Hi ION,
You posted a letter recently in the Partnered Coils thread that discusses the issue of efficiency of a coil circuit in terms of the potential difference being reduced in the coil. You said:
"In a practical real world coil, this is true but it is only because of the resistance of the coil. Were the resistance to go to zero, a potential difference would not be needed, only a current. In the limit analysis it is the current that charges the coil."
This gives me a good starting point to introduce several methods for increasing the efficiency of our circuits even in the absence of overunity. This letter serves as an overview of some little known aspects, and I'll get into more depth in further posts.
Not only the potential difference across the coil, but the potential difference from source to coil terminal, determines the losses.
Let's take the most basic example of energizing any inductor, even one with small wire. The inductor can be considered an LR circuit since it has its own R. If you connect a voltage source to it directly, the V will quickly rise to maximum, while current rises over the time constant.
As you said, the only thing that matters is the current. The extra V at the start of the inductor charging simply represents wasted energy. If you limit the voltage of the source to a low level, and then let the source current rise in exact harmony with the rising I of the inductor, the energy that is normally lost as heat in the inductor will be conserved. In this case, the potential is discarded, and only the current is used.
This method is currently in use in huge inductors made for the Star Wars program. In those machines, they energize several smaller inductors and then switch them into the larger inductor in parallel. The voltage is always that of the individual inductor, but the current rises as each inductor is added. Through this means the thermal losses of the large inductor are reduced. This post is the first time this concept has been suggested for magnetic circuits that are not the size of a building :-)
The mistaken concept about adiabatic processes is that they must be slow. The above example shows that the TC of the inductor still determines the length of the process. Adiabatic technology is applied somewhat unknowingly through resonance, where the potential difference between inductor and cap are kept low at all times. But even resonance is a waste of energy, recycling current through the resistance over and over, unless the energy is handed off every ΒΌ cycle or less.
Although the use of a controlled voltage source (really probably a current source with variable voltage) to feed an inductor is more complex, it opens up a new world for OU experiments, because every coil in every device has these thermal losses, often obscuring the sources of overunity. Simply controlling the input V and I can obviate these losses in ways that are completely conventional but never used except in a few adiabatic logic circuits and odd star wars machines.
orthofield
Great title for a thread on your bench, I hope to contribute
quote orthofield
QuoteNot only the potential difference across the coil, but the potential difference from source to coil terminal, determines the losses.
In my statement I was referring to the steady state, not the instantaneous condition. Also your statement about the wires leading to the coil is true, however this resistance is not normally considered in the ideal condition.
In the real world those wires do subtract from efficiency, which is why experimenters should strive to eliminate clip leads and plug boards with their high losses, especially when there are high currents circulating. For prototypes, I favor compact homemade breadboards with soldering of components directly to wide copper strips for efficient transfer of energy. A
well designed pcb is also a good thing.
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.26, 18:38:49
Let's take the most basic example of energizing any inductor, even one with small wire. The inductor can be considered an LR circuit since it has its own R. If you connect a voltage source to it directly, the V will quickly rise to maximum, while current rises over the time constant.
That rise of voltage is instantaneous for a perfect switch closure. The current at switch closure is zero.
Quote
As you said, the only thing that matters is the current. The extra V at the start of the inductor charging simply represents wasted energy.
I disagree, at the start there is no current hence no energy.
Quote
If you limit the voltage of the source to a low level, and then let the source current rise in exact harmony with the rising I of the inductor, the energy that is normally lost as heat in the inductor will be conserved. In this case, the potential is discarded, and only the current is used.
That is nonsense! The source current
is the inductor current. Or are you assuming there is some capacitance that is taking current away from the inductor? As for the potential being discarded it is most essential as its value multiplied by the current is the energy flow rate into the inductor. If there is no potential there is no energy flow. If you could gain access to the junction between the L and the series R of the equivalent circuit then you could do something to make the voltage across R zero and eliminate heat losses, but you can't get that access since there is no such circuit point, the R is distributed throughout the L.
QuoteThis method is currently in use in huge inductors made for the Star Wars program. In those machines, they energize several smaller inductors and then switch them into the larger inductor in parallel. The voltage is always that of the individual inductor, but the current rises as each inductor is added. Through this means the thermal losses of the large inductor are reduced. This post is the first time this concept has been suggested for magnetic circuits that are not the size of a building :-)
The concept of charging in parallel and discharging in series (or vice versa) is used with capacitors and inductors but it does not give you extra energy. It can allow you to develop huge voltage or huge current which is why it has its uses. But there is always some loss because of the clash between conservation of charge and conservation of energy and the energy loses out. But you are right about using resonance to eliminate or minimise those losses, somehow the introduction of a capacitor in the inductive circuit (and vice versa for the capacitor circuit) resolves the clash between charge and energy.
Smudge
Great title for a thread on your bench, I hope to contribute
--Thanks, Ion
In my statement I was referring to the steady state, not the instantaneous condition.
--I was referring to the steady state as well. I used the example of the V and L rise in an inductor as an example, which might have confused the issue.
Also your statement about the wires leading to the coil is true, however this resistance is not normally considered in the ideal condition.
--I was speaking of something more than the inclusion of a bit of extra resistance. In this special inductor energizing circuit, the output impedance of the source changes to track the current rise, while keeping the voltage low.
