read many of tesla's patents,and many documents on his work.Not once have i seen any of his work state what you have above.Infact Tesla always maintained that resonance was the key to an unlimited power supply.His tesla coils must be tuned to resonance(or very close to) before they discharge any decent sort of energy.This also reduces the energy input requirement as well.Then there was his small oscillator that almost brought down a large building-how much energy would it take to do that?Once the oscillations were in resonance with the building's natural frequency,large forces started acting upon that building made of steel and concrete.

To think of resonance as a situation where you gain the highest amplitude for the smallest amount of input energy is nothing more than tunnel vision.Resonance is an interupting force applied to a systems natural frequency at the correct time so as it is in phase with the systems natural frequency-this is regardless of wether the system has a load applied to it or not.The heaver the load applied to the system,the greater the interupting force has to be to maintain the systems natural frequency.This natural frequency will ofcourse change depending on load applied.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.01, 13:56:33
I too am curious about the proposed use of resonance in the Gegene, as I have never seen resonance produce energy.
...

Not only resonance doesn't produce energy but there is no resonance in Naudin's gegene.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.01, 14:57:13
Grumpy,i have read many of tesla's patents,and many documents on his work.Not once have i seen any of his work state what you have above.Infact Tesla always maintained that resonance was the key to an unlimited power supply.His tesla coils must be tuned to resonance(or very close to) before they discharge any decent sort of energy.This also reduces the energy input requirement as well.Then there was his small oscillator that almost brought down a large building-how much energy would it take to do that?Once the oscillations were in resonance with the building's natural frequency,large forces started acting upon that building made of steel and concrete.

To think of resonance as a situation where you gain the highest amplitude for the smallest amount of input energy is nothing more than tunnel vision.Resonance is an interupting force applied to a systems natural frequency at the correct time so as it is in phase with the systems natural frequency-this is regardless of wether the system has a load applied to it or not.The heaver the load applied to the system,the greater the interupting force has to be to maintain the systems natural frequency.This natural frequency will ofcourse change depending on load applied.

I regretfully inform you that you are mistaken.  While his "Tesla Transformer" is tuned to resonate and this is how the very high voltages are developed in this device, his magnifier was not resonant.

I have posted the reference one this site - give me a minute to find it.

I first posted this back in 2008 on OU:

============================================
Resonance" is only a means to obtain very high voltage.

TFC Books has a book that details a lengthy interview between Tesla and his Attorneys:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm

On page 100 of that book Tesla states the following:

--- Quote ---
There are two ways in which you can operate if you have a reciever of that kind.  (Tesla is refering to his system depicted in patent 645,576) One is by linking, closely, your working circuit with the primary excited circuit.  The other is by linking it loosely, and then working up the pressure by resonance.  You will find that you can do much better, if you have such a device, to produce the necessary pressure by turns, than by resonant rise, because if you want to excite it by resonance you have to link only a few lines; start with a very low electromotive force and work it up.  But, if you have such a device as I have described, you can obtain any pressure you like by a few secondary turns.  I have invented such an instrument and have demonstrated its efficacy.
--- End quote ---

So, just like Richard Hull found out in his own experiments, resonant rise will only get you so far.  It's just a means to an end, and not necessarily the best means.
==============================================

I have this book and can scan the actual page tonight.

The reference to the use of an ordinary transformer is either in that same interview, or his Colorado Springs Notes.  I'll check tonight as I have both references marked as this comes up from time to time.

Tesla also states that the Magnifier is 93% to 95% efficient, so if there is extra energy there, it doesn't exceed the losses in the system.

Resonance doesn't create energy, liberate more from it's source, or convert energy from another source.

The building blocks of the entire universe are spinning.  If you want energy, convert it from the wheelwork of nature.

You can see resonance as transformer.  It accumulates small oscillation into large oscillation.  The only useful purpose I see is impedance matching.  There are many ways to acquire high voltage.  You can use a transformer, a switching converter like buck boost, voltage multiplier and so on.  I don't think resonance produce extra energy, but you can use it to gather low energy maybe even at the quantum level.  

Here is a simulation of what Tesla talking about.  You don't need many secondary turns to get high voltage.  Below is the circuit that take 5V oscillation at 41 Hz and boost it up using resonance.  

Sim  (http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+54.00526672067058+53+5.0+50%0Av+144+272+144+192+0+1+41.09+5.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Ac+528+192+528+272+0+1.4999999999999999E-5+31.706172332341954%0Aw+144+192+272+192+0%0Aw+400+192+528+192+0%0Aw+400+272+528+272+0%0Ar+144+272+272+272+0+100.0%0AT+272+192+400+272+0+1.0+1.0+0.0021232168287901795+-0.21368291528429623+0.1%0Ao+0+64+0+33+2.5+0.05+0+-1%0Ao+1+64+0+35+80.0+0.4+1+-1%0A)

Quote from: exnihiloest
So once again, "What is resonant in an induction heater? Which components are concerned? Why?". Will you continue to endlessly elude the question or may I expect for an intellectually honnest answer?

This "process" is getting to be just about as
difficult as "pulling teeth!"

The Resonant Circuit within the Induction
Cooker consists of two components:

The "Pancake Coil" and its Resonance Capacitor.

The "Tank."

The pulsing of the Resonant Circuit is as you've
described:  Pulse width modulated excitation
at the frequency of resonance where the pulse
amplitudes correspond to the instantaneous
magnitude of the Line Input which results in
a line modulated RF envelope at the Pancake
Coil Output.

Ex, it is a simplified version of the very same
conversion process which takes place within
your Radio Transmitter.  The process is very
well explained within the relevant documentation.

Is what we're seeing with Ex truly a lack of
comprehension or is it simply a display of
ornery stubbornness? >:-)  >:(  ???  :P  C.C

In any case, Truth will out... 8)

According to Tesla Patent for a "Coil for Electromagnets", US Patent: 512340

A coil wound in this fashion has a higher capacitance than a single flat winding, and he says it will have a resonant frequency of it's own.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.01, 20:19:43
According to Tesla Patent for a "Coil for Electromagnets", US Patent: 512340

A coil wound in this fashion has a higher capacitance than a single flat winding, and he says it will have a resonant frequency of it's own.

Hi Grumpy
Thank's for the info,and i will be sure to read it when i get the time.

Resonance.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/u11l5a.cfm

QuoteThe word resonance comes from Latin and means to "resound" - to sound out together with a loud sound. Resonance is a common cause of sound production in musical instruments. One of our best models of resonance in a musical instrument is a resonance tube (a hollow cylindrical tube) partially filled with water and forced into vibration by a tuning fork. The tuning fork is the object that forced the air inside of the resonance tube into resonance. As the tines of the tuning fork vibrate at their own natural frequency, they created sound waves that impinge upon the opening of the resonance tube. These impinging sound waves produced by the tuning fork force air inside of the resonance tube to vibrate at the same frequency. Yet, in the absence of resonance, the sound of these vibrations is not loud enough to discern. Resonance only occurs when the first object is vibrating at the natural frequency of the second object. So if the frequency at which the tuning fork vibrates is not identical to one of the natural frequencies of the air column inside the resonance tube, resonance will not occur and the two objects will not sound out together with a loud sound.

The original meaning of resonance was defined before common use of electrical phenomena or after ?

Cheers

Page 88 of Tesla's Colorado Notes talks about his coil with high capacitance:

Page 79 talks about using ordinary transformers:

Nice video about that type of coil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgF20K7qvx0

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.01, 16:43:01
I regretfully inform you that you are mistaken.  While his "Tesla Transformer" is tuned to resonate
...

It's you Grumpy who are mistaken. You mix anything with anything.  "Tesla Transformer" is resonant but it is not related to the topic: Naudin's Gegene, which is not. Stop your digression, or answer the following question asked to you to several times and that you ignore because it challenges your disinformation:  "What is resonant in an induction heater? Which components are concerned? Why?".

I have open this thread to discuss only Naudin's Gegene, where there is no Tesla transformer. 

This thread is not about resonance.

Please stay in the topic!

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.02, 06:43:04
 

This thread is not about resonance.

Please stay in the topic!

On this we can agree--on with the experimenting.I have purchased 2000 watt's of halogen globe's today,and will make the carrier tomorrow.Then some testing will follow.This will be the part we need to get right-P/in P/out,so feel free to put forth any testing methods you may think would be most accurate in these tests.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.02, 06:43:04
It's you Grumpy who are mistaken. You mix anything with anything.  "Tesla Transformer" is resonant but it is not related to the topic: Naudin's Gegene, which is not. Stop your digression, or answer the following question asked to you to several times and that you ignore because it challenges your disinformation:  "What is resonant in an induction heater? Which components are concerned? Why?".

I have open this thread to discuss only Naudin's Gegene, where there is no Tesla transformer. 

This thread is not about resonance.

Please stay in the topic!

That is what I said:  the Tesla Transformer (two coil version) IS resonant.  Tesla's Magnifier is NOT resonant.

Stop mis-quoting me to stroke your own ego!

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.02, 13:35:22
That is what I said:  the Tesla Transformer (two coil version) IS resonant.  Tesla's Magnifier is NOT resonant.

Stop mis-quoting me to stroke your own ego!

Grumpy: I have reread the thread. The wrong affirmation of resonance was from dumped, not you, and in my mind, it was from you. Not a question of ego but of weak memory. I apologize.
My never answered question about the alleged resonance in the gegene is therefore for dumped only ("What is resonant in an induction heater? Which components are concerned? Why?").

EX, Apology accepted.

attached is an image of the internal components of a typical induction cooker:

Thanks for the photo, Grumpy.  Does the fan run on 120V AC, as I suppose? I'd like to eliminate that from the power-draw... but would need to be careful not to overheat the coil.

OK -- In the last few days, I've begun experiments with the induction heater, heading towards Gegene.  (I was working on slayer-exciter devices for a while; having fun with those...)

See attached photos.  500g water heated in each case, Q = 4.19 *500g* (delta-TempOfWater).

The steel pan and the steel 7-1/4" saw blade both attract strongly to a magnet.

Watt-hours read using the Intertek watt-meter shown (checked against Kill-a-Watt meters, but the Intertek has better resolution, down to the watt-hour).

I did a few experiments putting in 30 W-hrs = 108,000J of electrical energy.

Outputs were:
Pan  70,367J    Pout/Pin  65%
Pyrex bowl + saw blade:  71,498,  and 70,141    Pout/Pin  66%, 65%

So Pout/Pin quite consistent at approx. 65%.

Note the BPC in the upper corner of photos... that's next, but I have some errands before I can get to that.

TinMan -- halogen bulbs are nice, but I'm planning to dump the power into three simple resistive-immersion-heaters in series and immersed in/heating water, thus using calorimetry to determine Pout.

Quick sanity check:

Is the "extra power" within the margin of error for the measuring method?

From Physicsprof:

QuoteI'm planning to dump the power into three simple resistive-immersion-heaters in series and immersed in/heating water, thus using calorimetry to determine Pout.

Why will you be running three of them in series? What is the Wattage of each at 120 Volts? What is the RMS voltage output of your BPC coil with a reasonable load?

Note that they may have some inductance if they are Nichrome wound types.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.02, 17:22:56
Quick sanity check:

Is the "extra power" within the margin of error for the measuring method?

Not claiming "extra power" with these experiments, rather

QuotePout/Pin  65%
    Pout/Pin  66%, 65%

Note that Pout < Pin.  Margin of error is several percent I think.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.02, 22:16:12
Not claiming "extra power" with these experiments, rather
Note that Pout < Pin.  Margin of error is several percent I think.

no extra power?

then why all the interest in this?

Quote from: ION on 2013.04.02, 20:57:30
From Physicsprof:

Why will you be running three of them in series? What is the Wattage of each at 120 Volts? What is the RMS voltage output of your BPC coil with a reasonable load?

Note that they may have some inductance if they are Nichrome wound types.

I mean "up to three", as I have three of them IIRC.  The "wattage" of each is 300 W @ 120V.  I have no idea what is the RMS voltage output of my BPC coil with a reasonable load...  have yet to try the BPC coil over the induction cooker.  Yes, I expect they are nichrome - two turns, 1" diam.

Your suggestions are welcomed.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.02, 22:18:36
no extra power?

then why all the interest in this?

Look, I'm just getting started with this approach.  Be patient!
Maybe the BPCoil(s) will show something interesting, maybe not; but I will attempt to measure Pout (not just light bulbs,, as interesting as that may be).  Probably I won't post results for a while...

Naudin's results "imply" extra energy in some of his tests.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.02, 22:46:36
Naudin's results "imply" extra energy in some of his tests.

Right, but not in his calorimetry test IIRC -- and that to me was his "best method".  I'm leading up to a calorimetric test...

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.02, 22:22:07
I mean "up to three", as I have three of them IIRC.  The "wattage" of each is 300 W @ 120V.  I have no idea what is the RMS voltage output of my BPC coil with a reasonable load...  have yet to try the BPC coil over the induction cooker.  Yes, I expect they are nichrome - two turns, 1" diam.
Your suggestions are welcomed.

Ok A couple of points to consider.

If the BPC turns equals the turns of the internal cooker coil, then you have a 1:1 air core transformer and you should get  approximately the equivalent of the line voltage as the  voltage output of your BPC, so driving a single immersion heater should be ok. You may be able to drive two or three in parallel to get a better power transfer.

If the BPC turns are a lot greater than the induction cooker coil, you will have some step up ratio of voltage based on the turns ratio. This could be excessive for a 120 Volt immersion heater. You may need to start with two in series.

As for the two turns you see on your immersion heater, that is just the outer casing. Internally there are probably many turns wound on a mandrel and swaged (drawn down in diameter) into the heater casing with an insulating ceramic powder, so the inductance could be higher than expected.

For safety, maybe start with one heater and a 2.5 amp fuse in series with it. 300W/120V=2.5 Amps. If this blows you know your voltage output is higher than 120.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.01, 17:08:02
I first posted this back in 2008 on OU:

============================================
Resonance" is only a means to obtain very high voltage.

TFC Books has a book that details a lengthy interview between Tesla and his Attorneys:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/nt_on_ac.htm

On page 100 of that book Tesla states the following:

--- Quote ---
There are two ways in which you can operate if you have a reciever of that kind.  (Tesla is refering to his system depicted in patent 645,576) One is by linking, closely, your working circuit with the primary excited circuit.  The other is by linking it loosely, and then working up the pressure by resonance.  You will find that you can do much better, if you have such a device, to produce the necessary pressure by turns, than by resonant rise, because if you want to excite it by resonance you have to link only a few lines; start with a very low electromotive force and work it up.  But, if you have such a device as I have described, you can obtain any pressure you like by a few secondary turns.  I have invented such an instrument and have demonstrated its efficacy.
--- End quote ---

That is some good reading G,  but I'm not sure how to tell page numbers from the HTML page?

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.02, 16:16:58
EX, Apology accepted.

attached is an image of the internal components of a typical induction cooker:

These Induction Heaters, although not resonant, are actually the perfect driver circuits for an electronic Tesla coil.  

The only thing missing is the long secondary coil.  However, at the low frequencies that the induction heater circuit operates (say 25 kHz),  the secondary coil would be quite big and large to hit resonance, but it should produce quite a shown if designed correctly.

EM  

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.03, 04:05:11
...
the secondary coil would be quite big and large to hit resonance, but it should produce quite a shown if designed correctly.
...

It's terrible C.C this absurd need of "resonance". There is no resonance in a transformer. A coil coupled to another one is a transformer. A "resonance" is a particular case requiring conditions that are clearly missing in the Naudin's gegene. Coil "quite big and large" is not one of them. There can be coils "quite big and large" with resonance and coils "quite big and large" without resonance.  A resonance is not needed for a coupling. Not only there is not a single sign of resonance in the gegene, but there are many signs of non-resonance. It should be a good idea to abandon this nonsense.

Good work PhysicsProf, that fan seems to be connected to a low voltage power supply, if you can follow the wires back, it should be clear if they go to the mains hot side or a low voltage supply, i would imagine it will be a 12V fan at a guess, it's much easier to control the RPM for cooling using Low Volts.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.03, 06:42:03
It's terrible C.C this absurd need of "resonance". There is no resonance in a transformer. A coil coupled to another one is a transformer. A "resonance" is a particular case requiring conditions that are clearly missing in the Naudin's gegene. Coil "quite big and large" is not one of them. There can be coils "quite big and large" with resonance and coils "quite big and large" without resonance.  A resonance is not needed for a coupling. Not only there is not a single sign of resonance in the gegene, but there are many signs of non-resonance. It should be a good idea to abandon this nonsense.

Yes, very true, there is no resonance utilized in the Gegene.  However, imagine the voltage amplification you could get from a Tesla secondary coil placed on top of the induction cooker!  Tesla would of loved an induction stove as a Christmas gift!   :D

EM

PS. Are you saying that resonance is useless, generally speaking?  I hope you are not, because resonance plays an important role in electronics.  For example a band pass filter utilizes resonance and only passes frequencies close to where the inductive reactance equals the capacitive reactance and cancels it, leaving only the resistance in a series configuration. (The bandwidth influenced by the Q of the circuit)

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.03, 11:20:57
Yes, very true, there is no resonance utilized in the Gegene.  However, imagine the voltage amplification you could get from a Tesla secondary coil placed on top of the induction cooker!  Tesla would of loved an induction stove as a Christmas gift!   :D

EM

PS. Are you saying that resonance is useless, generally speaking? 

Well radio wouldnt work to well without resonance.This is one good example where power is drawn from a resonant circuit-radio.It is also how they tell how many people(a near figure)are tuned into there radio station-by the amount of power being drawn from that resonant system.
Quote from wikipedia: The transmitter sends the modulated electrical energy to a tuned resonant antenna; this structure converts the rapidly changing alternating current into an electromagnetic wave that can move through free space.

So the more people that are tuned into that radio station,the more power is drawn from that resonant transmiter.From this power draw,they can take a guess as to how many people are tuned in.

A radio is not a power line.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.03, 13:45:21
A radio is not a power line.

And your point is?

Here is the first run with 2000 watt's of halogen globe's.From a visual point of view-they are not as bright as when they are plugged into the grid,but we are only using just over half the amount of watt's as well.The wave form on the scope looks terrable-as Ex stated.We seem to have a high voltage but a low current from the bottom side of the wave???.This video is just to show how things are progressing-nothing more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usrtJGfF_l8

To say that a coil is completely absent of resonance doesn't sounds quite right, on simulation, maybe.  It's the same as saying a wire doesn't have any inductance. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-capacitance#Self-capacitance

Self-capacitance

In electrical circuits, the term capacitance is usually a shorthand for the mutual capacitance between two adjacent conductors, such as the two plates of a capacitor. However, for an isolated conductor there also exists a property called self-capacitance, which is the amount of electrical charge that must be added to an isolated conductor to raise its electrical potential by one unit (i.e. one volt, in most measurement systems).[20] The reference point for this potential is a theoretical hollow conducting sphere, of infinite radius, centered on the conductor. Using this method, the self-capacitance of a conducting sphere of radius R is given by:[21]

    C=4\pi\varepsilon_0R \,

Example values of self-capacitance are:

    for the top "plate" of a van de Graaff generator, typically a sphere 20 cm in radius: 20 pF
    the planet Earth: about 710 µF[22]

The capacitative component of a coil, which reduces its impedance at high frequencies and can lead to resonance and self-oscillation, is also called self-capacitance[23] as well as stray or parasitic capacitance.

Besides, Tinman and Naudin Jean waveform doesn't look completely square. 

(http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/images/gegeneheaterscope.jpg)

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.03, 14:07:43
Here is the first run with 2000 watt's of halogen globe's.From a visual point of view-they are not as bright as when they are plugged into the grid,but we are only using just over half the amount of watt's as well.The wave form on the scope looks terrable-as Ex stated.We seem to have a high voltage but a low current from the bottom side of the wave???.This video is just to show how things are progressing-nothing more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usrtJGfF_l8

Very interesting run, thank you, Tinman.
How do you propose to measure the output power or energy?
(Especially since the waveform is non-sinusoidal and the freq is about 20KHz.)

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.02, 15:52:55
"What is resonant in an induction heater? Which components are concerned? Why?"

The primary circuit has one or more LC components driven by an oscillating power source.

The fact that you, Ex, do not believe that a step function does not count does not mean that it
does not count. It means that YOU reckon it doesn't count. Consider the analogy of the child on
a playground swing being pushed by someone at precisely the right time. Whether the person
pushing hits the seat with a hammer or alternatively applies a sinusoidal type force (at the right time)
makes no difference in principle.

OU does not NEED resonance, but running such a circuit off resonance is like trying to do
speed trials on a bicycle with one of the brakes half jammed "on".

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.02, 23:35:46
Right, but not in his calorimetry test IIRC -- and that to me was his "best method".  I'm leading up to a calorimetric test...

Naudin tests his kettle for efficiency and gets 72%. The overall efficiency is 96%. (Test #3).

But this is with only one output BPC, i.e. not even with one either side of the main primary coil.

I am working towards getting four BPC secondaries, two either side of the main primary coil.

My point is that radio recievers DO NOT load the transmitter, and you will be hard-pressed to transmit significant power with a radio transmitter.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.03, 14:02:13
And your point is?

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.03, 13:45:21
A radio is not a power line.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.03, 12:47:19
Well radio wouldnt work to well without resonance.This is one good example where power is drawn from a resonant circuit-radio.It is also how they tell how many people(a near figure)are tuned into there radio station-by the amount of power being drawn from that resonant system.
Quote from wikipedia: The transmitter sends the modulated electrical energy to a tuned resonant antenna; this structure converts the rapidly changing alternating current into an electromagnetic wave that can move through free space.

So the more people that are tuned into that radio station,the more power is drawn from that resonant transmiter.From this power draw,they can take a guess as to how many people are tuned in.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.04.03, 16:21:46
Naudin tests his kettle for efficiency and gets 72%. The overall efficiency is 96%. (Test #3).

But this is with only one output BPC, i.e. not even with one either side of the main primary coil.

I am working towards getting four BPC secondaries, two either side of the main primary coil.

I look forward to your results!
So you pull the primary coil out -- do you take the fan out of the original device? 
How do you propose to measure the output power?  calorimetry?

Once thing that occurs to me is that with the coil outside, one can employ his own external fan for cooling -- not counted in the Pinput measurement (plugged in separately).

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.03, 12:47:19
...
Quote from wikipedia: The transmitter sends the modulated electrical energy to a tuned resonant antenna; this structure converts the rapidly changing alternating current into an electromagnetic wave that can move through free space.

I agree.

Quote
So the more people that are tuned into that radio station,the more power is drawn from that resonant transmiter.From this power draw,they can take a guess as to how many people are tuned in.

Misconception. Once the wave is radiated and constitutes a plane wave, i.e. at a distance on the order of the wavelength, it is no more linked to the transmitter. It carries away the transmitter energy. It is autonomous. The fact that a listener is tuned to the radio at a distance of some wavelengths, doesn't change anything from the viewpoint of the transmitter: the energy can be intercepted by a listener, absorbed by the environment or radiated towards the deep space, what happens elsewhere is unknown from the transmitter that has already lost this energy.
This is very different from the "quasistationary state" which is the case of coupled circuits in near field (<1 wavelength). The first case is like throwing a ball far away. End of the case. The second case is like making periodically bounce the ball, and if it doesn't come back, or with less energy, you know that energy has been taken on the other side of the boucing process.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.03, 16:29:23
My point is that radio recievers DO NOT load the transmitter, and you will be hard-pressed to transmit significant power with a radio transmitter.

Agreed 100%. The antenna is an adapter for loading efficiently the free space impedance, by matching it to the output impedance of the transmitter.
A well tuned antenna is viewed from the transmitter as a pure resistance, it's not distinguishable from a resistance.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.03, 16:45:54
I look forward to your results!
So you pull the primary coil out -- do you take the fan out of the original device? 
How do you propose to measure the output power?  calorimetry?

Once thing that occurs to me is that with the coil outside, one can employ his own external fan for cooling -- not counted in the Pinput measurement (plugged in separately).

With no saucepan boiling away on top of it, I wouldn't be surprised if the fan isn't really necessary. It may even be some sort of Health & Safety nonsense. I'll watch the temperature carefully and be ready with a big office fan just in case.

Calorimetry all the way for me. Its just so easy. I can't be believing in areas under scope curves and mathematical confections.

My problem is winding the coils. I haven't perfected the technique of using MOT primary enamelled copper wire. I am a bit concerned that someone once said that the number of turns on the primary should be the same as the number on the secondary. As it is, I should get more than double, and this seems to be a good idea.

I am keen to get this under way before Maplins special offer (see earlier post) is discontinued in case I trash the cooker.

Quote from: Paul-R
I am a bit concerned that someone once said that the number of turns on the primary should be the same as the number on the secondary. As it is, I should get more than double, and this seems to be a good idea.

Your concerns are pertinent.  For best
power transfer and efficiency the
number of turns in the secondary coil
may make some difference.

The Control Circuit in the Induction
Cooker is able to compensate for certain
changes in loading so the turns ratio may
not be as critical as in ordinary transformers.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.04.03, 13:45:21
A radio is not a power line.

that's correct because:

A RADIO is a Power Area, not a Power Line.     :D


A transmitter radiates energy in space and this energy spreads out over an area in space, we usually compare all radiation patterns to isotropic radiators which spread the power over the surface area of a sphere at distance R

So the power density of an ideal isotropic radiator is uniform over the surface area and given by:

PD =  Pt / 4 pi R^2

where Pt is the power transmitted.

EM

Well I'm not sure how this- wire connection came about, as I said nothing about wires?
The GEGENE has no wire connections between the transmuting or receiving coil's- so how did this - not connected by a wire come about?
This is what I ment when I said- and your point is?

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.04.03, 15:58:58
The primary circuit has one or more LC components driven by an oscillating power source.

L and C somewhere in a circuit doesn't prove resonance. Any technician in electronics knows that.

Quote
The fact that you, Ex, do not believe that a step function does not count does not mean that it
does not count. It means that YOU reckon it doesn't count.
...

Ad hominem argumentum. Really stupid in science and boring.
Not a question of belief but a question of knowledge.  I discuss facts, not about people.

Quote
...OU does not NEED resonance,

Nobody said that resonance would be needed for OU!  C.C
I say that those who say that there is resonance in the gegene must say why, where and how. And obviously you are unable to answer.

Ex
If this thing can fly,we'll fight about why,where and how later.

I know its fun to fight ,especially when your the guy with the biggest stick.[or think you are ]

However the Tinman is building one     and whence the Tinman gets to Buildin.
There's no stoppin him.........

thx
Chet

Hi Ex, Am I to assume that if I take a Tesla transformer which is considered a resonant transformer, but I excite the primary
with Alternating Currents at the working frequency, being the resonant frequency of the transformer, be it sine, square wave
or alternating pulses with dead time, then there is no resonance once the maximum potential is reached ?

I mean we can drive any transformer into resonant rise by tuning the transformer and driving at the resonant frequency can't we ?

Or is all that a myth. What do we call the effect of the increased amplitude of the waveform when we drive the transformer to achieve that ?

Isn't that what happens in an induction cooker, more or less ? Isn't circuits L/C is tuned so that when the driving frequency is correct
the amplitude is the most ? What do we call that effect if not an effect of resonance ?

Far be it from me to say anyone is right or wrong. I'm here to understand why it isn't an effect of resonance.
I'm not here to argue on this but I would like to see a clear definition of electrical resonance. I've read a few and they seem to differ slightly.

I would have thought that with the paralleled capacitance and inductance a certain amount of energy would oscillate to the next cycle to be added to,
at least in some times of usage depending on the load. Wouldn't it ?

Cheers

Some info on an induction cooktop by westing house.
In each of the electronics modules, the 240V, 60 Hz domestic line power was converted to between 20V to 200V of continuously variable DC by a phase-controlled rectifier. That DC power was in turn converted to 27 kHz 30 A (peak) AC by two arrays of six paralleled Motorola automotive-ignition transistors in a half-bridge configuration driving a series-resonant LC oscillator, of which the inductor component was the induction-heating coil and its load, the cooking pan.

Below is a circuit of an induction cooktop of one kind.The full PDF can be found here.http://www.datasheetarchive.com/control%20circuit%20of%20induction%20cooker-datasheet.html

Now here is some information that is starting to explain as to what i was seeing in my scope at the lower time scale.

Quote:High frequency alternating current is generated in the heating coil of the cooker by a resonant power inverter employing one semiconductor switch. An anti-parallel diode (DP) is placed parallel to the IGBT to assure a path for current flow in the opposite direction when the transistor is off.
In Fig. 1, L is the inductance of the heating coil and CRES is the resonant capacitor. The controller maintains the resonance of this circuit by monitoring the current flowing in the coil and switching on at the zero crossings of this current and switching off at the proper instant to assure that the input current to the cooker remains within a sinusoidal envelope at the mains frequency.
The whole PDF can be found here-http://www.uzay.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitakUzay/yayinlar/Ertan_baris%20colak_14-05-04.doc

And yet some more info on the induction circuit-•DC power supply for inverter (can be rectified mains)
•Inverter circuit (usually an IGBT)
•Resonant circuit, comprising work coil, matching capacitors and inductor.
•Driver circuit.
The rest can be found here-http://imajeenyus.com/electronics/20060908_induction_cooker/index.shtml

The definition of a resonant circuit-An electric circuit with inductance and capacitance chosen to allow the greatest flow of current at a certain frequency.
This is exactly how the induction cooker circuit is designed to work-and dose.Maybe some should widen there ideas on resonant circuit's?

Quote from: exnihiloest
I say that those who say that there is resonance in the gegene must say why, where and how. And obviously you are unable to answer.

There is no resonant circuit external to the Induction
Cooker in the Gegene configuration.  All Gegene
accomplishes is transformer coupling of electrical energy
from an RF source to a load other than what was intended
for the Induction Cooker.

It is an unorthodox use of a simple device which proves
nothing which wasn't already known.

Any resemblance to OU is merely an illusion.

In this video,i have placed a .1 ohm load across another coil that sits on top of the BPC.As i mention in the video,i am not sure as to what the resistance of the 1.5mm HT fencing wire would be when hot.This video was to show that the larger the load that is placed on the induction cooktop,the less current it draws from the grid.If anyone knows why this is so,please feel free to share your thoughts.

One other thing i found was-with the scope across the globe's and then the second coil with the .1 ohm load placed on top of the BPC,there was no notable voltage drop across the globe's-but the frequency rose by about 170 Hz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQyv8S_WbIc

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.04.04, 13:27:19
There is no resonant circuit external to the Induction
Cooker in the Gegene configuration.  All Gegene
accomplishes is transformer coupling of electrical energy
from an RF source to a load other than what was intended
for the Induction Cooker.

It is an unorthodox use of a simple device which proves
nothing which wasn't already known.

Any resemblance to OU is merely an illusion.

Yes Dumped-i agree with you about there being no resonance in the GEGENE setup-i have seen this for myself on my scope.The resonance being talked about is within the induction cooker itself.As far as OU go's from the GEGENE-well the only way to find out for sure is to try for your self,which is why i bought it in the first place.But as you will see in my last video,there are some strange properties i am finding within each test i do.So i will reserve my judgment on OU until i have tried a lot more test,with accurate measurements.That wire in the video is 1.5mm HT fencing wire(spring steel)and it's glowing red hot-how many watts to do that i wounder?.

Tinman;

Your loaded secondary coil tells all about what is happening on the primary coil of the induction heater.

Anyone who can properly interpret the waveform you show knows  the solution to the "resonance vs. non resonance" issue of the cooker.

Hint: 1) The internal cooker inductor is charged (semiconductor switch closed, ramp up portion of the waveform, rising from left to right)
       2) The semiconductor switch is opened (energy release to the secondary coil, nearly flat top portion of the waveform) we can see this from the very fast rise of voltage after the ramp up, thin short vertical line.
       3) The cycle repeats after all energy is drained from the inductor (flat top plus long downward sloping line)

I'll stay out of arguments, I just try to interpret waveforms.

Quote from: ION on 2013.04.04, 14:06:47
Tinman;

Your loaded secondary coil tells all about what is happening on the primary coil of the induction heater.

Anyone who can properly interpret the waveform you show knows  the solution to the "resonance vs. non resonance" issue of the cooker.

Hint: 1) The internal cooker inductor is charged (semiconductor switch closed, ramp up portion of the waveform)
       2) The semiconductor switch is opened (energy release to the secondary coil, flat top portion of the waveform)
       3) The cycle repeats

I'll stay out of arguments, I just interpret waveforms.