In the real world those wires do subtract from efficiency,
--Yes, they do, and any good design for energy efficiency must use every trick in the book. You use low gauge coils AND whatever esoteric techniques you are imagining.
The adiabatic methods can reduce the resistive losses to near zero, even in an energy-wasteful coil. You can shape the current and voltage so thermal dissipation is reduced below what the circuit will normally have at room temperature.
The paper attached shows an excellent experiment which I think should be understood by anyone in the energy field. The story is told well on pg. 2, in fig. 3, which compares step charging of a capacitor, to simply applying a voltage to charge it. On the left you can see the step charging, and the temperature as it rises in steps, and on the right, the direct charging, where the temperature shoots up to a much higher level.
Here is direct evidence that shaping the voltage in a capacitor (or more obscurely, the current in an inductor), can reduce the heat dissipation.
which is why experimenters should strive to eliminate clip leads and plug boards with their high losses, especially when there are high currents circulating. For prototypes, I favor compact homemade breadboards with soldering of components directly to wide copper strips for efficient transfer of energy. A well designed pcb is also a good thing.
--Yes, agreed. There are many sources of ultra-efficiency. Any device that aspires to be more efficient than a good conventional model, should be as efficient as it is, first!
The people I've enjoyed working with the most are those who are perfectionist in their work, because it is in the fine details that the overunity juice often leaks away :-)
orthofield
Hi Smudge,
Glad you could join us!
That rise of voltage is instantaneous for a perfect switch closure. The current at switch closure is zero.
I disagree, at the start there is no current hence no energy.
--True at the exact start, but as voltage remains high, and I is rising, thermal losses occur in the inductor, and these are what I'm considering as something to be worked with.
That is nonsense! The source current is the inductor current.
--True, I was being a bit poetic. It would be better to say that the output impedance of the source tracks the rise in current in the inductor.
Or are you assuming there is some capacitance that is taking current away from the inductor?
--No.
As for the potential being discarded it is most essential as its value multiplied by the current is the energy flow rate into the inductor. If there is no potential there is no energy flow.
--Be that as it may, it remains true that you can pick up some really big stuff with magnets that have a low voltage and high current. The Navy uses thermo-magnets that run off thermoelectric elements. The coils have only a few large turns, but develop enormous magnetic fields because of the high current from the (low-voltage) thermoelectric elements.
If you could gain access to the junction between the L and the series R of the equivalent circuit then you could do something to make the voltage across R zero and eliminate heat losses, but you can't get that access since there is no such circuit point, the R is distributed throughout the L.
--In the paper I just posted by Heinrich, the reduction of heat losses is shown in step-charging a capacitor. The circuit is a CR circuit, and there the R of the capacitor is included in the test results, if not the text of the article. It doesn't matter where in the circuit the R is located. I'm guessing that the situation is similar with the inductor, but there is not much written about it, even though it is the electrical dual.
The concept of charging in parallel and discharging in series (or vice versa) is used with capacitors and inductors but it does not give you extra energy.
--No, I didn't suggest it did. What it does it give you the opportunity to work at 99.9% efficiency, what I call ultra-efficiency, by reducing thermal losses.
It can allow you to develop huge voltage or huge current which is why it has its uses. But there is always some loss because of the clash between conservation of charge and conservation of energy and the energy loses out.
--Yes, there is always some loss in charging a capacitor through a resistor, and it can only be fully eliminated if the capacitor was charged for an infinite amount of time. But if one charges the capacitor for 2 time constants, the losses are reduced to 1/4 rather than 1/2 of the energy, and so on. This is not very practical, but the more subtle thermodynamics shows the same result is had by shaping the input voltage into steps, or ultimately a ramp waveform.
But you are right about using resonance to eliminate or minimise those losses, somehow the introduction of a capacitor in the inductive circuit (and vice versa for the capacitor circuit) resolves the clash between charge and energy.
--Yes, resonance is precisely the adiabatic condition. But if the system is allowed to ring for more than 1/4 cycle, taking the energy through the resistance again and again, then the waste grows back.
orthofield
@ Ortho,
Having thought about this overnight I can see where this is coming from. The problem is that our electrical power sources are all voltage ones, supplying voltage from a low impedance source. When used to drive an electromagnet, the steady state condition after the inductor is charged is determined by the resistance of the coil and that is all losses. The magnetic field energy that we want to do any work is supplied during the charge-up period. It is clearly advantageous to keep the continuous losses as low as possible by minimising R and then you need smaller voltage to sustain the current. If you then need to minimise the losses during charge-up you want this to be fast, and one way of getting faster charge rate is to initially supply a much greater voltage than that needed to sustain the current, then gradually reduce that voltage during the charging period down to the sustain level. I think this is what you were getting at.
If we had current sources delivering power the problem would not arise as the high impedance then creates the shortest possible L/R charging time. The voltage would automatically start high then reduce down to the sustain level. But such a form of power is not compatible with our infrastructure, we would need switches where the off condition is a short circuit.
Smudge
Regarding the Heinrich patent, it would be interesting to run again this experiment with perhaps two changes:
1) locate the reference junction in an external ice bath or use a digital temperature measuring device with electronic reference junction compensation. (this to eliminate possible crosstalk between the hot junction and reference junction)
2) eliminate the batteries and use a programmable voltage source with finer steps or a linear ramp of the voltage source.
An alternative testing method would measure the true elapsed power dissipated by the resistor by including time of resistor heating, not just temperature rise. Not doing this hides some of the data.
Temperature was used to provide a true thermal RMS measurement of the current spike during each step. This could be re-run using a DSO with math function to measure the true elapsed power dissipated in the resistor.
Another alternative would be to use a cheap $20 Kill A Watt meter driving a programmable switchmode power supply to charge the capacitor. The resistor could possibly be eliminated from the circuit entirely, as the Kill A Watt meter would measure elapsed power fairly accurately for each case.
For most efficient capacitor charging a flyback converter should be used with low input duty cycle. This will allow the inductor to charge the capacitor in fine steps by acting as a nearly pure current source, efficiency limited only by the ohmic winding and ferrite losses.
Comments anyone? Smudge?
From Smudge: re series charged/parallel discharged capacitors and inductors (or vice versa)
QuoteIt can allow you to develop huge voltage or huge current which is why it has its uses.
A resonant L/C circuit can also do this and is a good area for research. The trick is to use e.g the extremely high circulating current that can be developed n a resonant circuit without disturbing the resonance by trying to extract power from it. This kills the resonance by introducing an "R". We don't want to do that.
See e.g my experiments with ferrites on my bench. I am at a loss to explain the waveforms i.e. the high frequency hash on the waveforms.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=26.0
Here, no attempt was made to extract energy, rather the ferrites were allowed to enter saturation from the high circulating currents of the resonant circuit.
Was reading this doc a few weeks ago.
Maybe it can help here.
wattsup
Hi Smudge,
Having thought about this overnight I can see where this is coming from. The problem is that our electrical power sources are all voltage ones, supplying voltage from a low impedance source. When used to drive an electromagnet, the steady state condition after the inductor is charged is determined by the resistance of the coil and that is all losses.
--Yes, this is true, but I am interested in reducing thermal losses within the time of the first time constant.
The magnetic field energy that we want to do any work is supplied during the charge-up period. It is clearly advantageous to keep the continuous losses as low as possible by minimising R and then you need smaller voltage to sustain the current. If you then need to minimise the losses during charge-up you want this to be fast, and one way of getting faster charge rate is to initially supply a much greater voltage than that needed to sustain the current, then gradually reduce that voltage during the charging period down to the sustain level. I think this is what you were getting at.
--Yes, quite similar. The upshot is that we can control thermal losses in the capacitor or inductor within the first time constant. I think by analogy, and this can get me in trouble sometimes, but in terms of a cap, you can reduce thermal losses to near zero within the TC by using a voltage variable source, and controlling the V so it is just above that of the cap it is charging, so current equals Vcharge-Vcap/R, and is kept low. The dual situation in an inductor is to control the through current while keeping the V low.
There is nothing in there that suggests the V should be high at any time during this process. The magnetic field will be the same at 1 TC in the controlled as in the uncontrolled situation. The issue is how fast the magnetic energy gets to that level. "fast" is a relative term, based on the resonance frequencies, or 'internal clock' of the particular usage. I've found that the perception of adiabatic systems being slow is a vague usage.
There is a bit of a design compromise between absolute efficiency and the speed of response of the system, but since 'slow' adiabatic circuits run at Mhz, and power circuits run at Hz (even an electric motor is 'just' a couple of Khz) there is no problem with using adiabatic inductive energizing-- and de-energizing-- of our power coils, stators, etc. If my analogy is correct, the magnetic field can be delivered to the inductor in one time constant or less, with very low thermal losses, by using a current ramped, and voltage suppressed circuit. This is not to say that the presence of an electric or mechanical load will not affect this process, but the absence of high voltage at the start does not automatically prevent us from using the field that results.
I grant that such circuits are 'different' from the usual inductor energizers, and our global system is not adapted to their use, but at least they should be used in our overunity machines, even if they are never adapted by the general technical public.
As an example of the need to set the internal clock of the system in order to limit losses, take a look at the attached paper. The authors show by theory and experiment that putting a sine wave through a CR circuit that has a TC much shorter than the period of the signal TC can reduces the thermal losses, as measured by an accounting of the energy contained in the capacitor. Pg. 2 has the circuit, and the thermal losses at different frequencies relative to the CR time constant are shown at top of pg. 3. The amount that dissipation can be reduced has been a matter of controversy, but this experiment demonstrates that the dissipation reduction is not limited.
orthofield
If we had current sources delivering power the problem would not arise as the high impedance then creates the shortest possible L/R charging time. The voltage would automatically start high then reduce down to the sustain level. But such a form of power is not compatible with our infrastructure, we would need switches where the off condition is a short circuit.
Smudge
[/quote]
Hi Ion,
A few points.
The experiment shown by Heinrich is a demonstration for students and he acknowledges that more detailed calorimetry could be used This results of the experiment are not in any doubt, and there is no crucial need to test it to prove it is true. Using it, on the other hand, is a good idea.
The flyback circuit is so effective because the inductor limits the current through the capacitor to the minimum, and certainly it is good to have minimum ohmic resistance in the circuit, but loss reduction is not limited by that resistance. In charging a capacitor through a resistor, the R doesn't affect how much charge can be deposited, just how much time it takes to do it. No matter what resistance the capacitor is charged through, the energy lost is always exactly 1/2, unless voltage controlled methods are used.