This is what make's thing's hard ION.Everything you read on the induction cooker says it's a resonant circuit.But when you have people like yourself and EX saying otherwise-makes you start to wonder?.Then there is the fact that i have seen on my scope(as i mentioned in the video)that there is no resonance within the circuit.So what i did was reserch,and post what i found on how the inductive cook top work's.I have said in my video and on previous post's that i see no resonance.But i also see so much information saying it is a resonant circuit.The funny thing is it realy dosnt matter if it is a resonant circuit or not.what matters is what can it do? Is this a case of a different take on a resonant circuit? Maybe like we had TV then there was color TV.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.04, 14:28:14
This is what make's thing's hard ION.Everything you read on the induction cooker says it's a resonant circuit.But when you have people like yourself and EX saying otherwise-makes you start to wonder?.Then there is the fact that i have seen on my scope(as i mentioned in the video)that there is no resonance within the circuit.So what i did was reserch,and post what i found on how the inductive cook top work's.I have said in my video and on previous post's that i see no resonance.But i also see so much information saying it is a resonant circuit.The funny thing is it realy dosnt matter if it is a resonant circuit or not.what matters is what can it do? Is this a case of a different take on a resonant circuit? Maybe like we had TV then there was color TV.

Thank you for doing these tests, they are appreciated. Yes, there probably is a lot of fun can be had experimenting with such a high power / high frequency induction device. I encourage you to enjoy your experiments and carefully observe what is happening (if those two things can be compatible).

Your latest test with the hot coil is important because it demonstrates what the waveform across the internal induction coil actually looks like by properly loading a secondary coil and observing the scope waveform across the external coil.

I added a few more lines to my priorly posted observation, hope it clarifies things.

Packets of energy are stored and released on a cycle by cycle basis. To me, this sounds and looks more like a flyback converter.

You can add a capacitor to a flyback converter and time the firing so it occurs at zero voltage or zero current. Then it is called quasi-resonant.

Note also that a flyback converter can have both L's (for energy storage) and C's for supply stiffening and leakage inductance snubbing. This does not classify it as a resonant converter.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.04, 06:50:11
I say that those who say that there is resonance in the gegene must say why, where and how. And obviously you are unable to answer.

...or can't be bothered.
.

We should get into sim.  It's fun and helpful.  I made a general sim for the induction heater.  You can manually close and open the switch to observe.  It's not perfect but I think it tells most of the story.

cooker sim (http://www.falstad.com/circuit/#%24+1+5.0E-6+14.235633750745258+55+5.0+50%0Ar+112+80+272+80+0+50.0%0AT+272+80+336+256+0+0.5+1.0+-1.7309224064205384E-15+8.003018073422499E-18+0.9%0Ar+336+80+336+256+0+100.0%0As+112+256+112+176+0+1+false%0Aw+336+80+384+80+0%0Aw+336+256+384+256+0%0Aw+272+256+112+256+0%0Av+112+176+112+80+0+0+40.0+5.0+0.0+0.0+0.5%0Ac+272+80+272+256+0+1.0E-5+-8.881784197001252E-16%0Ao+2+64+0+35+7.62939453125E-5+9.765625E-5+0+-1%0A)

I think a cap from the primary side acts to prevent voltage spikes which could be harmful and waste energy.  It can store energy which did not transfer to the secondary and either resend or return it to the source.  The waveform looks smoother with it. 

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.04.04, 15:10:14
...or can't be bothered.
.

Hence they have absolutely nothing to do here. We are here to share. We are not here to affirm whatever without justification, and then to flee from the questions, wasting the time of the others.

Well done experiment TinMan!

When a resonant tank is heavily loaded
the waveshape will depart from the ideal
sinusoid and become distorted.  This is
particularly true with a single ended drive
for the tank (one input pulse each resonant
cycle.)

With induction heating the waveshape isn't
critical so the distortion is tolerable.

In applications where the waveshape distortion
wouldn't be tolerable the drive pulses are
doubled (Push-Pull or Push-Push arrangement)
to provide a drive pulse each resonant half cycle to
minimize loading distortion.  This technique was
(and still is) utilized in certain high powered systems.

With switching circuits the efficiency actually improves
(often dramatically) with heavy loading and one will
typically see a reduction in input power when loading
comparisons are made.  Even more-so with unorthodox
loading schemes.

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.04.04, 18:37:10
Well done experiment TinMan!

When a resonant tank is heavily loaded
the waveshape will depart from the ideal
sinusoid and become distorted.  This is
particularly true with a single ended drive
for the tank (one input pulse each resonant
cycle.)

With induction heating the waveshape isn't
critical so the distortion is tolerable.

In applications where the waveshape distortion
wouldn't be tolerable the drive pulses are
doubled (Push-Pull or Push-Push arrangement)
to provide a drive pulse each resonant half cycle to
minimize loading distortion.  This technique was
(and still is) utilized in certain high powered systems.

With switching circuits the efficiency actually improves
(often dramatically) with heavy loading and one will
typically see a reduction in input power when loading
comparisons are made.  Even more-so with unorthodox
loading schemes.

Thanks Dumped
As far as the resonance thing go's,well I'm 50/50 on this one.It isn't a resonant circuit in as far as obtaining maximun amplitude,but it is in the way of the input pulses being in tune will the rise and fall of voltage within the tank circuit.From what i see at the moment,it seems to be a very efficient transformer in the way we are using it.I'm not going to guess at what that efficiency is,i will leave that until i have the correct measuring method's up and running.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.04, 14:28:14
But when you have people like yourself and EX saying otherwise-makes you start to wonder?.

Again, precisely why we need Ex-men to stir up the pot form time to time - to make us question things... make us wonder.  :)

   Tinman -- enjoyed your vid "large resistive load" with the gegene.  You mentioned at the end that you plan to do light measurements AND to heat water -- I look forward especially to those measurements. 

I think the confusion about RESONANCE in the induction cooker stems from the fact that folks don't understand electronics or haven't thought about the circuit in detail.


If the induction cooker is not RESONANT, then when a pulse is applied, there is too much INDUCTANCE in the circuit from the big coil, and very little current will flow.

So a capacitor is utilized to negate the inductive reactance and leave the circuit pretty much resistive.


Resonance does not necessarily mean you get huge voltage amplification, it all depends on how much resistance you have.

I'm sure these cookers are smart and control the waveform as one places a load on it.


EM 

EM,

Better check your shoes. I think you're stepping in something.

Here, antiresonance means resonance and passive or active directional control of circuit parasitics or alternating antiresonance-resonance means quasi-resonance when only active control validates the use of 'quasi'  :D

And they have scope shots to prove there is no resonance  O0 

You might wish to check for anything hiding in the bushes, too  ;D

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.06, 00:19:13
EM,

Better check your shoes. I think you're stepping in something.

Here, antiresonance means resonance and passive or active directional control of circuit parasitics or alternating antiresonance-resonance means quasi-resonance when only active control validates the use of 'quasi'  :D

And they have scope shots to prove there is no resonance  O0  

You might wish to check for anything hiding in the bushes, too  ;D

Not sure what you mean, but here's what tinmen said which is right on to what I'm explaining.

As far as the resonance thing go's,well I'm 50/50 on this one. It isn't a resonant circuit in as far as obtaining maximun amplitude, but it is in the way of the input pulses being in tune will the rise and fall of voltage within the tank circuit. From what i see at the moment,it seems to be a very efficient transformer in the way we are using it.I'm not going to guess at what that efficiency is,i will leave that until i have the correct measuring method's up and running.


I'll wipe my shoes now and go away, before I become anti-resonant.  :D

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.06, 00:23:45
Not sure what you mean....

:(

Oh well, I forgot how much younger you are than me. Meaning, I'm considerably more analog than you  C.C

Quote
I'll wipe my shoes now and go away, before I become anti-resonant.  :D

Ah! I thought you may have had some dealings with control of tuned circuit parasitics for waveform modification using passive and/or active components.

Never mind.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.05, 20:49:32
I think the confusion about RESONANCE in the induction cooker stems from the fact that folks don't understand electronics or haven't thought about the circuit in detail.

I agree.
Here is the proof:

Quote
If the induction cooker is not RESONANT, then when a pulse is applied, there is too much INDUCTANCE in the circuit from the big coil, and very little current will flow.
...

Not understood electronics.
There is no "big coil", "big coil" means nothing in electronics. Give the inductance. Calculate di/dt. Do the math.
Note also that when the output coil is loaded with a resistive load and the coupling is near 1, the primary coil is viewing only a resistance, not an inductance. Any electronics technician or engineer knows that! We just have a transformer. There is no resonance in an only R circuit.

Your thinking ideal transformer. A real transformer has inductance on the primary and secondary, interwinding capacitance, and a whole lot more.  So the load reflected on the primary is not purely resistive as you say. Go review you textbooks you pretentious ignoramus.

EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.06, 18:58:56
Your thinking ideal transformer. A real transformer has inductance on the primary and secondary, interwinding capacitance, and a whole lot more.  So the load reflected on the primary is not purely resistive as you say. Go review you textbooks you pretentious ignoramus.

EM

Agree 100% EM.
Even a straight piece of wire has inductance when a current is passed through it.Also in my setup,if the secondary coil is a direct reflection as to what my primary coil is doing-then simply by looking at the scope shot that ION posted,we can see current below the 0 volt line.If the primary coil was only a resistance,then there should be no current below the 0 volt line on the scope-as the input is rectified AC.Maybe if i place a coil inside the pot of water,we could have a look at what we see on the scope?.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.06, 18:58:56
Your thinking ideal transformer. A real transformer has inductance on the primary and secondary, interwinding capacitance, and a whole lot more.  So the load reflected on the primary is not purely resistive as you say.

EM

Not an ideal transformer but an ordinary transformer that you are denying in despite the obviousness. Even with a coefficient of mutual induction around 0.8, what I said still applies. Resonance implies almost only reactive power which obviously doesn't exist here otherwise either the IGBT would burn or there would be an overvoltage that we don't observe: the output voltage at the secondary is about the same as the input voltage which matches the mains power voltage.
Resonance also acts as a narrow passband filter at the resonance frequency, the higher the Q the narrower the band, strengthening the resonant frequency above all others so that we would observe only a sine signal that we don't observe, making impossible square signals like those coming from any switching device and that we observe here.

Quote
Go review you textbooks you pretentious ignoramus.

Your recurrent boring and irrelevant screeds are only gibberish, confusing anything with anything, denying the experimental evidence, gargling with pretty words like "resonance" without the least intelligent and rational argument supporting the affirmations. The fact that your are now insulting me instead of trying to learn and understand basic principles of electromagnetism and electronics that are well known but fly well above your head, is likely a consequence of the Dunning-Kruger effect. With such an attitude, one can only deceive the others and remain in an intellectual mediocrity where personal progress is impossible.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.07, 03:37:12
...
If the primary coil was only a resistance,then there should be no current below the 0 volt line on the scope-as the input is rectified AC.
...

;D
Is the coefficient of mutual induction strictly equal to 1? Is the load strictly resistive? Experimental defaults and limits are not a sign of a magic principle like resonance in a switching device!

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.07, 10:00:22
;D
Is the coefficient of mutual induction strictly equal to 1? Is the load strictly resistive?

Well this is your quote Ex-Note also that when the output coil is loaded with a resistive load and the coupling is near 1, the primary coil is viewing only a resistance.
So either the output coil is equal to one,or your comment is irelavent to the setup in question.If it dose not have a 1 to 1 coupling of the primary and secondary(which i am yet to see a transformer os such) then there is still inductance.This makes your statment(Note also that when the output coil is loaded with a resistive load and the coupling is near 1, the primary coil is viewing only a resistance)only true in an ideal transformer-which we do not have here or any where else that i have seen.

So what is it going to be Ex-do we have an ideal transformer where the primary coil only see's a resistance,or do we have a primary coil that also has inductance?-as EM stated.

In a transformer where the coupling coefficient is a bit less than one, one could make a reasonable measurement of the leakage inductance component.

In a 1:1 transformer, this is easily done by wiring the transformer out of phase and measuring the residual inductance.

In a reasonably coupled transformer we then find the stray inductance is at least two orders of magnitude below the open circuit inductance.

Having done this,  one may make a reasonable statement whether the transformer is predominately resistive or predominately inductive when terminated with a pure resistance.

There is no need to argue when measurement tells the truth.

exnihiloest,

QuoteResonance implies almost only reactive power...

QuoteResonance also acts as a narrow pass-band filter at the resonance frequency...

Stop exposing your ignorance fool.  You have a very limited knowledge of resonance and electronics.    Have you heard of the "quality factor" of a tank circuit, do you know what it means?

For your information, not every resonant tank circuit implies NARROW PASS BAND,  or ONLY REACTIVE POWER, because its related to how much resistance is in the tank circuit.


You only have a beginners knowledge of electronics yet are overly arrogant as if you knew more, self deceived!    You speak of things you don't fully understand yet think you understand, and on top of it, instead of humbly asking with humbleness for clarification, you sarcastically poke fun of people you misjudge in your ignorance.  This is one of the definitions of a fool, which you certainly play well.  Overconfident ego for the knowledge level it possesses.

I also noticed how you talk down to so many people on this forum which know and have more experience in the science fields than you, and you especially insult Dr. Steven Jones and I don't like it.  He might not be an expert in electronics, but he deserves respect for what he has accomplished in life and what he will continue to accomplish.  

You play the part of an arrogant Frenchmen pretty well, and you're certainly not helping change this perception of your country men.  If this were my forum I would have kicked you off long time ago.

EM



PS,  you have a negative influence on the beginners on this forum, they are afraid to post their work because of your harsh and sarcastic judgement.   You seem to be here only to fulfill your inner desire to criticize others for their lack of knowledge, when they are learning and having fun experimenting with electronics.   I see more insulting posts from you then nice affirmative posts.   You need to treat your condition elsewhere.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.07, 14:08:30
...
Stop exposing your ignorance fool.  You have a very limited knowledge of resonance and electronics.    Have you heard of the "quality factor" of a tank circuit, do you know what it means?

For your information, not every resonant tank circuit implies NARROW PASS BAND,  or ONLY REACTIVE POWER, because its related to how much resistance is in the tank circuit.

Exactly. That's why when the output resistance matches the input impedance, there is no more resonance (provided that there would be one without the load, what is surely not the case here).
That's what I said in other words, for example by speaking of square signals, but your knowledge in electronics is so weak that you don't understand what is said and are unable to link together the different points.
Your experience is electronics seems so weak that you didn't even notice that the natural capacitance of the gegene's coils is by far too weak for expecting for a resonance in the 20-25 Khz range!

QuoteExactly. That's why when the output resistance matches the input impedance, there is no more resonance

Incorrect!   


Ok dude, let me explain this to you step by step so you can comprehend.  



Resonance is when the circuit is left purely resistive, so in a series RLC circuit,  XL = -Xc  and they cancel out, leaving only resistance.


If the resistance is large compared to XL,  the circuit has a low quality factor, so its wide bandwidth (3 dB)  A square wave, which possesses lots of harmonics will pass through pretty unchanged.  If it were a narrow filter, yes it would be only a sine wave at the output, because the rest of the harmonics got filtered out.


So why do we want to negate the inductive reactance in the induction cooker by making it resonant?

Answer:   to drive as much current and power through the circuit.


I = V/Z,   so we want Z as small as possible.  That occurs when its RESONANT!

Comprende?


As far as your accomplishments, if they are true, congratulations,  But learn to be humble towards others less fortunate, and beware that others on this forum, including me have achieved more then you professionally.  And for your information I built my first xtal radio set at 7 years of age!  :-*

QuoteI'm known for a real time software in matter of radio signals processing and decoding

Ok here is a simple test, what does QAM mean, and draw me a 10x10 signal constellation, also what does FIR mean in filter theory?  Don't cheat and look them up on the internet.  You have 5 minutes to answer.   :P

EM

Buzzzzzz,


Time's up!     You failed the test!    ;D  



Ok, here's another question which any real time radio software guy should know.   What's the Fourier transform of a unit step function?

You have 5 minutes to answer!  ;D


Or maybe I should ask something simple like what's Nyquist's criteria for sampling?  Or what is an anti-aliasing filter and why is it needed?  :D

EM

Buzzzzz!

Time's up AGAIN!    ;D



I'm just messing with you dude, to humble your ass!   Learn some meekness on this forum if you want to continue.

EM


Note the times, I gave him 10 minutes not just 5

hehehhe\\\\



The only time D/K is valid is when it is referenced. Their work was redundant and self-validating.

I think we need a separate thread titled 'Resonance" under the 'Theory' or 'Learning' branches since there is little chance resonance has any pertinence to this instance of investigation. Even if it did, that must be found experimentally since papers by the true experts have been denied as false.

Continuation is fine. I enjoy debates concerning almost completely analog functions by participants having most of their knowledge based upon digital.

Ex, Em,

OK guys enough posturing.  >:(

You BOTH have a very good background in EM theory and what resonance is. Trouble is cooler heads are NOT prevailing!