Resonant circuits are wasteful if energy is allowed to circulate. Energy should be transferred to the load within 1/2 cycle for best results.
I haven't looked at your high frequency hash yet, but it sounds interesting-- always looking for evidence of noise coherence.
orthofield
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.27, 20:09:31
The flyback circuit is so effective because the inductor limits the current through the capacitor to the minimum, and certainly it is good to have minimum ohmic resistance in the circuit, but loss reduction is not limited by that resistance.
As strange as it would sound,i don't believe this to be true in circuits that rely on magnetic field manifestation-->and i believe this is where we may be going wrong. I have found that high resistance coils(many turns of wire) for electromagnets to be far more efficient at building a magnetic field of a certain strength than that of a low resistance coils(fewer turns). The same seems to be true with transformers-->the greater the number of turns in the turn ratio(higher resistance on both the primary and secondary),the more efficient the transformer. This all seems to go against what we believe,but my experiments shows this to be true.
I am in the process of building a transformer where primary and secondary coils can be changed with ease. This will allow me to do a comparison between high and low resistance coils,while keeping the same core.
I will post my results here when complete.
From Tinman
QuoteI have found that high resistance coils(many turns of wire) for electromagnets to be far more efficient at building a magnetic field of a certain strength than that of a low resistance coils(fewer turns). The same seems to be true with transformers-->the greater the number of turns in the turn ratio(higher resistance on both the primary and secondary),the more efficient the transformer.
I think you are confusing resistance with strength of field. It is
ampere-turns that determines the strength of a magnetic field. This is reflected in the inductance. If you compare two magnetic structures with the same number of ampere-turns, but different gauge wire, the field strength will be the same and they will have the same inductance. The higher resistance coil will be more wasteful of power.
The one with the lighter gauge wire will naturally have a higher resistance than the one with thicker wire, but everything else being equal it is the
number of turns times current through the coil that determines the strength of the field (as a first order formula). Then there is the physical geometry to be considered, but this is second order.
Resistance of the coil does not appear in the formula for field strength or inductance, It does appear in the formula for overall efficiency of the coil e.g. how much applied power is converted into a magnetic field and how much is lost in heat because of resistance.
If you want very efficient coils, strive for low resistance with large number of turns or the number of turns for your desired inductance, fine wire will get you lots of resistive losses but allow more inductance in a smaller package at the price of resistive loss of applied power.
For the same size package, the coil with finer wire will win in field strength by having higher inductance over the coil wound with heavier wire, because
you can't fit the same number of ampere turns into that given size with the heavier gauge.
@ orthofield
Try this circuit, D1 and D2 must be ultra fast diodes such as found in SM power supplies (STTH5L06FP or similar), coils L1-L4 are all the same length and wound the same way (CW) on a toroid or E core which will saturate within the frequency range you are working, latter is better.
C1 is 0.39uf polypropylene cap at 600v, C2 & C3 0.1uf polypropylene at 600v. About 50T of 20g each for the coils, the electrolytic cap 100-220uf.
R1 is a CSR to tune to minimum current draw by adjusting frequency of square drive to the mosfet (2khz-15khz).
L5 is primary of output transformer 1:2 will give around 200v+ and should be ferrite for the frequency.
Remember really fast diodes or will not work.
Voltage at the anode of D1 will be around 100v with V1 (battery) at 12v.
Note the connections of the coils
regards
Mike 8)
Hi Centraflow,
Your circuit, and ION's, looks quite a bit like some things that I've done with others, where switched inductors or capacitors could actually cause parametric amplification of noise currents or voltages. Jean-Louis and I did something with this in 1997 or so.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tep62par.htm
The switching alone can get energy in some cases. Usually at least some of the energy is on high harmonics. I recently posted an interesting paper by Barrow on the Mandleshtam and Papaleksi forum-- which is where I got started on this very interesting subject.
I'll start another thread here about using noise for power, and I will repost the Barrow article again because I refer to it a lot.
Harold Black, the inventor of the negative feedback circuit, also showed that he could suck the noise energy out of a circuit using feedback loops and hybrid transformers.
I'd like to work with you on developing this, because of my previous interest. I can offer a lot of data support for those working with parametrics or similar things, but I'm not a builder myself, just a book pusher, by trade.
orthofield
Thanks for the reply
I used to build a lot, not so much now, getting old. This circuit does work, takes a bit of setting up but shows what can be done especially monitoring the current input. A company in Detroit replicated it using a simple driver for the mosfet also powered by the battery, "no gate leakage from another power source". Driving only neon's the current draw showed a negative after subtracting the drive power. Now where was the power coming from? well conjecture has it that it was "accumulated noise, to use a term, giving in the end a huge volume". :)
This maybe right or maybe it is to do with the saturation at multiple frequency points of the ferrite, something for sure was/is happening to create an output that really should not be there if no current is consummed from the battery.
An attempt was made to loop, worked for a while but killed the battery in the end, and that battery would not again take a charge!!!!
Interesting subject
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: ION on 2015.02.28, 15:18:59
From Tinman
I think you are confusing resistance with strength of field. It is ampere-turns that determines the strength of a magnetic field. This is reflected in the inductance. If you compare two magnetic structures with the same number of ampere-turns, but different gauge wire, the field strength will be the same and they will have the same inductance. The higher resistance coil will be more wasteful of power.
The one with the lighter gauge wire will naturally have a higher resistance than the one with thicker wire, but everything else being equal it is the number of turns times current through the coil that determines the strength of the field (as a first order formula). Then there is the physical geometry to be considered, but this is second order.
Resistance of the coil does not appear in the formula for field strength or inductance, It does appear in the formula for overall efficiency of the coil e.g. how much applied power is converted into a magnetic field and how much is lost in heat because of resistance.
If you want very efficient coils, strive for low resistance with large number of turns or the number of turns for your desired inductance, fine wire will get you lots of resistive losses but allow more inductance in a smaller package at the price of resistive loss of applied power.
For the same size package, the coil with finer wire will win in field strength by having higher inductance over the coil wound with heavier wire, because you can't fit the same number of ampere turns into that given size with the heavier gauge.
What im saying ION is that for a given size inductor/transformer, it is better to use a smaller gauge wire with more turns than it is to use a heavy gauge wire with fewer turns to create a magnetic field with the same strength-->but consuming less power.
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.27, 19:53:31
As an example of the need to set the internal clock of the system in order to limit losses, take a look at the attached paper. The authors show by theory and experiment that putting a sine wave through a CR circuit that has a TC much shorter than the period of the signal TC can reduces the thermal losses, as measured by an accounting of the energy contained in the capacitor. Pg. 2 has the circuit, and the thermal losses at different frequencies relative to the CR time constant are shown at top of pg. 3. The amount that dissipation can be reduced has been a matter of controversy, but this experiment demonstrates that the dissipation reduction is not limited.
That is for a capacitor in series with a resistor. If there were a parallel loss resistor across the capacitor the results would be different and the opposite would be the case (i.e. you would need a sine wave that has a period much shorter than the CR time-constant). But generally shunt leakage is not the problem with capacitors which is why they are given ESR ratings. When transferring these results across to the inductive world I think you will find that your surmise applies to an inductor with a shunt resistor, and does not apply to the series case. Since the inductor losses are generally of a series nature I disagree with your approach for reducing energy loss, and stick by my method of charging it quickly by overvolting. IMO your method will produce the opposite effect. You can get a handle on all this by considering the LF and HF impedances of the C or L. With series R at low frequencies the L is a short circuit so all the input power (hence also energy per cycle) goes into the R, none goes into the L. At HF the opposite is the case. So faster is better :) .
Smudge
A standard transformer can be made to act in ways that seem imposable.
Take the simple setup i am experimenting with ATM. With this setup driven by my SG,i can reverse the voltage across the cap,and in turn reverse the current flow through the resistor. This happens when the secondary winding is made to ring,while the primary remains stable. Not quite sure how this can be done,as both the primary and secondary windings are on the same core-but it can be done. The LED remains on regardless of current flow direction.
Dear TinMan.
That circuit you have posted reminds me of the ignition enhancer !!
Your LED is providing a negative half cycle for the coil.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2015.03.02, 10:42:11
Dear TinMan.
That circuit you have posted reminds me of the ignition enhancer !!
Your LED is providing a negative half cycle for the coil.
Cheers Grum.
Hi Grum
Yes,much like the boost boxes we use to get for the old school points ignition systems.
I have opened a thread for this setup,as it seems to do strange thing's?.The LED(diode)turns the secondary into a current loop,and also feeds current back to the source-a little more than expected apparently :o
TinMan posits:
QuoteThe same seems to be true with transformers-->the greater the number of turns in the turn ratio(higher resistance on both the primary and secondary),the more efficient the transformer. This all seems to go against what we believe,but my experiments shows this to be true.
I am in the process of building a transformer where primary and secondary coils can be changed with ease. This will allow me to do a comparison between high and low resistance coils,while keeping the same core.
I will post my results here when complete.
This makes some sense to me-- when we realize that the xformer (xfr) operation depends on time-rate-of-CHANGE of the magnetic flux, rather than on the magnitude of the magnetic field. As long as the B-flux is changing rapidly, large currents are not needed in the xfr. (IMO)
http://www.electricaleasy.com/2014/04/transformer-losses-and-efficiency.html
http://www.raftabtronics.com/TECHNOLOGY/ElectromagneticBasics/TransformerBasics/tabid/110/Default.aspx
http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/transformer/transformer-basics.html
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Richard P. Feynman
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Richard P. Feynman
Methods for transformer efficiency have been worked out well over 100 years ago.
Hi Centraflow,
No problem about doing building, the idea is to have ideas so interesting someone else will want to build them :-)
The negative resistance of the neon might have had something to do with getting it to work. In that case you have a sort of negative resistance parametric amplifier of noise.
orthofield
I used to build a lot, not so much now, getting old. This circuit does work, takes a bit of setting up but shows what can be done especially monitoring the current input. A company in Detroit replicated it using a simple driver for the mosfet also powered by the battery, "no gate leakage from another power source". Driving only neon's the current draw showed a negative after subtracting the drive power. Now where was the power coming from? well conjecture has it that it was "accumulated noise, to use a term, giving in the end a huge volume". :)
This maybe right or maybe it is to do with the saturation at multiple frequency points of the ferrite, something for sure was/is happening to create an output that really should not be there if no current is consummed from the battery.