Ex, you really do need to tone it down sometimes, as I've said a few times already...yes?

Em, as a senior guy around here, I know you can be a bit more professional even in the light of adversity. (you too Ex)

We're supposed to be on the same team guys. Right?  O0

I have a very "short fuse" with exhnihiloest, as you all know.   His sarcastic post just ticked me off.  If he is not banned, then the only alternative I see is to humble his ass and put him in his place.

EM

EMdevices,

I did look up QAM and FIR and did learn a lot, thanks. :-)
I also did look up anti-aliasing filter and now understand why MP3 sound really sucks. LOL :-)

GL.

BTW:

I designed, built and operated my first RF jammer when I was 11 or 12. The only thing I learned was blocking out reception of the top half of the AM broadcast band for almost five miles was a Federal offense. Good thing the Feds thought it was funny  ;D

I don't think that action helped my electronics knowledge, at all.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.07, 17:00:42
If he is not banned, then the only alternative I see is to humble his ass and put him in his place.

EM

I thought you would have realized by now that that doesn't work. In fact it just riles him up even more.

well it appears that now he might have been humbled a bit, lets hope it holds for a while




WW,

I had an early calling to be an electrical engineer,  I was testing the 120 V electrical wiring of my house by the age of 5, with nothing but a nail and my bare hands!    :P  :D

EM

Everyone has their point of correct view.  It's just more or less.  Regardless of what others say, I would say that you're all expert in electronics.  I feel proud and bless being surround by you guys.  After getting to know more about you, I feel even prouder. Feels like... home.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.07, 16:03:37


Incorrect!   


Ok dude, let me explain this to you step by step so you can comprehend.  



Resonance is when the circuit is left purely resistive, so in a series RLC circuit,  XL = -Xc  and they cancel out, leaving only resistance.
...

Too stupid!
I'm speaking about the particular case of the gegene circuit where the load resistance is in parallel with the coil and you are talking about the general case of RLC in series!

You continue to mix anything with anything, without the least understanding of the circuit that is studied!

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.07, 17:35:50
Too stupid!
I'm speaking about the particular case of the gegene circuit where the load resistance is in parallel with the coil and you are talking about the general case of RLC in series!

You continue to mix anything with anything, without the least understanding of the circuit that is studied!

The load resistance gets reflected to the primary side, and appears mostly as a resistance, embodying the eddy current losses and the hysterisis losses in the pot that is placed on top of it.

In the end you are left with a series RLC circuit, but the XL and XC cancel out, leaving only resistance.

QuoteYou continue to mix anything with anything, without the least understanding of the circuit that is studied!

You see what I mean guys,  he can't just explain what he meant without beeing accusatory and sarcastic, and he derives this confidence because he thinks he is correct, when he is ignorant. Don't I have the right to strike back?


Ok exnihiloest, believe what you want, it appears you're too ridged intellectually to learn anything new.

EM

I can see where you are both correct and you are, each to an extent.

Ex seems to be focused on the primary side and EM on the overall effect on the circuit when any connection to or 'as' the secondary is reflected in the primary.
When dealing with load coupling you must be looking at the overall circuit view.

Where mistakes are usually made is determining when the resonant, or not currently resonant circuit is series or parallel and the differences between the two. Series RLC would be resonant when the RLC is at its lowest impedance to the connected circuitry and parallel RLC resonant when it is at its highest impedance to the connecting circuitry. The physics definition of resonance is severely lacking without understanding the many other definitions used.

BTW: Eddy currents in the pot would show as a power factor well away from unity(purely resistive). That power factor, with the added secondary coil and connected resistive load would be seen in the primary as much closer to unity. So, there is almost no chance that natural resonance could be seen with the added secondary plus the resistor load while quasi-resonance can be easily seen and  implemented to maximize the energy transfer to the intended load of a ferrous cooking pot.

When we start experimenting with the inductive cookers able to use non-ferrous pots it is another ball-game because the amplitude of angular velocity becomes the target.


EM,

I think now may be the right time to clean your shoes. A shower may also be required but I'll leave that up to you   ;)
 

Quote from: WaveWatcher
When we start experimenting with the inductive cookers able to use non-ferrous pots it is another ball-game because the amplitude of angular velocity becomes the target.

This brings to mind the manner in which Metal Detectors
can be made to distinguish ferrous from non-ferrous and
even with some specificity to identify the various types of
metals.

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.04.07, 18:24:40
This brings to mind the manner in which Metal Detectors
can be made to distinguish ferrous from non-ferrous and
even with some specificity to identify the various types of
metals.

Yes, the theory involved should also take us to the electronic methods used by jewelers to determine metal type and content.

I have a jewler in the family and just asked about this method. He said he knows of it but it is not well known, yet. So I withdraw the above comment to avoid starting another argument.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.07, 17:45:59

The load resistance gets reflected to the primary side, and appears mostly as a resistance, embodying the eddy current losses and the hysterisis losses in the pot that is placed on top of it.

Not here.
If there is resonance:
What is the frequency of resonance?
Why don't we observe a sine signal?
Why the voltage is not more than the mains voltage (to be multiplied by the ratio of turns between primary and secondary but here it is around 1)?

All this points must be answered before affirming "resonance". None have been.

Quote
In the end you are left with a series RLC circuit, but the XL and XC cancel out, leaving only resistance.

The resonance of a RLC circuit is deleted when there is a low resistance like the load, in parallel with L!

Surely there is still a resonance. But with a Q of 0.00001...  Very relevant in our case    C.C

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.07, 18:35:13
Not here.
If there is resonance:
What is the frequency of resonance?
Why don't we observe a sine signal?
Why the voltage is not more than the mains voltage (to be multiplied by the ratio of turns between primary and secondary but here it is around 1)?

All this points must be answered before affirming "resonance". None have been.

The resonance of a RLC circuit is deleted when there is a low resistance like the load, in parallel with L!

Surely there is still a resonance. But with a Q of 0.00001...  Very relevant in our case    C.C

Not here?  why not?  What do you think happens when you put a ferromagnetic pot on top of the stove?  How does the input impedance change?

I already explained why the voltage does not build up much, and why you don't see a sine, etc, with a low Q circuit.   Ponder it some more before shooting off another post.  But I think you're starting to get it, the Q is very low but not as low as you imagine, and Yes, very relevant for loaded circuits like the induction cooker.

EM

WW

QuoteI think now may be the right time to clean your shoes. A shower may also be required but I'll leave that up to you  

I think you're right.  :)

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.07, 18:54:48

Not here?  why not?

I already explained why the voltage does not build up much, and why you don't see a sine, etc, with a low Q circuit.   Ponder it some more before shooting off another post.  But I think you're starting to get it, the Q is very low, and Yes, very relevant for loaded circuits like the induction cooker.
...

Very low Q = almost no resonance = resonance irrelevant to explain the functioning of the gegene. The term "resonance" is misleading with very low Q circuits.

Now, there were 3 questions and you answered only one (nevertheless enough to discard the resonance).

QuoteThe term "resonance" is misleading with very low Q circuits.

only for people like you who thought they knew something about it, but were limited in their knowledge.

I hope you learned something new today!  You're welcome.


EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.07, 19:16:33
only for people like you who thought they knew something about it, but were limited in their knowledge.

I hope you learned something new today!  You're welcome.


EM

Finally I can reformulate what you are saying, EM:
"No frequency, no overvoltage, no sine wave. Indeed there is resonance but we can't see it, it is so weak!"
;D

I agree with you that the resonance in the Naudin's gegene is like the pink unicorn in the forests.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.04.07, 16:53:14
...
We're supposed to be on the same team guys. Right?  O0

A group is not a team. A team needs a leader. A leader is not someone neutral. A leader shows the direction and takes sides.

A group is informal. Imho the scientific communauty works like groups rather than teams with a leader, but everybody is supposed to have about the same level of competence, to share the basis, and to discuss only what is said, not the competence of the others. Our group is too heterogeneous to be of this kind. Same thing for the other groups about "free energy" that I have seen.

As long as the method of saying anything without providing any scientific or technical justification be tolerated, there is little hope to make a real and efficient working group. A common goal is not enough, we need also to share the methods.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.07, 19:23:31
Finally what you are saying, EM, is:
"No frequency, no overvoltage, no sine wave. Indeed there is resonance but we can't see it, it is so weak!"
;D

I agree with you that the resonance in the Naudin's gegene is like the pink unicorn in the forests.

Two problems:

1. The load is an added secondary coil having a resistive load. This negates the intended operational design containing the use of any form of resonance and should not show a maximum of voltage or sine waves.

2. With the pot, it would be resonant but will continue to be denied because a voltage increase and sine across the RLC is considered to be proof of resonance when the opposite evidence should be sought since the resonant circuit is series RLC. This circuit will exhibit minimum resistance and maximum current at resonance not minimum current and maximum voltage and also should not show a maximum voltage of sine waves when measuring across the RLC.


The measurement and scope reading methods displayed in this thread seem to indicate a possible misunderstanding of the above.




 

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.07, 19:23:31

Finally I can reformulate what you are saying, EM:

"No frequency, no overvoltage, no sine wave. Indeed there is resonance but we can't see it, it is so weak!"
;D

I agree with you that the resonance in the Naudin's gegene is like the pink unicorn in the forests.

Don't try to reformulate what I'm saying cause you do a poor job at it, because of your limited understanding of electronics and I'm sure limited comprehension of the English language.   You are the one living in a pink unicorn world, you damn prick.

I suggest you study tinman's schmatic of the cooker, and ask yourself why the design utilizes capacitors around the coil, what role they play, etc.   Work out the impedance, with and without a pot loading down the coil, if you claim you know electronics.  

EM

Quote from: ION on 2013.04.04, 14:06:47
Tinman;

Your loaded secondary coil tells all about what is happening on the primary coil of the induction heater.

Anyone who can properly interpret the waveform you show knows  the solution to the "resonance vs. non resonance" issue of the cooker.

Hint: 1) The internal cooker inductor is charged (semiconductor switch closed, ramp up portion of the waveform, rising from left to right)
       2) The semiconductor switch is opened (energy release to the secondary coil, nearly flat top portion of the waveform) we can see this from the very fast rise of voltage after the ramp up, thin short vertical line.
       3) The cycle repeats after all energy is drained from the inductor (flat top plus long downward sloping line)

I'll stay out of arguments, I just try to interpret waveforms.

ION,

I'm not sure I fully agree with number 2)  Are you thinking a boost converter perhaps?, this architecture is different, see tinmen's schematic.


It is a half bridge drive (push pull)  and it switches at the zero crossings,  (labeled A and B) in the diagram.   So when one switch turns OFF the other turns ON

In between A and B we have the R L C response, which gives the waveform the approximate sinusoidal shape.  

That's why this waveform screams out to everybody:   I'm RESONANT, look at me I'm RESONANTING! :D

EM  

PS  It is not quite perfect sinusoidal because it is heavily loaded, because the R value is quite low, and there are some switching transients.

Tonight i will make a video of many scope shot's on different load's.The one thing we seem to be doing here is looking at each individual pulse,rather than a string of pulses within each half wave cycle from the 50Hz grid supply.I will simply show what the scope is seeing,and let the more advanced scope reader's tell us what is going on.But to me,it would seem that if the load were only a resistive load-then we should see nothing but that half wave cycle on the scope.But if there is inductance,we should see a mirror of that half wave on the -0 volt side.If that voltage on the reverse side is higher than the forward side of the half wave AC-what dose this mean?

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.07, 23:18:23
If that voltage on the reverse side is higher than the forward side of the half wave AC-what dose this mean?

That action should be due the resonant convertor being 'half-wave'. The bottom half is from the unswitched exchange of energy in the reverse direction. Other non-clean sine wave results are due to the 'resonant tank' being a parallel RLC tank for a very small portion of the cycle and the intrinsic diodes of the IGBT conducting for a short portion of the half cycle beginning when both halves of the totem-pole IGBT assembly are OFF. During that phase, the IGBT snubber caps (C_S) supply some stored energy to the C_SR( I assume 'capacitance series resonant or capacitance suppressor resonant). When either half is ON the resonant tank is a series RLC tank.

I'm looking forward to further scope shots. There should be a very noticeable difference between wave shapes of -secondary coil loaded with a resistor- and -a ferrous cook pot. The iron introduces hysteresis. Either has an effect upon the impedance of the primary coil albeit for very short periods. A nice clean sine wave is impossible in this application except when the circuit is allowed to ring-down.

BTW: The usage of 'tank' in this context is technically wrong. It seems to be growing in popularity with everyone except RF engineers but I use it here as it appears to be local lingo.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.07, 19:47:02
Two problems:

1. The load is an added secondary coil having a resistive load. This negates the intended operational design containing the use of any form of resonance and should not show a maximum of voltage or sine waves.

False: a coil is not a "load". Its impedance is only reactive.

Quote
2. With the pot, it would be resonant but will continue to be denied because a voltage increase and sine across the RLC is considered to be proof of resonance when the opposite evidence should be sought since the resonant circuit is series RLC. This circuit will exhibit minimum resistance and maximum current at resonance not minimum current and maximum voltage and also should not show a maximum voltage of sine waves when measuring across the RLC.

False: the load is not in series with the LC circuit but in parallel with L.

It's obvious that the lower the load resistance, the lower the Q of the circuit provided that there would be a resonance (what also is false), the limit being Q=0 when R=0.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.07, 19:54:22
Don't try to reformulate what I'm saying cause you do a poor job at it, because of your limited understanding of electronics and I'm sure limited comprehension of the English language.   You are the one living in a pink unicorn world, you damn prick.

I suggest you study tinman's schmatic of the cooker, and ask yourself why the design utilizes capacitors around the coil, what role they play, etc.   Work out the impedance, with and without a pot loading down the coil, if you claim you know electronics.  

EM

EM, still not able to say what are the signs of a resonance here? Not able to say what is the frequency of resonance? Not able to say why we don't have a sine signal? Not able to say why there is no overvoltage in comparison with the power voltage source?
When one is unable to indicate the least sign of resonance, the only correct attitude is to not claim it and to learn the basis of electronics.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.08, 07:41:54
EM, still not able to say what are the signs of a resonance here? Not able to say what is the frequency of resonance? Not able to say why we don't have a sine signal? Not able to say why there is no overvoltage in comparison with the power voltage source?
When one is unable to indicate the least sign of resonance, the only correct attitude is to not claim it and to learn the basis of electronics.

I already explained most of these things, but obviously you did not understand, however i gave you no answer on the frequency since I thought it was obvious what waveform we are talking about.  

Well, lets see how obvious it is.  You should be able to recognize the frequency with all that training you have in software radios, if its true. ( but i quizzed you and you didn't know squat so I'm not expecting much from you anymore.)

Ok, I'll give you another chance to prove you know something.  Look at tinemen's waveform, reposted above, and tell me what is the frequency, if each horizontal division is let's say 10 ms.    Also, how many cycles are shown?

After you manage this simple task then will talk more about what formed that waveform and how resonance plays a part.

I give you plenty of time with this question and its open book as well.   :D

EM

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.08, 07:36:17
False: a coil is not a "load". Its impedance is only reactive.

False: the load is not in series with the LC circuit but in parallel with L.

It's obvious that the lower the load resistance, the lower the Q of the circuit provided that there would be a resonance (what also is false), the limit being Q=0 when R=0.

Ex,

I do not think you to be an evil person so I will attribute that response to a language barrier.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.08, 09:51:23
I already explained most of these things, but obviously you did not understand
...

There is not one measurement showing the least clue of resonance here.
From the beginning, you are not able to point objective facts supporting a resonance.
In science, explanations apply only to what is observed.
Explanations about no fact are only gibberish. You could also give explanations about the sex of angels, it would be as useless.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.08, 09:57:10
Ex,

I do not think you to be an evil person so I will attribute that response to a language barrier.

Ww, what do you challenge in:
"a coil is not a "load". Its impedance is only reactive."
and
"the load is not in series with the LC circuit but in parallel with L" (meanig R lower => Q lower, unlike when R is in series).
?

The photo shows a light-box with 4 200W incandescent light bulbs, taking power measurements using an Intertek power meter and a Kill-a-Watt meter.
Light output is measured with a lux-meter.  I found that the lux meter saturates, so I have covered part of the input window with tape and aluminum foil, to get into the normal range of operation.   I have also run with 2 200W bulbs and 2 300W bulbs.

Needless to say, the box gets hot quickly -- I may have to add a ventilation fan.

I have no illusions that this will provide a definitive final test of the Gegene, but it should provide insights.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.08, 14:38:28
Ww, what do you challenge in:
"a coil is not a "load". Its impedance is only reactive."
and
"the load is not in series with the LC circuit but in parallel with L" (meanig R lower => Q lower, unlike when R is in series).
?