An attempt was made to loop, worked for a while but killed the battery in the end, and that battery would not again take a charge!!!!
Interesting subject
regards
Mike 8)
[/quote]
Hi Smudge,
Yes, quite right. The adiabatic paper talk about the loss due to parallel R in the capacitor case. I do see your point about the dead short across the L at low frequencies. Still, the devices that led me to think of all this in the first place do specify that the voltage is kept low through the whole process so I'm a bit confused. The attached patent talks about adiabatic process in an inductor, and shows almost the same thing as Heinrich, in fig. 4 in pg. 3 where the efficiency of the energy transfer into the huge storage inductor is improved by breaking down the process into steps.
I think the more basic issue may have to do with power vs. efficiency. I am only looking at the efficiency of storing energy in the inductor, which just as in the case of the capacitor, will reduce losses if the inductor is energized for more than a time constant. The longer the inductor is allowed to energize, that is, the closer the current comes to the maximum current, the more the losses are reduced, just as in the capacitive case. This is completely ignoring the continuous resistive loss that comes just from storing the energy after the TC, which doesn't happen in the capacitive case.
So the actual process becomes a trade off between the R dissipation and the energy savings from energizing it for more than the TC. There is also the issue of power delivery too, in that it may be more useful to over voltage to get more power from the inductor's action in the early interval and sacrifice some of the ultimate efficiency that comes with keeping V low through the whole process.
I'm still in a bit of a muddle, and decided that it's a lot easier to think about in terms of capacitors!
orthofield
That is for a capacitor in series with a resistor. If there were a parallel loss resistor across the capacitor the results would be different and the opposite would be the case (i.e. you would need a sine wave that has a period much shorter than the CR time-constant). But generally shunt leakage is not the problem with capacitors which is why they are given ESR ratings. When transferring these results across to the inductive world I think you will find that your surmise applies to an inductor with a shunt resistor, and does not apply to the series case. Since the inductor losses are generally of a series nature I disagree with your approach for reducing energy loss, and stick by my method of charging it quickly by overvolting. IMO your method will produce the opposite effect. You can get a handle on all this by considering the LF and HF impedances of the C or L. With series R at low frequencies the L is a short circuit so all the input power (hence also energy per cycle) goes into the R, none goes into the L. At HF the opposite is the case. So faster is better :) .
Smudge
[/quote]
Rats, once again I forgot to attach the file.
orthofield
Hi Smudge,
I've been reading in control thermodynamics, which is the general area of which adiabatic charging would be a small portion, and I find this article discussing conditions for minimum entropy production in the Coffee Cup Hotel to be revealing.
The coffee cup hotel is a ridiculous method of heating your coffee by moving the cup from one room to the next, each room a bit warmer than the previous one. If one moves the cup to a room, waits until it is warm (equilibrates with the temperature of the room) then moves it into the next room, the production of entropy is reduced. In an infinite number of rooms, the process of heating the coffee is completely reversible.
This approach is similar to that where the capacitor is charged with a voltage only slightly higher, that is, low current charging.
The authors in other articles point out that entropy reduction and power generation (efficiency and power) can both be maximized for only certain systems, and there is often a trade off due to the limits of time the process can undergo. Another name for control thermodynamics is finite time thermodynamics.
This research area bodes well in terms of energy conservation. Just from the example of the coffee cup motel, one can imagine energy saving devices. For instance, as an amateur cook, I find the idea of 'ramp heating' in analogy to ramp charging to be appealing. Assuming the heat capacity of the food on your electric burner is the same through the cooking process-- a big assumption-- the heat could be delivered much more efficiently to the food if the temperature of the food was constantly taken, this information fed back, and the burner heated to just above that temperature. This is analogy to the coffee cup reaching equilibration, or the capacitor being charged just above its voltage. This 'ramp heating' for stove, or home, seems fully possible, and in some cases could save much energy over the usual process. At least for a slow cooker-- I'm not sure about faster applications.
orthofield
Hi Orthofield
Regarding the ramp to setpoint idea, this is commonplace in modern temperature and process control instrumentation and is available as a standard feature on most of the newer low cost entries.
There are many nuances regarding temperature control in the food cooking industry, sometimes a ramp to setpoint is not what you want e.g. in making french fries, you will get a soggy product.
Hi ION,
Glad that this invention is already being used. I don't think it's being applied as widely as it could be, since the electric heat in my house just runs until the temperature is reached, rather than equilibrating by stages :-)
orthofield
Hi All,
Here is an interesting article about the charging of a capacitor. Any circuit that simply switches voltage across a capacitor to charge it is wasting a lot of energy.
"The problem is particularly interesting to treat in finite-time thermodynamics, because
we are faced with very stringent conditions along the time axis. We have
only a very fixed time to our disposal to (dis)charge the tiny capacitors. Indeed:
computations are performed at a well defined and fixed pace, governed by the clock
frequency; pictures are written at a well defined pace, governed by the frame rate.
We can conclude that both in a computer and in a display, we have to charge and
discharge a huge number of small capacitors in a well de ned but very short time,
with a minimum of power dissipation. The challenge is the following: how to change
the voltage source Vc(t) in order to do better (i.e. to dissipate less) than the classical
1/2CV 2 ?"
orthofield
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.03.10, 15:31:18
Hi All,
Here is an interesting article about the charging of a capacitor. Any circuit that simply switches voltage across a capacitor to charge it is wasting a lot of energy.