I do not challenge either of your statements. However, they indicate I wasn't clear enough or you just didn't understand my statements.

More later...

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.08, 16:35:47


I have no illusions that this will provide a definitive final test of the Gegene, but it
should provide insights.

I have managed to pick up four scrapped kettles for nothing and I reckon they
will probably work. (Recycling depots are wonderful places). Putting MOT primary
wire on the back burner and going for cheaper loudspeaker wire means I should
get these four coils wound soon.

Here is some scope shots of the induction cooker running various load's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO8CFzjv8-M

Quote from:  WW
The load is an added secondary coil having a resistive load

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.08, 07:36:17
False: a coil is not a "load". Its impedance is only reactive.

This means that added secondary coil already has the resistive load connected to it as it becomes the secondary for the induction cooker.
Yes, the added secondary coil 'alone' could only appear as a change in the transformer reactance but almost no change as the secondary would be open if it did not have the resistive load connected.

Quote from: WW
2. With the pot, it would be resonant but will continue to be denied because a voltage increase and sine across the RLC is considered to be proof of resonance when the opposite evidence should be sought since the resonant circuit is series RLC. This circuit will exhibit minimum resistance and maximum current at resonance not minimum current and maximum voltage and also should not show a maximum voltage of sine waves when measuring across the RLC.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.08, 07:36:17
False: the load is not in series with the LC circuit but in parallel with L.

Here is where I think the problem may be more than translation.

The load is not in series or parallel with the primary. It is in parallel with the secondary but that doesn't matter. Any primary coil parameter change due to a loaded secondary is simply that - a primary coil parameter change.
In other words, the secondary coil and anything connected to it modifies the primary or 'appears' in the primary -or- appears as a change in the primary parameters.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.08, 07:36:17
It's obvious that the lower the load resistance, the lower the Q of the circuit provided that there would be a resonance (what also is false), the limit being Q=0 when R=0.

Do you deny that peak current through the circuit would be the point of resonance in a series RLC not peak voltage measured across it?

I have the impression that some of us may not know the difference between a series and parallel RLC and may not be able to identify a series RLC, especially when the C used is changing throughout the complete cycle due to the activity of the switching elements.

Perhaps having a switching element as part of the RLC loop is offensive in some way?

Perhaps it isn't understood that applying a similar planar coil as a secondary does not mean the two constitute a transformer throughout the complete cycle or at all frequencies. Indeed, when frequency rises to the point where the inter-coil parasitic become more important than the intra-coil parasitic the coupling is best handled with antenna theory.

If you wish to see some excellent work on this subject try this for starters: http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb18/04.09081911.pdf (http://www.jpier.org/PIERB/pierb18/04.09081911.pdf)
Contrary to common belief planar coils are different.

In any case, the previously supplied scope shots confirm oscillation. The bottom half of which may be used to determine the resonant frequency of the complete circuit at that point in the cycle. The first deviation below zero indicates a diode conducting for less than 90 degrees.

tinman,

Excellent and very thorough work. I just finished watching your video.

It is a good thing you are scoping with a pick-up coil and not across the primary as the system has snubber caps but no transient clipping. The expected transients may be more than most scopes can handle without precautions.

Thanks!

exnihiloest

QuoteThere is not one measurement showing the least clue of resonance here.

I guess you're clueless then!    :P


EM


P.S.   I gave you an opportunity to show the forum you know how to read a waveform and figure out its frequency, why have you not answered? you can't do it? or too proud to do it?  

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.08, 22:36:13
Here is some scope shots of the induction cooker running various load's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO8CFzjv8-M

interesting, thanks for posting.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.09, 00:30:07
exnihiloest

I guess you're clueless then!    :P

P.S.   I gave you an opportunity to show the forum you know how to read a waveform and figure out its frequency, why have you not answered? you can't do it? or too proud to do it?  

Please, in the future, go out the playground and avoid us this kind of childish silliness.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.08, 22:41:24
This means that added secondary coil already has the resistive load connected to it as it becomes the secondary for the induction cooker.
Yes, the added secondary coil 'alone' could only appear as a change in the transformer reactance but almost no change as the secondary would be open if it did not have the resistive load connected.

Not even. If the secondary coil is not connected to a load, its presence is invisible to the primary coil, because there is no current in the coil. If a resistance is connected, then the primary coil sees a resistance.
A secondary coil without resistance is viewed from the primary only if there is a current (thanks to the Lenz law). This can be the case if there is a reactive component (capacitor/inductance) looping the coil. The natural capacitance of the coil could play this role, but here it is very weak and constitutes a rather high impedance at the working frequency around 20 Khz.

Quote
The load is not in series or parallel with the primary.
It is in parallel with the secondary but that doesn't matter. Any primary coil parameter change due to a loaded secondary is simply that - a primary coil parameter change.
In other words, the secondary coil and anything connected to it modifies the primary or 'appears' in the primary -or- appears as a change in the primary parameters.

It's what I said in other words. It's clear that the load is in parallel with the secondary coil. The secondary coil being coupled to the primary, the load is equivalently in parallel with the primary coil  meaning that it is as connected to the IGBT output (see the equivalent schematic of a transformer), its value has just to be adjusted according to the ratio of the number of turns primary/secondary, which is near 1.
It must be recalled that a perfect transformer with 1:1 ratio is for AC signals strictly identical to no transformer at all, i.e. input directly connected to the output.

Quote
Do you deny that peak current through the circuit would be the point of resonance in a series RLC not peak voltage measured across it?

There is no particular "peak current". What we observe, outside the alleged but not confirmed OU, is nothing more than an ordinary transformer with a ratio of turns near 1 and the voltage at the secondary about the same as at the primary, not only from the viewpoint of the voltage, but also from the viewpoint of the shape, meaning that there is no "LC" effect selecting and enhancing a resonant frequency. As nothing shows a behaviour different from that of an ordinary transformer and nobody gave us the experimental evidence that the functioning is different from an ordinary transformer, a resonance must be discarded.

exnihiloest

QuoteIf the secondary coil is not connected to a load, its presence is invisible to the primary coil, because there is no current in the coil. If a resistance is connected, then the primary coil sees a resistance.

you have a very simplistic view of transformers like I mentioned already, you're treating them as IDEAL and this is not an IDEAL world.

I told you a few posts back, that there is INDUCTANCE involved which needs to be considered (and inter winding capacitance as well).  

For your information, when you connect a resistance to the transformer secondary, the primary sees this resistance AND the secondary inductance, in addition to its primary side impedance.  While nothing is connected to the secondary, looking into the primary terminal of the transformer, the impedance is composed of the primary inductance AND the primary resistance of the coil (and parallel capacitance between the turns, but it can be ignored if its effects are considered minor at a given frequency)

Are you having trouble believing this?    

Well, here's a question to help you:   Why do you think a transformer, not loaded on its output and left in the wall socket (electrical outlet of the house), does not draw the amount of power equal to V^2/R, where R is the primary resistance?  why do you think that is?      It's because it has inductance  on the primary coil, and lots of it,  and this increases the impedance Z = wL + R,   so it's not just R you need to think about.


Psychology:

So,  you continue to demonstrated to the group your beginner's level of electronics.  I would say it is you that is suffering from that Dunning-Kruger symptom, of which you accused me.  If you want to learn something new and expand your knowledge, put aside your pride and arrogance, and carefully consider what others are saying.  Don't pretend to be a teacher of electronics on this forum, you set the standard very low!


EM

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.09, 07:30:55
Not even. If the secondary coil is not connected to a load, its presence is invisible to the primary coil, because there is no current in the coil. If a resistance is connected, then the primary coil sees a resistance.
A secondary coil without resistance is viewed from the primary only if there is a current (thanks to the Lenz law). This can be the case if there is a reactive component (capacitor/inductance) looping the coil. The natural capacitance of the coil could play this role, but here it is very weak and constitutes a rather high impedance at the working frequency around 20 Khz.

I will submit on that in the case the experimenter is limited to the average measurement equipment and experience. Yes, a secondary with no current will have no apparent effect upon the primary.

Quote
It's what I said in other words. It's clear that the load is in parallel with the secondary coil. The secondary coil being coupled to the primary, the load is equivalently in parallel with the primary coil  meaning that it is as connected to the IGBT output (see the equivalent schematic of a transformer), its value has just to be adjusted according to the ratio of the number of turns primary/secondary, which is near 1.
It must be recalled that a perfect transformer with 1:1 ratio is for AC signals strictly identical to no transformer at all, i.e. input directly connected to the output.

There is no particular "peak current". What we observe, outside the alleged but not confirmed OU, is nothing more than an ordinary transformer with a ratio of turns near 1 and the voltage at the secondary about the same as at the primary, not only from the viewpoint of the voltage, but also from the viewpoint of the shape, meaning that there is no "LC" effect selecting and enhancing a resonant frequency. As nothing shows a behaviour different from that of an ordinary transformer and nobody gave us the experimental evidence that the functioning is different from an ordinary transformer, a resonance must be discarded.

In the most recent video, graciously provided by tinman, the dynamics of this system are clear.

Perhaps a better way to explain it is this:

Even real transformers can and do become resonant mechanically and electrically.

If you cannot see how C_SR and L are cyclically switched between the states of series and parallel RLC and how the stack of C_SRs partially emulate the missing half of an H-bridge I must suggest that you try to expand a bit from the ideal.

A real transformer may also be part of a resonant circuit.
A real resonant circuit may be, and commonly is, used as a transformer.

And now there's cake !! right :-\ ?!!

What i am going to do next is make a new BPC and a single wound PC,with the same number of turns and made from the same wire.I am yet to see on the GEGENE setup anyone showing that there is an actual advantage in using a BPC.I have experimented in looking at the difference in magnetic pull force between a BPC and a single wound PC of the same wire and turns,and the BPC indeed have more pull force than that of the single wound PC-using the same current.But now it would be a good time to see if there is any electrical advantage.

You can bet there is no cake, yet. If I know the diners it may go to after dinner drinks but we'll never make it to desert  ;D

Don't discount the planar/spiral coil of single plane. If you understand that North/South are only a human construct there is practically no difference between a planar and solenoid coil.

However, there are instances where operation becomes completely unintuitive.

Increasing Decreasing the windings can result in LOWER resonant frequency and vise-verse.
Proper application can show that Lenz/Faraday does not apply but then, there is no induction  :D
They can be used as both a transformer and a resonant circuit at the same time (the same applies to any transformer but more so with planar coils of single plane).

An example is the poorly named Tesla transformer. Out of resonance it is a very poor transformer. In resonance, transformer efficiencies can exceed 85% and this is when the polarities between the primary and secondary are perpendicular. (solenoid coil magnetic field is axial where planar -single plane- coil field is radial).
 

All of this great fun is certainly in full living color - not black and white  O0

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.09, 09:40:45
exnihiloest

you have a very simplistic view of transformers...


Psychology:
...

I certainly not underestimate the real limits of transformers, I have many times insisted about the fact that things in real life are not as in ideal life, I have even provided elsewhere the equivalent schematic of a real transformer. Here it is again:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/TREQCCT.jpg/800px-TREQCCT.jpg)

A real experience in electronics would have allowed you to know that the coefficient of mutual induction of a transformer can easily exceed 0.95 so that the effect of Xs and Xp are by far not enough to show a significant resonance at the working frequency, especially when the transformer is loaded and when a possible resonant frequency obtained from these values would be considerably much higher than the working frequency.

EM, you must know that neither the presence of L or C in a circuit nor the presence of Xs and Xp is enough to speak of resonance. You was unable to do the math and estimate the Q factor of the resonance, unable to quantify anything, unable to give the resonance frequency, not even able to use the data from JLN which are indeed clear about the absence of resonance for reasons already explained.

Your attempt to discredit an opponent on a technical question rather than discussing the facts, added to the total absence of data and of quantified points in your argumentation, is the evidence of the irrelevance and the drastic lacunae of your mental fabrication.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.09, 11:17:18
You can bet there is no cake, yet. If I know the diners it may go to after dinner drinks but we'll never make it to desert  ;D
 

Give me a hunk of steel rod,and i will machine up a cam shaft for you.Give me a box of bit's,and i will make you an internal combustion engine.
Ask me to tell you exactly what the scope is telling me,and you will get this- :-\

My point was,as some one that is just basic at reading scope's and wishes to understand how exactly the system he is working on opperate's-it is very dificult when the teachers are saying two different thing's.The biggest problem being that the teachers are all well trained.The bad thing is,if you follow the wrong teacher you may well end up passing by something that was truely important.If i was to look at this situation here as a mechanic,i would have to go with EMdevices-because one pistion dose not fit all engine's.I guess what i was hopeing for with my last video,was that some one would be able to confirm that there was or was not  a resonance within the system as a whole-this will ofcourse also carry with it the argument of what is resonance :-\.Now here in Australia it is 240 volts ac grid supply,and this is rectified within the cooktop.We can clearly see this half wave in the scope,but why do we see a much higher voltage in phase with that half wave,but of the opposite polarity?.As the high frequency pulses are within the 100Hz half wave(as we are 50 Hz here)this must mean that the high frequency pulses are riseing and faling in voltage within each half wave cycle-as we see no voltage outside the half wave 100Hz AC.Is the higher reverse voltage being created by the kickback from the switching off of the cooktop coil,or is it a result of the way the caps are hooked up in the circuit?.And what was with that wave form when i had it hooked to the hydroxy cell?.It looked like some sort of clam shell wave.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.09, 10:11:23
...
Even real transformers can and do become resonant mechanically and electrically.
...

They can but it's not because they can that they do it.
The data from JLN don't show signs of resonance.
Or which and why?

These Spanish Inns don't serve Dessert?? >:( [no cake]

HHMMM
I do see they Have Pancakes thoooo...
@EX
you think Tinmans Pancakes are not cooked well enough??
they don't resonate with you ??

You want JLN pancakes??     stop !! be adventurous Look at Tinmans  pancakes what do you see??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO8CFzjv8-M

  Here is what I think.

From a scale from 0-100.  
0 being perfectly non resonance
100 being perfectly resonance

What is the number for the cooker under load as discussing?  We can't say 0 or 100 in the real world.  
One side is saying it's like 1.  The other side saying might as well say it 0.  

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.09, 10:45:46

I am yet to see on the GEGENE setup anyone showing that there is an actual advantage in using a BPC.

This is the explanatory video recommended by Jean-Louis on his Gegene site:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/mvb39SwTXBE

GEEZE

Paul
the Koala gets so much well deserved "air time",I suppose the issue of resonance has morphed into an issue of credibility ...[rather unfortunate]

The Tinman has made no claims whatsoever ,he is just trying to understand what he's looking at.

I must say this experience [Pancakes] and the issues being discussed here will ultimately make us all much better in the work we do.

Ex's points are Valid [of course],however the need to be right [like a court case] seems to undermine the goal of sharing
the knowledge necessary to Teach .......in this particular case the lesson has been mauled by EGO,,,,

However the lesson will get thru one way or the other,mostly do to the work ethic ,willingness to share, tenacity, humble approach and Brutal Honesty of Mr.Tinman  and in this particular instance Tinsel's input is well mentioned [has been before] .

I just hope we can stay away from angry responses and try to remember there is a lesson here and a true opportunity to "enlighten"

thx
Chet

Quote from: ramset on 2013.04.09, 15:46:41
GEEZE

Paul
the Koala gets so much well deserved "air time",I suppose the issue of resonance has morphed into an issue of credibility ...[rather unfortunate]

The Tinman has made no claims whatsoever ,he is just trying to understand what he's looking at.

I must say this experience [Pancakes] and the issues being discussed here will ultimately make us all much better in the work we do.

Ex's points are Valid [of course],however the need to be right [like a court case] seems to undermine the goal of sharing
the knowledge necessary to Teach .......in this particular case the lesson has been mauled by EGO,,,,

However the lesson will get thru one way or the other,mostly do to the work ethic ,willingness to share, tenacity, humble approach and Brutal Honesty of Mr.Tinman  and in this particular instance Tinsel's input is well mentioned [has been before] .

I just hope we can stay away from angry responses and try to remember there is a lesson here and a true opportunity to "enlighten"

thx
Chet

You are very reasonable.

I would kick some off the list for a month and improve things for everyone
who seriously wants to get stuff done. The trouble is that narrow minded
bigotry can drive others away.

Quote from: ramset on 2013.04.09, 12:50:50
These Spanish Inns don't serve Dessert?? >:( [no cake]

Yes they serve dessert. You just have to bring it  :)

Quote

HHMMM
I do see they Have Pancakes thoooo...
@EX
you think Tinmans Pancakes are not cooked well enough??
they don't resonate with you ??