There is third method about which no one are talking about - the charge of capacitors with very short pulses of over voltage with capacitor charged voltage control circuit which switch off charging when capacitor gets fully charged. This is mainly used within BEMF capacitor charging circuits including Tesla coil...
P.S. In http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2358.msg38917#msg38917 I was doing some tests with one of those circuits.
Cheers!
Hi T-1000,
I don't completely understand your circuit, but it does look like it has the possibility of something like resonant charging, since there are some inductors there. If there is charging direct from capacitor to capacitor there will be losses, but yours look more like a CLC circuit, with shut off after the 1/4 cycle-- resulting in the appearance of a spike. A spike doesn't preclude the resonant charging as long as the spike shape is controlled by the inductor.
orthofield
I think this is what T-1000 was referring to. You can charge a capacitor in a time far less than the CR time constant by applying overvoltage and the shorter the time the less energy loss you get in the R. Huge overvoltage will give you almost zero energy loss.
Smudge
Esit. Except that calculations show this not to be true, you don't get almost zero energy :-[
In akula's LED circuit I was charging electrolytic capacitors with 40V+ voltage BEMF spikes and that allowed me to have constant load from array of LEDs attached for 21-25V range on capacitor. Also the beauty of BEMF with LEDs is, it can power way higher rated ones than your circuit is consuming for making these spikes.
Here is photo of 8 1W LEDs array in series fully lit up from 11.99V and approx. 150mA input:
My system for charging a capacitor is simple. If I need 100 volts I put several caps in series in massive over-voltage! SO I'll put 2,000 volts worth in series together.
Then I take advantage of the charging curve. Funny thing is, some of the caps go negative.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.03.13, 01:25:33
My system for charging a capacitor is simple. If I need 100 volts I put several caps in series in massive over-voltage! SO I'll put 2,000 volts worth in series together.
Then I take advantage of the charging curve. Funny thing is, some of the caps go negative.
@Aking.21
All that is doing is spreading the checkmate out over more capacitors.
I had prepared a post for @Magluvin at OU on the Energy Amplification thread, but will post it here. Maybe refer him here as well. I think this could be a major advancement but it will require some practice before it can be perfected.
The adiabatic design is just another checkmate condition, except that at least they are realizing that in order to advance in a certain line of experimentation, you need to start developing what I had coined as an "OU exclusion list". I had been eluding to this on an off for years, make a list of things that don't work and stay away from those conditions for 30-60 days but it's good to see this in a formal theory, although it is still a checkmate theory as it is proposed.
The thing is we live in a preset world with preset requirements. Our bulbs work off of 120/240vac mains and produce good luminosity. If we take a 12vdc bulb we require less volts but much more amps so we step the voltage down and increase the amps, rectify and we get this great luminosity as well. The problem is in all instances we consume the energy at the end of the game when the transformation is already complete. This is where we all know we are going wrong since when the stress of the load is applied the source starts backing up and losses occur due to the standard metrics we already know and accept as the main villains.
You see this is a problem that many in OU have never been able to understand, not even the best EEers here have ever tackled this question (as far as I have seen thus far) with some level of logic. It is a great challenge. Yes Tesla did high voltage but what did he use it for? If you cannot use it, you ar eleft to produce impressive lightning or sparks otherwise what's the use?
Think of the problem like a hot dog making machine or a hot dog extruder. The extruder is sending out the hot dog paste at 5 feet per second but the hot dogs need to be 6 inches long to fit inside the box. So what do they do? Yup, they put an adjustable cutter at the exit of the extrusion timed at 10 cuts per second and every second, they can fill one box with 10 hot dogs. Good business. This simple solution is not used in OU/EE, why I don't know.
So let's say you have a very efficient device, it consumes very little power but dammit it outputs 50kv when it reaches its operating frequency of 60Hz.
We will usually take that 50kv, dump it integrally into a HV capacitor (or just spark it Tesla Toroid style) then work to discharge fast enough to cut it up in usable pieces. This we do every day and each time, when that voltage reaches 50Kv (or any other highest voltage) it creates a backwards pressure on the output and that's when you start creating heat, flyback, back emf or whatever you can call it. Add that to the perils of switching 50kv and you realize this is not a good solution. Not a good solution because the reality will always be that if a primary is driven to a point where the secondary produces more output, the secondary automatically will become the primary and it will want to kill the dipole. This we cannot get away from as we drive our coils today.
So let's say you need 200 volts for the output. If you could scope the 50kv rise, every second you will see 60 rise and peaks of 50kv each. But if you could divert each rise 250 times per 1Hz, or, at 15khz per 60Hz, the output should not exceed 200 volts regardless of how high the actual output can rise in volts and the amps should increase proportionally as well.
So a simple hot dog extruder does exactly the job. Of course if the cutter breaks, then you will be in trouble but the EE solution could be a 250v safety zener of proper amps rating to dump any excess or at worst a spark gap if there is a full run away condition.