You want JLN pancakes??     stop !! be adventurous Look at Tinmans  pancakes what do you see??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO8CFzjv8-M

Youtube without shematics is of poor help. My understanding of the spoken english is not good enough and the automatic subtitles don't work correctly. I see signals but I don't even know if a load is connected. If there is no load but just the scope probes, it's not astonishing that there would be resonance (possibly at Mhz).

  Because of the heat generated by the bulbs at high watts, I have gone to a new light box that is in some ways simpler than the aluminum-foil lined cardboard box I have been using for months.  Using now a 22-gallon shiny "garbage can" with lid.  It works well, and I've been doing both calibrations (with 200W bulbs) along with some experiments with the Gegene set-up.  Learning.

Vid:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxbrFxcEdNI&feature=youtu.be

Description:
 

QuoteMy current replication of the Gegene experiment is shown (google Gegene Naudin), with a Bifilar Pancake Coil (BPC) atop an induction cooktop.  BPC output is fed to four 200W incandescent bulbs in the "light box" with lux-meter.  Note: I meant to say about 1200 Lux for this particular experiment.
   In this way, we have a measure of light output as a function of input power to the induction device.  Thus, we can tell when we are making improvements in efficiency.

@Ex
I will attempt to resolve this Language issue with the TinMan's movies and illegible Subtitles ,I know he would take great pleasure in having me Type out all his Comments for those who need the info !

 A barrier such as this can cause much unnecessary conflict and I completely understand the dilemma !

Your comment on this matter is greatly appreciated ,as is your input !

@Physics Prof
Very nice looking test Vessel ,{snazzy even} Unfortunately My Test vessel never ends up staying so Clean around here!!
Thanks for all you do!! O0

Chet

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2013.04.09, 12:58:32
 Here is what I think.

From a scale from 0-100.  
0 being perfectly non resonance
100 being perfectly resonance

What is the number for the cooker under load as discussing?  We can't say 0 or 100 in the real world.  
One side is saying it's like 1.  The other side saying might as well say it 0.  

tinman's scope shot show the cooker coil/caps are 100% quasi-resonant because only 50% of the signal (the bottom half) is the natural exchange between the coil and capacitors.

If you were to make a mirror image of the bottom half, invert it and then connect it so the result is a nice sine wave you would see the resonant frequency of the coil and capacitors. Note: that frequency would be higher than the driven frequency.

We have the pendulum swinging but only pushed from the middle of the swinging distance and only pushed in one direction. (disregard the stopping point to avoid confusion  ;) ).

No matter. Resonance or not will have no effect upon the final outcome.

>>Edit

Here is what I suggested with the picture so you can determine the resonant frequency IF the trigger circuit wasn't controlling one half of the wave...

Note: The width will not match as the trigger circuit is firing at a lower frequency than the natural resonant frequency of the coil & cap.
The amplitude of the lower side is higher because it is a natural exchange of current between the coil & cap. The voltage amplitude is determined by the energy stored in the coil and the cap value (or vise verse), not the driving voltage or mains voltage. It would naturally be higher.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.09, 17:46:22
 Because of the heat generated by the bulbs at high watts, I have gone to a new light box that is in some ways simpler than the aluminum-foil lined cardboard box I have been using for months.  Using now a 22-gallon shiny "garbage can" with lid.  It works well, and I've been doing both calibrations (with 200W bulbs) along with some experiments with the Gegene set-up.  Learning.

Vid:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxbrFxcEdNI&feature=youtu.be

Description:
 

Now that is a good idea with the trash can PhysicsProf,very cheap but effective.Thanks for the info,it just made my job a whole lot easier.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.09, 11:33:58
I certainly not underestimate the real limits of transformers, I have many times insisted about the fact that things in real life are not as in ideal life, I have even provided elsewhere the equivalent schematic of a real transformer. Here it is again:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/TREQCCT.jpg/800px-TREQCCT.jpg)

A real experience in electronics would have allowed you to know that the coefficient of mutual induction of a transformer can easily exceed 0.95 so that the effect of Xs and Xp are by far not enough to show a significant resonance at the working frequency, especially when the transformer is loaded and when a possible resonant frequency obtained from these values would be considerably much higher than the working frequency.

EM, you must know that neither the presence of L or C in a circuit nor the presence of Xs and Xp is enough to speak of resonance.

The presence of L and C in the schematic of the drive circuit is exactly why this is resonant, it's by design and the operating point!

Why do you think it is called a resonant converter?   Because it is driven at the resonant frequency, by the electronics. (ZVS drive, look that up) You don't need to calculate anything to realize this, just look at the circuit and the waveform.  The primary coil inside the cooker and the added capacitors form the tank circuit (look at tinman's circuit schematic, that's what all my comments are based on)

Regarding the high mutual coupling, I told you already that because the secondary is loaded and closely coupled, the Q of the tank circuit is lowered, but maybe this confuses you:   you think the resonance should stop because Q is low, right?   but resonance is still there because the primary coil tank circuit is still driven at resonance.

So remember, it's not the secondary coil that is resonant, like in a Tesla coil, because it's just a coil with a load resistance, the resonance is on the primary.

I think this is why you might be confused.  

EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.12, 13:28:24

The presence of L and C in the schematic of the drive circuit is exactly why this is resonant, it's by design and the operating point!
...

No resonance in Naudin's Gegene.

I'm still waiting from you for quantified informations about:
- the resonant frequency
- the order of magnitude of the Q factor
- the mesurable quantities (voltage, current) that would discriminate a resonant functioning from a non resonant one.
...

As you are still unable to give them despite several requests, the obvious conclusion is that your fuzzy speech is in no way related to the gegene and is as irrefutable as a Quran surah.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.13, 08:34:35
No resonance in Naudin's Gegene.

I'm still waiting from you for quantified informations about:
- the resonant frequency
- the order of magnitude of the Q factor

Why do people bother to respond to this person?

It feeds him.
.

Paul-R
I don't know, maybe because I'm bored.  :P



exnihiloest

I guess you're more clueless than I though, if you don't know what frequency were talking about by now.


Do you know what " frequency of operation" means?  For example, JNL tests run at 20 kHz, that's the resonant frequency of his cooker.

If we know the inductance or capacitance, we can calculate the other missing quantity. But I did not see such values or schematic on his website.  If you have the time, find them and I'll teach you how to calculate more exact values of the Q

However, lets make some approximation for the inductance:  assume L=100e-6 H
Therefore Xl=2 pi f L = 12.5 ohms, at 20 kHz

Let's consider the load.  In one test JNL used about 4000 watts load (ref 240 V)  That is about 14 ohms resistance.

So we're dealing with a Q on the order of 1

Operating with such a Q the voltage does not build up higher.


Now, what calculations have you done to arrive at your conclusion that there is no resonance to speak of?

I asked you if you have heard of a resonant converter, and because you did not answer me, I conclude you do not, and so you speak of things you do not understand, and form opinions to soon which you can't defend. You are self deceived, you have a confidence that you are correct and others wrong, when its the other way around.

I gave you an opportunity to save face in my previous post, but you did not recognize it. I'm curious what copy and paste you're going to do next, off the Internet, to convince us you know electronics.

EM

Quote from: exnihiloest
I'm still waiting from you for quantified informations about:
- the resonant frequency
- the order of magnitude of the Q factor
- the mesurable quantities (voltage, current) that would discriminate a resonant functioning from a non resonant one.

Quote from: Paul-R
Why do people bother to respond to this person?

It feeds him.

You raise an excellent point Paul-R.

It would seem that Ex has unwittingly, or
perhaps wittingly, adopted the stall tactics
of the "charlatians." C.C

Is it a case of "being in over his head?" :o

Once an error in judgment has been voiced
it becomes a matter of pride - some are not
able to admit to the obvious since, to them,
it would signify defeat.  The only option then
is to continue to defend the erroneous argument
while demanding that those who disagree do all
of the "leg work" to prove him wrong. ^-^

Clearly, Ex has the faculties and the education
to easily accomplish that on his own and to prove
that resonance is an essential to the "conversion"
taking place. ;)

But then there would be that awful matter of
having to admit being wrong... :-[

Quote from: EMdevices to Ex
I gave you an opportunity to save face in my previous post, but you did not recognize it. I'm curious what copy and paste you're going to do next, off the Internet, to convince us you know electronics.

What it yet to come may be very interesting.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.13, 14:18:04
...
For example, JNL tests run at 20 kHz, that's the resonant frequency of his cooker.

The working frequency is the consequence of the time delay of the positive feedback. This doesn't imply resonance! Even a RC circuit can make transistors to oscillate.

Quote
If we know the inductance or capacitance, we can calculate the other missing quantity.

We are not in the "if" world. Missing quantities are the capacitance and the frequency. Only one equation and two unknowns.

Quote
So we're dealing with a Q on the order of 1

I agree.  Of course Q is on the order of 1!!!

Q=2*pi*(energy stored/energy dissipated) per cycle.
Q=1 means that energy stored < 1/6th of the energy dissipated = no significant resonance.   C.C

Q=1 means that the "resonance" will sustain 1 or 2 periods! At such a low level of Q, "resonance" is an overrated word that can't be pretended to be the cause of the functioning: nobody pretends that the resonance is the cause of the functioning of an ordinary transformer although it has a Q near 1.

EM, your understanding of the resonance and its practical significance is as flat as the gegene's alleged resonance. I conclude the same for Paul R and Dumped who supported it.

Here is a good read about resonance within a quasi resonant circuit-amoung others as well.It would seem that the word resonance applies to a much wider range than just that of gaining maximum amplitude for minimum input.It seems it's more about timing the switching just right to reduce switching losses-maybe it could be called resonant switching insted?.
http://www.deltartp.com/dpel/dpeltechjournals/IJE%20tran-vol77-no5-1994.pdf

Why are we saying that Q=1 is not resonant when Q<1/2 equals overdamped, Q=1/2 equals critically damped and Q>1/2 equals under damped?

When any single excitation pulse is applied and the circuit response is to :

1. fall to zero and stop -- then Q<1/2
2. fall to zero, continue beyond zero to the same amplitude of the excitation pulse and then return to zero -- then Q=1/2
3. fall to zero, continue beyond zero with the amplitude greater than the excitation pulse -- then Q is greater than 1/2


The capacitance values are on the posted schematics.
The resonant frequencies can be read from the posted scope shots.
The same scope shots show the ringing amplitude as greater than the excitation pulse.
The excitation pulse masks the top half of the resonant ringing.
That frequency is slightly higher than the excitation frequency.
The resonant frequency being different from the excitation frequency is not an indication of non-resonance.

If Q is one half or greater then resonance exists.

Q has nothing to do with quality. The letter 'Q' was chosen because it was the only one left.

Exercising frequency control of an RLC circuit, by any means, does not mean the circuit is resonant or not resonant.

Further more....

I think this argument of resonance should be in moved to a new thread under the 'learning' section of the forum. It is obvious that use of the word 'resonant' in a description does not imply resonance to some and the many definitions posted are in conflict.

The original meaning had only to do with sound and means 'to resound'. So, any mechanical or electrical response to any form of strike or signal is resonance, be it half a cycle or long duration ringing.

tinman,

I would normally explain your scope shots, as requested but, any explanation offered would be met with a 'resounding' flurry of post bombing. Perhaps, I'll PM those to you.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.14, 12:40:00
Further more....

I think this argument of resonance should be in moved to a new thread under the 'learning' section of the forum. It is obvious that use of the word 'resonant' in a description does not imply resonance to some and the many definitions posted are in conflict.

The original meaning had only to do with sound and means 'to resound'. So, any mechanical or electrical response to any form of strike or signal is resonance, be it half a cycle or long duration ringing.

tinman,

I would normally explain your scope shots, as requested but, any explanation offered would be met with a 'resounding' flurry of post bombing. Perhaps, I'll PM those to you.

That would be great WW.
Also guy's,im looking at getting a new scope-and would like your opinions on this one
http://www.triosmartcal.com.au/2195-siglent-digital-storage-oscilloscope-100-mhz-bandwith-2-channel.html

Cheers

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.14, 12:52:21
That would be great WW.
Also guy's,im looking at getting a new scope-and would like your opinions on this one
http://www.triosmartcal.com.au/2195-siglent-digital-storage-oscilloscope-100-mhz-bandwith-2-channel.html

Cheers

I'm not familiar with the brand but the price seems very good for the features. It looks like it would be a great scope to add to any experimenter's bench.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.14, 12:18:41
Why are we saying that Q=1 is not resonant when Q<1/2 equals overdamped,
...

In this thread, the question is:

"Is resonance the cause of the functioning? Is it a primary and needed mechanism for the gegene?"
The answer is negative.

Here is an image. It's not because a wire has a resistance, that you would say that a LC oscillator works thanks to the resistance of the wire of the coil, isn't it?
If someone said it to you, I suppose that you would answer that this resistance is to be counted for zero, it has no role for the oscillation. And if your contradictor insisted by affirming that you are wrong because there is indeed a resistance and the resistance is > 0, what would you think of him? That he doesn't understand the functioning and he has no idea about the order of magnitude of electronics values involved in the circuit, that he is inexperienced and his remark is not relevant.

It's what happens to me when I hear EM speaking of resonance. Although we can define a Q, a so low value is not significant for the functioning. What we observe is the functionning of an ordinary transformer whose the primary is powered by switching transistors. This kind of setup is widely used in most of the switching power supplies. There is no resonance in the sense of a significant Q necessary for the functioning (a resonance would even be a nuisance by limiting the passband and preventing the transistor from high speed switching).

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.14, 15:01:57
In this thread, the question is:

"Is resonance the cause of the functioning? Is it a primary and needed mechanism for the gegene?"
The answer is negative.

The correct answer is 'positive'.

The resonance of the circuit is essential for control of energy applied to the load. Not only is the amplitude of the exciter signal controlled for this purpose but also the frequency and possibly the duty cycle.

As you can see in the scope shots, the exciter frequency is less than the resonant frequency. Should the experimenter decrease the output settings of the cooker the amplitude and frequency of the excitation signal will decrease. As most of us know from Tesla coils and basic electronics, the mutual inductance and therefore energy transfer improves between primary and secondary as the resonant point of each approach the same frequency.

Avoid the argument where the resistive load on the secondary appears in the primary. This is correct but do not forget that the reactivity of the primary is also shared with the secondary.

Yes, the resistance has the greatest affect upon the Q but remember that the primary IS a series LC circuit in either part of the switch cycle. The fact that the added secondary is coupled as a transformer secondary does not make the LC circuit and resistive load parallel. It means the total impedance of the secondary is reflected in the primary which includes the effects of the reactive values of the primary 180 deg out of phase. This is why only the resistive effects are measurable in the primary.

>>Note: the quality of primary to secondary coupling is never perfect and has an effect upon the reactive/non-reactive effects shared between windings. What is actually shared between coils is impedance not resistance. This cancellation (180 deg) of reactive properties is never 100%. So, the loose coupling between primary and pot seen is likely a designed in factor to allow resonance of the primary to exist well enough for control of energy applied to the pot.<< 

Any current increase in the primary is manifested in the secondary as a voltage increase - basic Faraday induction. This is displayed on tinman's scope because he uses a magnetic loop as a scope pickup.

In such a circuit decreasing the primary effective resistance increases the Q of the primary because the primary current increases and a current increase in a series RLC means either the load has increased due to lower load impedance or the exciter frequency approaches the resonant frequency of RLC which result in more energy applied to the load.

R=0 in this system means Q_pri=Max not Q_pri=Min.

exnihiloest

QuoteThe working frequency is the consequence of the time delay of the positive feedback. This doesn't imply resonance! Even a RC circuit can make transistors to oscillate.

Ok, now you're talking about the drive signal, so if you want to understand, continue analyzing what happens to this drive signal.    This signal is generated by the cooker and applied to the IGBT switches in the resonant converter to switch them ON and OFF.    The frequency is chosen by design to drive the primary coil inductance, and the associated capacitors, at their RESONANT frequency!  That's why its called a "resonant" converter!     And that's why there is resonance to speak of.  

Resonant converters are great circuits and quite practical and useful.  I suggest you take some time to study them, before posting nonsense.


WW,
let's tag team WW, your turn to wrestle  :D

tinman,
that's a great looking scope, at a great price, I like it!   I bought one a while ago that was about the same cost but only 25 MHz, but I returned it, glad I did, cause I might buy this model.

I have read many reviews on the scope I posted, and all are good.
It seems to be one of the best in that price range.

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.14, 15:39:28
The correct answer is 'positive'.

The resonance of the circuit is essential for control of energy applied to the load.

The resonance of the circuit is not essential for control of energy applied to the load.

Quote
Not only is the amplitude of the exciter signal controlled for this purpose but also the frequency and possibly the duty cycle.

Non sequitur

Quote
As you can see in the scope shots, the exciter frequency is less than the resonant frequency.
...

As you can see in the scope shots, the exciter frequency is around 20 Khz and there is no resonant frequency (square signal and no overvoltage).

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.15, 01:49:51
...
The frequency is chosen by design to drive the primary coil inductance, and the associated capacitors, at their RESONANT frequency!
....

The frequency is not choosen, it is the result of the time constant of the positive feedback which depends on the IGBT and coil capacitances. A time constant doesn't imply a resonance.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.15, 01:49:51
WW,
let's tag team WW, your turn to wrestle  :D

EM,

No thanks.

Weekdays don't leave me enough time to provide free tutoring.

He can't see the voltage increase in the non-squared portion of the waveform (half-wave resonant inverter) and doesn't believe the information written by the design engineers. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

The only remaining problem here is that any further discussion using the word 'resonance' will be the end of the discussion as he takes up network bandwidth.

Ok guy's-If i disasemble the cooker and place the prob only on the coil(as both the cooker and scope have a common ground,and i also have RCD's in the workshop)Would this show us what we need to see?.Everything i read says that these cooktops use a resonant converter.There is also a clear indication that resonance has many different shapes and form's in todays electronic's.

So in the name of reserch,im off to disasemble the new cooktop.If anyone has anything they would like me to try while i have the cooktop appart-just let me know here.Also,is there one partiqular place other than the coil that i should hook the scope probe to?Im getting a new scope shortly,so it's all out war on this one.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.15, 10:16:00
...
There is also a clear indication that resonance has many different shapes
...

Resonance is mainly a sine signal because a resonance is at only one frequency, only one frequency is a narrow spectrum and a narrow spectrum implies a sine signal, consequence of the Fourier transform.
If you don't observe a sine shape, you may forget resonance.

Quote from: exnihiloest
Resonance is mainly a sine signal because a resonance is at only one frequency, only one frequency is a narrow spectrum and a narrow spectrum implies a sine signal, consequence of the Fourier transform.
If you don't observe a sine shape, you may forget resonance.

The waveshape across the resonant components can
be of high spectral purity if the circuit is only very
lightly loaded.

In the case of industrial applications, the resonant
components are typically very heavily loaded so the
resultant waveshape is heavily damped.  A damped
oscillation is by its very nature not a pure sinusoid
as the loading induced distortion produces harmonics
and modulation products.

In high power industrial applications this distortion
is quite tolerable.

In the single ended Induction Cooker waveshape the
driven half cycle of resonance is significantly larger
than the free-wheeling circulating current half cycle
due to energy transfer to the load.  Since the oscillation
is reinforced each cycle by the driver circuit the desired
resonance is sustained even though the resultant
waveshape is lop-sided.  The conditions of resonance
are met.  DC input pulses result in an alternating current
within the resonant components.

Conversion is accomplished.

It may be instructive to monitor the output waveshape
of the Induction Cooker while it is "ON" but not yet loaded
by any metallic surface in proximity to the output coil.

Once "loading" is detected by the Control Circuits then
the Cooker will shift to normal high power output.

Ex's understanding of "resonance" seems to be predominantly
theoretical and he may lack actual experience with the plethora
of resonant circuits in common usage in other than Radio
Frequency Communications devices.

I have a test for the  cooktop, I'd like to see how long it takes to cook a nice porter house steak [seasoned with some Onions ,maybe a little celery ]
I like it a little rare in the middle?

?
atleast before yah break it.....

thx
Chet

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.04.15, 11:38:47
The waveshape across the resonant components can
be of high spectral purity if the circuit is only very
lightly loaded.

It may be instructive to monitor the output waveshape
of the Induction Cooker while it is "ON" but not yet loaded
by any metallic surface in proximity to the output coil.

Once "loading" is detected by the Control Circuits then
the Cooker will shift to normal high power output.

I actualy done this in the next video i will be posting within about an hour(waiting for conversion and upload to youtube)
Unloaded we see the half wave ac with a flat top,but when loaded we see something very different-looks like a full offset signwave with a half wave inbetween.This is at the 100Hz half wave cycle(50Hz rectified ac)
The probe is hooked to the active side of the coil.The scematic i posted is not the one for this cooktop,as this one only has 1 IGBT and two inductors(or what i believe to be inductors.

Quote from: ramset on 2013.04.15, 12:05:13
I have a test for the  cooktop, I'd like to see how long it takes to cook a nice porter house steak [seasoned with some Onions ,maybe a little celery ]
I like it a little rare in the middle?

?
atleast before yah break it.....

thx
Chet

Funny you should say that Chet,as i tried that experiment last night-but it was a T bone and tomato.8 minutes,and it was cooked to perfection.My wife also done boiled eggs-4 minutes from cold water to hard boiled--much quicker than the gas stove.I now have a reprieve for spending the cash on an experiment lol.

Here is the video of the internals of the induction cooktop i have.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iubthURPRqw

Here is the scope shots with the probe hooked directly to the induction cooktop coil-with and without a load.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2-T1PzOgEo

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.04.15, 11:38:47
...
In the case of industrial applications, the resonant components are typically very heavily loaded so the resultant waveshape is heavily damped.
...

I agree. The load delete more or less the resonance, the heavier load the lower the Q, heavier meaning damping. When the amplitude of the resonant frequency is not clearly distinguishable among the other components of the spectrum, the resonance has became not significant.

Ex,

For argument sake, I think in electrical terms, resonance occurs any time there is an exchange or shuttling of energy between a capacitive and inductive reactance. This holds true even if this exchange is only half completed (say from L to C). No matter the Q (usually resistance of L), there is still "resonance".

Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.04.15, 14:21:18
Ex,

For argument sake, I think in electrical terms, resonance occurs any time there is an exchange or shuttling of energy between a capacitive and inductive reactance. This holds true even if this exchange is only half completed (say from L to C). No matter the Q (usually resistance of L), there is still "resonance".

I agree but...
Resonance being energy accumulated from period to period and stored in a system, each time there is energy temporarily stored in a component, we could speak of "resonance". But even if we accept this simplistic hypothesis which is equivalent to see resonance everywhere because a capacitor voltage or a coil current is stored energy, is it relevant when Q is low? Certainly not. When Q is low we can neglect the resonance, as well as we often neglect the resistance of wires connecting our components:
The experimenters of the gegene who don't observe overunity, say that the output voltage is of the same order as the primary voltage, due to a turns ratio near one. The provided primary energy is constantly dissipated by the load connected to the secundary coil. So where is the  energy stored by the alleged resonant effect? Even if it was only equal to the output energy, which would be a very low resonance, we would see somewhere in the circuit overvoltage or overcurrent coming from the stored energy and adding to the provided and used energy. But we see none. This means that the energy in each period is used by the load at each period. A not measurable accumulation means that the Q is very low, and consequently we dont need to invoke a resonance to explain the functioning.

The gegene is strictly identical to a switched-mode power supply whose the mains input is rectified but not filtered and the output is directly used without rectification.
You may verify at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-mode_power_supply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-mode_power_supply) that the principle of switching a voltage doesn't imply resonance, therefore speaking of resonance is irrelevant for the gegene.

Switched-mode power supply:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/SMPS_Block_Diagram.png)

Gegene switched-mode power supply:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1610.0;attach=9947;image)

It's a resonant converter topology, not a switch mode.

This is a good paper on resonant converters:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09152003-180228/unrestricted/Ch4.pdf


Most CFL light bulbs use the same half bridge resonant converter topology, a good circuit for projects.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.16, 07:07:09
It's a resonant converter topology, not a switch mode.

This is a good paper on resonant converters:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09152003-180228/unrestricted/Ch4.pdf


Most CFL light bulbs use the same half bridge resonant converter topology, a good circuit for projects.

EM,

Friend to friend....

I'm worried about bruises forming on your forehead or even worse - brain trauma. Their is enough evidence of that here already  >:-)

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.16, 07:07:09
It's a resonant converter topology, not a switch mode.

This is a good paper on resonant converters:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09152003-180228/unrestricted/Ch4.pdf
...

It's terrible that you use the pretext of LC circuits implemented for low cost reasons for the positive feedback at the input of the IGBTs (because a stable frequency is not required), to pretend that the resonance is a key feature of an induction cooker circuit, while there is no resonance at the output because of the switching operation and while the state of the art allows also to use PWM circuits to control the power stage, without any need of resonance!    C.C

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q3qi2fRAQyI/TmCNKzQvdrI/AAAAAAAABEc/uS6TYPt9JyQ/s400/Induction%2BCooker%2BDiagram.JPG)

It's like to say in the 1950's that the vacuum is needed for a radio receiver to work, because you would have seen that radio receivers use vacuum tubes!
It's the principle that one has to understand here: a simple switching of the mains frequency after rectification.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.17, 07:37:50
while the state of the art allows also to use PWM circuits to control the power stage, without any need of resonance!    C.C

The current state of the art is to use resonant converters. Simple PWM control of energy applied to a pot was state of the art well prior to the 1980's.
The reasons provided in all papers I've read on the subject is because resonant converters offer higher efficiency of energy transfer to the pot than simple PWM devices.

Since when does an LC circuit become classified as not resonant simply because it is fed by a switching device?

This would mean the RF PA stage on my transceiver is not resonant? If this is thought then the poster should leave the thread in shame.
Perhaps, this argument is due to the energy being switched is a pulse? Not so shameful as many don't understand the differences between a planar and solenoid coil.
 

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.17, 11:15:49
The current state of the art is to use resonant converters.
Simple PWM control of energy applied to a pot was state of the art well prior to the 1980's.
...
Since when does an LC circuit become classified as not resonant simply because it is fed by a switching device?
...

I didn't say the contrary.

PWM control is still in use but lower cost solutions have been implemented in most of the induction cookers.

I have shown that the exact same function can be and is also realized without resonance and so, resonance is not a key function of the gegene device.

And this is confirmed by the fact that I also emphasized, that the resonance is not involved at the output and therefore a "resonant energy" can't be related to the output power. Moreover the Q is ridiculously low.

To invoke resonance when it can be avoid for the same result or when it is an accessory use somewhere in the electronics circuit is a twisted argument.

Quote from: exnihiloest
To invoke resonance when it can be avoid for the same result or when it is an accessory use somewhere in the electronics circuit is a twisted argument.

What is truly puzzling Ex is why your arguments
and protestations have departed from the "scientific
ideal."  :o

Now, tell us once again:  "Who is it that is making
twisted arguments?"

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.17, 12:20:14
PWM control is still in use but lower cost solutions have been implemented in most of the induction cookers.

Agreed. In fact, as stated in the many tech docs concerning induction cookers using resonance, resonant converter circuits are the path used to smaller, less costly components and higher efficiency.

Quote
I have shown that the exact same function can be and is also realized without resonance and so, resonance is not a key function of the gegene device.

You have shown it and it was also part of many of the OEM and engineering explanations relating to the improvements over such systems prior to LCC/LLC resonant power converters and induction cookers using the same technology. The same technical papers about resonant converters clearly explain that resonance is a key factor in the control of energy applied to the cooking pot.
As far as it being important in JLN's gegene.... that thought is absurd. Resonance or no resonance it would not be key in producing OU.
As far as it being used in the gegene.... I don't know and don't care. IMHO, it doesn't matter.
As already explained, repeatedly and clearly documented - If an induction cooker is using resonance it is usually to provide feedback to the controller so proper PRF (pulse rate frequency) and therefore controlled mutual induction and therefore power is applied to the varying sizes and construction of the many possible variations of cookware. This variation in PRF is varied from zero to the resonant frequency of the total RLC circuit (including the ferrite strips on the bottom of the coil and the cookware).

You can bark about Q all you wish. It doesn't matter. As long as Q>.5 there is resonance. When the driven PRF approaches the circuit resonance mutual induction increases but is never at the level of a conventional power transformer. Such high coupling would lower the Q and widen bandwidth to the point of being useless for controlling energy applied to the cookware.

Yes, PWM is still used, oviously. It is clearly a function in all recent induction cookers, including the ones where the OEM claim the use of resonance.

Quote
And this is confirmed by the fact that I also emphasized, that the resonance is not involved at the output and therefore a "resonant energy" can't be related to the output power. Moreover the Q is ridiculously low.

I must assume that you haven't read any documentation on the subject of resonant power conversion.

Quote
To invoke resonance when it can be avoid for the same result or when it is an accessory use somewhere in the electronics circuit is a twisted argument.

The same result is not possible using blind blasting of a PWM signal. That would be operation found prior to the development of resonant converters used in induction cooker, a radiant heater element or gas power.

Complain to the engineers designing these things, not to me.

I think it's time this absurd argument is ended, it may take the adults in the argument to just end it.

This is what is wrong with these type sites in general, certain folks make too many assumptions about what other people mean
when they say something, rather than ask for clarification they assume. I'm tired of having what I post misunderstood on purpose
in many cases in my opinion, just for the sake of argument. These same people state everything they say as "fact". What is
wrong with adding the phrase in my opinion after a statement of opinion. Facts should be proved by those that claim them as facts.
Opinions need not be proven unless the opinion maker wishes.

Honestly, it is ok for people to have different opinions of what they call resonance. That is why i like to clarify things a lot to try
to understand properly what the person is actually trying to say.

In my opinion "resonance" is a term related originally to "sound" and was adapted to use in other ways.

It's actually irrelevant if there is resonance or not, and peoples strict definitions of resonance differ.

I say get over it, or post a definition to be used on this site and that's it, then be done with it.

Same with OU. A moderator should define Over Unity clearly and precisely and request that is the definition attributed to OU
and it should be used in that way here.

Constant argument about what is this and what is that is a bit much.

If the resonant frequency of a inductance and capacitance combination is targeted to improve efficiency or throughput or retard them then it use of resonance, in my opinion.

I think there needs to be a list of valid topics or guidelines so we know what we can post about.

I for one refuse to start any threads here because I can do without the pointless and endless argument with EX. and him twisting my words ect.
Either the site has room for things that are not OU as per some peoples definition or it doesn't. But what is the official definition ?

In my opinion he serves the main purpose of causing unnecessary and prolonged argument, I think we could do better with out him.

As far as I am concerned. While Ex. is posting here this site is dead to me. I have better ways to spend my time than arguing with bricks that change color.

Just my opinion.

Good luck all and goodbye. 

Quote from: Farmhand on 2013.04.17, 21:43:03
I have better ways to spend my time than arguing with bricks that change color.

Then don't do it.

Ignore him and he will get bored.

Feed him with a response, and he will come back for more.

Its that simple.
.

Quote from: Farmhand on 2013.04.17, 21:43:03
I think it's time this absurd argument is ended, it may take the adults in the argument to just end it.

This is what is wrong with these type sites in general, certain folks make too many assumptions about what other people mean
when they say something, rather than ask for clarification they assume. I'm tired of having what I post misunderstood on purpose
in many cases in my opinion, just for the sake of argument. These same people state everything they say as "fact". What is
wrong with adding the phrase in my opinion after a statement of opinion. Facts should be proved by those that claim them as facts.
Opinions need not be proven unless the opinion maker wishes.

Honestly, it is ok for people to have different opinions of what they call resonance. That is why i like to clarify things a lot to try
to understand properly what the person is actually trying to say.

In my opinion "resonance" is a term related originally to "sound" and was adapted to use in other ways.

It's actually irrelevant if there is resonance or not, and peoples strict definitions of resonance differ.

I say get over it, or post a definition to be used on this site and that's it, then be done with it.

Same with OU. A moderator should define Over Unity clearly and precisely and request that is the definition attributed to OU
and it should be used in that way here.

Constant argument about what is this and what is that is a bit much.

If the resonant frequency of a inductance and capacitance combination is targeted to improve efficiency or throughput or retard them then it use of resonance, in my opinion.

I think there needs to be a list of valid topics or guidelines so we know what we can post about.

I for one refuse to start any threads here because I can do without the pointless and endless argument with EX. and him twisting my words ect.
Either the site has room for things that are not OU as per some peoples definition or it doesn't. But what is the official definition ?

In my opinion he serves the main purpose of causing unnecessary and prolonged argument, I think we could do better with out him.

As far as I am concerned. While Ex. is posting here this site is dead to me. I have better ways to spend my time than arguing with bricks that change color.

Just my opinion.

Good luck all and goodbye. 