The experience and ability in EE required to do this goes way above my head man. Anyone would need to be very well versed to even consider it but the payoff could be so great. Even starting with a simple lower output tv flyback transformer would be a good start. The 15kHz mosfet base signal could come from any audio source so imagine an audio driver to control the HV reduced output frequency. The output load would receive 60hz with 15kHz hash.
Actually we do this in reverse when we pulse our coil. So eventually if the two could be combined together, one efficient design primary and one efficient design secondary recovery. By not letting the secondary HV rise, you are promoting a freer primary performance, were the primary amperage would not be lost in the secondary rise. hahaha
Hmmmmm. I think I just described a TK device. Naaaaaaaaaaaaa. Hmmmmmmmm.
Also @GK had been saying that SM used his stun gun circuit. Why not. Just don't let the voltage rise to the stun level, keep unloading it to a load as it rises.
So where it would definitely be good to look and practice is taking the HV from any regular flyback transformation and cutting it up and sending it directly to a load before it can rise to its peak voltage. This will keep the primary at it leanest operating parameters since it will never see a full rise on the secondary. So circuits where you can place a mosfet on the HV line, mosfet rated at 250 or 300 volts throughput run at 200 volts should keep it cool, or if you ever found a good diode with a 200 volt forward voltage cracking level would do it as well but it shorter bursts (mosfet is better).
You need to produce high voltage but not let it rise to its maximum high voltage. The layering this produces will be consumed by the load right away. The trick is to always start the HV output mosfet pulsing before you start the primary pulsing.
wattsup
PS: As usual sorry for long post.
The algorithm with over voltage is straight forward:
Charge capacitor->watch its voltage over feedback loop->switch off oscillation circuit when the voltage on capacitor reaches required level->switch it on again when voltage on capacitor drops below minimum level
This is what was done with my correction in akula's BEMF charging circuit... :)
Cheers!
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.03.13, 14:27:57
The algorithm with over voltage is straight forward:
Charge capacitor->watch its voltage over feedback loop->switch off oscillation circuit when the voltage on capacitor reaches required level->switch it on again when voltage on capacitor drops below minimum level
This is what was done with my correction in akula's BEMF charging circuit... :)
Cheers!
Hello T-1000
So here's the one chip solution:
LT3751 High Voltage Capacitor Charger Controller with Regulation, does exactly what your talking about and a bit more.
I'll be integrating it into my solar powered fence charger project........
take care, peace
lost_bro
Hi Smudge,
Yes, although this overvoltage scheme sounds good, it generates a lot of heat in the wires, and is thus nonadiabatic.
What I'm getting at in this whole list is that a lot of ways people do things waste heat energy. Many ways that are fast and impressive do just that. The useful range thermodynamically is somewhere between super fast and cool looking, and thus heat wasting, and so slow as to be useful for the system at hand. In the case of a capacitor it is well known-- and should not be up for dispute-- that the losses in charging a capacitor are reduced by the number of steps used to charge it. The highest number of steps is a ramp. A modified ramp charge as shown in Desoete is universally acknowledged to be the most efficient way of charging a capacitor.
Practically speaking the issue with this sort of charging is that if the Mos or other switch is at anything other than 0 or infinite resistance, there are losses. That's why quarter resonant charging, which resembles the ramp, is often used instead. Both the resonant and ramp charging are used in experimental adiabatic computer chips which consume almost no power relative to a standard chip. In this case, the inductor's resistance becomes the big issue, but this can be minimized.
The attached paper discusses some of these issues, first laying out the typical scheme used in adiabatic logic, and showing how an approximation of it can be achieved for charging a supercapacitor by using a converter (where all the switches are either on or off, thus conserving power) to simulate the loss free, without the practical losses from using multiple switches, specialized wave generators, that may arise when using the adiabatic approach. This to me seems like the best scheme for using solar cells to charge a supercapacitor.
Hi Wattsup,
Great letter!
Wattsup, there is no checkmate in terms of energy, if things are actually done efficiently. There is no inherent large heat loss in an electronic system. It's not difficult to get near 100% efficiency in cap or inductor charging circuits with proper input waveforms. In that case, the heat loss has been vanquished. T-1000 may have referenced this when he talks about a feedback loop.
Then the issue after that is to add on your overunity principle you want to try.
This plays right into your point about overunity systems that don't play nice with the power grid. You say:
So let's say you have a very efficient device, it consumes very little power but dammit it outputs 50kv when it reaches its operating frequency of 60Hz.
Then you say, "we usually.. " and then you lose me. Why would you move away from the regime where high efficiency exists, towards one where it is much more difficult? Nothing I've ever thought about using, including parametric amplification, cannot be done at 60 Hz.
Now, in the 60 Hz realm, you can apply all these 'slow' adiabatic processes which save energy. BEMF behaves itself, can be tapped with normal diodes, transformers operate efficiently, etc etc.
What happens when you achieve your amazing OU system that operates at a Mhz and runs at 10 kV?
You're going to waste as much energy as you gained, converting that into something that can be used. And this may be what you mean by a "checkmate". But the checkmate is designed around a certain design psychology rather than anything inherent in Nature.
My belief is that Nature, or Spirit, or what have you, WANTS us to have overunity, and makes it slow and easy, just as much as it makes it hard and fast..the sexual overtone of that sentence was deliberate, and not really meant for humor. Female EEs-- and Taoists! -- might see things differently than many of the guys on these lists.
orthofield