FarmHand-It would be a shame if you leave on statements made by another here.Ex may disagree with much that is said here,but if we all agreed with one another with all could end up at the wrong end of the path without argument.This happens on all forum's,and shows that there are people that have there own mind and thoughts.I think you would recall UFOpolotics thread ,where i was asked to leave because i dare question his test method's and result's.You will remember his scream of OU(not once but twice).You will remember many people buying kit's,and also remember how UFO kept telling us skeptics on that thread to be happy with our gas guzzling heaps of sh-t.You will also know that so far not one self runner has been achieved.My point is that if you believe in what your saying to be true,you put forth your argument so as many(like in the UFO thread)dint spend there hard earned cash and end up going on a trip in the wrong direction.

So far with the test i have carried out on the GEGENE setup,i have seen nothing that would indicate any OU.But i also haven't finished testing,as i dint yet have the equipment needed.This thread has become much like a game of tennis,where you just sit there and watch the ball go back and forth-but now the fans are starting to leave before the game is over.I do agree that it is hard to learn from this game of tennis-it's much like trying to pick a winner before the game is over.So to get the final result,one must stick around until the game is over.

Just remember that difference of opinions are needed for man to move forward-the world is no longer flat.

@Farmhand,
Do not leave on a petty issue. Stay and push forward on grander schemes. Seriously...

The pioneer does not turn back just because the buffalo run off the cliff.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.17, 07:37:50
It's terrible that you use the pretext of LC circuits implemented for low cost reasons for the positive feedback at the input of the IGBTs (because a stable frequency is not required), to pretend that the resonance is a key feature of an induction cooker circuit, while there is no resonance at the output because of the switching operation and while the state of the art allows also to use PWM circuits to control the power stage, without any need of resonance!    C.C

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q3qi2fRAQyI/TmCNKzQvdrI/AAAAAAAABEc/uS6TYPt9JyQ/s400/Induction%2BCooker%2BDiagram.JPG)

It's like to say in the 1950's that the vacuum is needed for a radio receiver to work, because you would have seen that radio receivers use vacuum tubes!
It's the principle that one has to understand here: a simple switching of the mains frequency after rectification.

My dear exnihiloest,  in my humble opinion, you are:

 1) wrong about resonance,
 2) clueless about resonant converters,
 3) and simply too proud to admit you are wrong,  

INMO, Dumped gave you a free and accurate psychological assessment!  Read it and learn from it, so you can better your life.

I joined this discussion of the Gegene based on tinmen's results and posts of the induction cooker schematic.  You came out accusing and said over and over that"  "there is no resonance to speak of"   and now you proved to us without a doubt, that you are not familiar with resonant converters.  You can twist my words all you want and copy and paste off the internet, but if you have no knowledge you don't know what to copy and paste, so you paste unrelated circuits, showcasing your ignorance for all to see.

You want proof?    See image bellow.


Farmhand,  I prefer you over EX,  INMO he should take a vacation.    :P
Paul-R   sorry I had to do one more feeding of the monster!   (by a monster! ) :D
WW, my head is all bruised up, I need a band aide!   >:(

EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.18, 02:02:15

My dear exnihiloest,  in my humble opinion, you are:

 1) wrong about resonance,
 2) clueless about resonant converters,
 3) and simply too proud to admit you are wrong,  
...

Your opinion doesn't make science nor technics. I gave strong technical arguments that the resonance is not significant in the gegene.
You didn't challenge them, you can't because these arguments are right. Instead, you make a projection and attack me personally, not what I say and that passes over your head.
Your opinion about people is not humble, it is as stupid as about technics and resonance, it is as peremptory as unfounded, and moreover here, it is out of topic.
In absence of knowledge, "opinion" is only what you have. Your opinion has strictly no interest for a technical domain. If you search for an escape valve, consult a psychiatrist.

TinMan
Thanks for the efforts,cook top sales Have been up the last quarter  O0

In all seriousness you are doing a very big service for this community.

Thx
Chet
PS
Farmhand
what doesn't kill you makes you stronger !If you need to moderate a thread here you can do that anytime you wish [in your bench area.}

Here is a couple of scope shots from my last video.Sorry about the frame rate,but my video card just wont keep up with HD.
The first shot is of the cooktop in standby.As you can see ,we have the rectified half wave AC.Also note that the peak voltage is around 160-170 volts,which is half of the 240 volt ac supply-as it would be because we only have half the sign wave.
In the second scope shot,we have fired up the cooktop.As you can see,the voltage peak is much higher than that of the supply voltage-and we also now have a sign wave.So how exactly are we getting a voltage increase with the primary coil being heavily loaded by the one turn secondary-that being the pot of water?

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.18, 13:50:12
Here is a couple of scope shots from my last video.Sorry about the frame rate,but my video card just wont keep up with HD.
The first shot is of the cooktop in standby.As you can see ,we have the rectified half wave AC.Also note that the peak voltage is around 160-170 volts,which is half of the 240 volt ac supply-as it would be because we only have half the sign wave.
In the second scope shot,we have fired up the cooktop.As you can see,the voltage peak is much higher than that of the supply voltage-and we also now have a sign wave.So how exactly are we getting a voltage increase with the primary coil being heavily loaded by the one turn secondary-that being the pot of water?

Good question, Tinman.   
I have loaded my output BPC with an immersion heater, immersed in water.  It runs fine, heats the water, so I measure heat output using

Qheat = 4.19 * 1000g H2O * delta-temp.

Input power is measured using a Kill-a-Watt meter, Einput = 36,000 J for these tests.

Repeated tests, I'm getting ~22,000 -24,500 J on the output, so Qout/Ein = approx 60-70%.
Any suggestions?

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.04.18, 16:50:09

I have loaded my output BPC with an immersion heater, immersed in water.  It runs fine, heats the water, so I measure heat output using

Qheat = 4.19 * 1000g H2O * delta-temp.

A good method but don't forget the units.

@tinman

What was you exactly measuring? Is it the secondary? What is the number of turns of the primary and secondary?

It's not clear for me where you was measuring the half-rectified wave. Have you the schematics?

Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.04.18, 19:47:21
A good method but don't forget the units.

Qheat (J) = 4.19 * 1000g H2O * delta-temp (Centigrade) ,   since I used 1000ml of water; standard units.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.18, 19:48:41
@tinman

What was you exactly measuring? Is it the secondary? What is the number of turns of the primary and secondary?

It's not clear for me where you was measuring the half-rectified wave. Have you the schematics?

The scope probe is hooked to the active side of the primary coil,and the secondary is the stainless steel pot that is heating water.I show the internals of the cooktop in post 341 and the video of the scope shots is on post 342.I have no schematic for this modle induction cooktop,and it would take me a day to draw one out from the circuit board.
The ground of the scope is not attached,as it is a common ground.

Quote from: TinMan
The scope probe is hooked to the active side of the primary coil...

As an alternative to hooking the scope probe
directly to the active side of the coil you may
wish to try inductive pickup:

Fashion a small coil about 1 inch in diameter of
one or two turns and connect the scope probe leads
to the coil.  Then place this coil in close proximity
to the Induction Cooker output coil to sample some
of the RF output.  You'll have to adjust the scope
input sensitivity accordingly as the pickup will be
relatively low voltage.  If all goes well this should
provide a clearer image of the RF Envelope produced
by the Induction Cooker.

exnihiloest said:

"I gave strong technical arguments that the resonance is not significant in the gegene."


OK, now we're making some progress!   We've come a long way from:

"there is no resonance to speak of"

to admitting that there is resonance, but its not significant.  We'll discuss the significance in lesson #2.


In the mean time. what' significant in all of this, is your lack of technical ability when it comes to understanding circuits, and your disporportionate ego in relation to it.  You've been making fun of people all along since you joined this forum, and now you are at the receiving end of ridicule.  I'm simply serving you your own dish.

Bon appetite!

EM

The dish of revenge is best served cold.

Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.04.19, 01:32:56
exnihiloest said:

"I gave strong technical arguments that the resonance is not significant in the gegene."

OK, now we're making some progress!

Yes but I have had to write so many posts for that you begin to understand!

Quote
 We've come a long way from:

"there is no resonance to speak of"

Finally I take back what I said, your understanding is not yet acquired: you mix details of realization with principle of functioning. The question of resonance was only about the principle of functioning of the gegene, as it could be with Tesla's resonant transmitter, not about an accessory intermediate circuit for the positive feedback of the IGBT, that can even be made otherwise for the same result (control signal instead of self-oscillator), obvious sign that resonance is marginal, not indispensable here.

Quote
what' significant in all of this, is your lack of technical ability when it comes to understanding circuits, and your disporportionate ego in relation to it.  You've been making fun of people all along since you joined this forum, and now you are at the receiving end of ridicule.  I'm simply serving you your own dish.

Bon appetite!

You should postulate for the gutter press, they need people like you to misinform and discredit.

Your wishful thinking is impressive. After OU where it is not, or resonance, it is now about people. Such a blind faith in products of imagination has never been seen since the Bernadette Soubirous's apparitions.
;D

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.19, 07:42:21

Finally I take back what I said, your understanding is not yet acquired: you mix details of realization with principle of functioning. The question of resonance was only about the principle of functioning of the gegene.

Exn-The question was never just about the GEGENE setup,the question of resonance that you put forth your argument was about the induction cooker itself.
Where this question of resonance started was post 110 by dumped-Quote: As an electronic device, the Induction Cooker
is not really unique.  It makes use of the well
established principles of LC resonance and
near field loading of a Tank to induce eddy
currents into metallic surfaces.

Your reply was post 112 Quote: No, it doesn't.
Post 115 by Dumped Quote: Perhaps you'd care to elaborate?
Your reply post 119 Quote: There is nothing to elaborate.
The electronics is known. The typical schematics of induction heaters have already been presented here and you can get them every where on Internet.
Where do you see "resonance"?!

So this is where it started Exn,and had nothing to do with the GEGENE at the time.It was about resonance within the induction cooker.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.04.19, 07:42:21
Yes but I have had to write so many posts...

Who was holding a gun to your head? You didn't HAVE to write any. You could have been
working on, and testing an implementation instead of arguing about how many angels
can dance on the end of a pin head.

TinMan,

Somehow I'd missed it, but you've already
done the inductive pickup loop in one of your
videos. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO8CFzjv8-M)

Excellent job!

It illustrates well the damped oscillation
with the lop-sided envelope.  The driven
half-cycles of the oscillations being more
powerful than the free-wheeling half cycles
and varying in amplitude with the line
voltage.

Quote from: Dumped on 2013.04.19, 21:54:47
TinMan,

Somehow I'd missed it, but you've already
done the inductive pickup loop in one of your
videos. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO8CFzjv8-M)

Excellent job!

It illustrates well the damped oscillation
with the lop-sided envelope.  The driven
half-cycles of the oscillations being more
powerful than the free-wheeling half cycles
and varying in amplitude with the line
voltage.

My next post wat to make you aware of this,but you have beat me to it.
The next thing to do would be to make sure the watt meter is reading correctly-as pointed out to me by ION.The induction cooktop i have is a 2000 watt modle,and on it's highest setting while boiling water it draws 2003 watts acording to the watt meter-so it should be very close to right.But i will do some test anyway,so as we can see the sign wave the watt meter is trying to read.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.04.19, 09:32:56
Exn-The question was never just about the GEGENE setup,the question of resonance that you put forth your argument was about the induction cooker itself.
Where this question of resonance started was post 110 by dumped-Quote: As an electronic device, the Induction Cooker
is not really unique.  It makes use of the well established principles of LC resonance and near field loading of a Tank to induce eddy currents into metallic surfaces.

I agree, Tinman, you're right. Nevertheless it doesn't change much. If resonance had been the principle of induction cookers, it had been the principle of the gegene (outside the question of OU).

The principle of an induction cooker is... induction  :) which is only eddy currents, and eddy currents don't imply resonance. The metal to heat acts as a secondary coil+load coupled to the coil inside the cooker. This is a transformer. A transformer doesn't need to be resonant to work and generally, it's not.

Maybe i am joining this discussion a bit late  :)

Ex when you search for the principle of operation regarding these induction cookers why do the documents mention series resonance and use resonant capacitors in series with the coil.

I mean are you saying these are not resonant.

Quote from: Peterae on 2013.04.20, 14:42:18
I mean are you saying these are not resonant.

?

First, there was no resonance
Second, resonance may or may not exist in the circuit but plays no appreciable role in the circuit function
Third, resonance may be used as part of a feedback control loop
Overall, the primary coil with any sizable load applied to it only functions as a transformer
And, in transformer action resonance is not an appreciable factor.

???

I think that sums up the time-line  C.C

Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.04.20, 16:06:19
?

First, there was no resonance
Second, resonance may or may not exist in the circuit but plays no appreciable role in the circuit function
Third, resonance may be used as part of a feedback control loop
Overall, the primary coil with any sizable load applied to it only functions as a transformer
And, in transformer action resonance is not an appreciable factor.

???

I think that sums up the time-line  C.C

You gave all the points that have been discussed. Here are some precisions:

First, "there was no resonance" because I believed that we were interested in the principle of functioning (induction power), not in the engineering.

Second, resonance may or may not exist in an induction heater because we can implement different methods to switch the IGBT (self-oscillator or control signal).

Third, resonance may be used as part of a feedback control loop, that's the method for an oscillator. You may say that there is a "resonance" here because a capacitor is connecting the IGBT input from the primary coil, and thus constitutes a LC circuit whose the time constant determines the working frequency, but imho "resonance" is a rather misleading term considering the low Q and the lack of overvoltage.

Overall, the primary coil with any sizable load applied to it only functions as a transformer: it's right, a part of the energy being possibly looped back to the input by a capacitor in the oscillator mode.

And, in transformer action resonance is not an appreciable factor. EM himself estimated the Q around 1, which is a weak resonance.

OK thanks for summing that up guys   :)

Quote from: Peterae on 2013.04.20, 18:43:32
OK thanks for summing that up guys   :)

Peterae, here is what follows, I have not had the time to post my reply to your previous post:

Quote from: Peterae on 2013.04.20, 14:42:18
...
Ex when you search for the principle of operation regarding these induction cookers why do the documents mention series resonance and use resonant capacitors in series with the coil.

I mean are you saying these are not resonant.
...

"Resonance" is just a word. If Q=0.5 or Q=10¹¹, "resonance" doesn't say the difference. We must know what we are talking about.

If the capacitor made the coil resonant in a significant manner, we should observe a sine signal.
You can observe (http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/images/gegene13cCURa.jpg) that the positive voltage is about twice the negative. The mean voltage being 0 because we have AC, this means that the negative pulses are larger than the positives ones. The signal is not sine => spectrum is not a single resonant frequency.
Then there is almost no significant overvoltage (http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/images/gegene13cVTGa.jpg). The reason is that the IGBTs are switching components, they don't control a sine wave. When one is ON and the other OFF, the primary coil voltage is imposed, deleting the building of a resonant energy. So I think that the Q is much less than 1, perhaps not even 0.5 which doesn't prevent an oscillator to run.

Surely the capacitor is favouring the switching frequency and its role is essentially to avoid a too high or an unstable switching frequency that otherwise would occur, by lack of well defined time constant.

Compare the resonance here with that one of a mechanical oscillator (Q= 5=>10), a bad LC oscillators (Q=10), LC or lines oscillators (20=>100), high-Q active inductor (500=>3000),  RF cavity (some thousands), quartz crystal oscillator (5000=>30000), single-crystal silicon micromechanical oscillator (10 000=>100 000), supermirror (10¹¹).
If one still really want to speak of resonance, formally one may, but the effect here is not significant.

Note that in your schematics the serial LC circuit using the 940nF should enhance a little the resonance but in most of the schematics that I saw here and there, there is not this circuit but only the primary coil connected to the IGBTs.

See below:

https://www.aldi.co.uk/en/specialbuys/thur-7-may/product-detail/ps/p/single-induction-hob-2/

Only Thursday May 7th 2015 till Sunday. 

For ideal Gegene research: Induction hobs for £29;

Thurs May 7th 2015 to Sunday only:

https://www.aldi.co.uk/en/specialbuys/thur-7-may/product-detail/ps/p/single-induction-hob-2/

Time limited offer. Could be dependent on locality. Check with your nearest Aldi.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2015.05.01, 15:22:49
For ideal Gegene research: Induction hobs for £29;

Thurs May 7th 2015 to Sunday only:

https://www.aldi.co.uk/en/specialbuys/thur-7-may/product-detail/ps/p/single-induction-hob-2/

Time limited offer. Could be dependent on locality. Check with your nearest Aldi.

This offer has expired but today, Thursday May 11th 2015, I found a considerable stock of the same unit, but made by Slivercrest, on sale at Lidl.