Been a tough battle so far, but I did manage to make it to my first milestone--I have molds.
Going to order some DevCon 10120 today and try my first pour next week.
Thinking about what may be a suitable lubricant to dust the molds with prior to pouring. Any suggestions? Pam maybe?
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.06, 12:05:45
Been a tough battle so far, but I did manage to make it to my first milestone--I have molds.
Going to order some DevCon 10120 today and try my first pour next week.
Thinking about what may be a suitable lubricant to dust the molds with prior to pouring. Any suggestions? Pam maybe?
Nice work on the molds Matt.
I would use PVA release agent. It comes in liquid form,paints on to the molds with a brush,dries like cling wrap,and dissolves with water. O0
Brad
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.06, 12:05:45
Been a tough battle so far, but I did manage to make it to my first milestone--I have molds.
Going to order some DevCon 10120 today and try my first pour next week.
Thinking about what may be a suitable lubricant to dust the molds with prior to pouring. Any suggestions? Pam maybe?
Dear Matt.
Making moulds has been almost a life long career! ;). I would suggest a proper barrier as the Devcon is more of a paste than a liquid. I would suggest using cling film between the mould and the castable just to make sure it doesn't adhere to it.
Cheers Grum.
Thank you guys for pitching in. Watching this rookie make and pour molds ought to be a hoot for you guys. ;D
So I ordered some SprayOn MR311 mold release agent along with the Devcon.
Do you think I should still press-in a layer of cling wrap Grum? Spray both the mold and the wrap prior to pouring?
I'd much rather have a bit of distortion in the casting than have the casting stuck in the mold.
This HDPE is pretty solid and could probably take a hard bop, but I sure don't want to have to dig the resin out or cut a new mold.
Future looking, I may choose to mix a ferrite (or other magnetic) powder with resin depending upon how well/poorly the Devcon performs. What is the viscosity limit for such a mold? I'm sure if it's too thick it will never fully fill-out the mold, then the only way to get the stuff in there would be to inject it. My hope is that gravity and a simple air bleeder hole in the top cavity will be sufficient.
And speaking of magnetic powder, is there any place you know of that sells small quantities of this material? I bumped into a fellow by the name of Daniel Donatelli that can get me whatever I want as long as it comes in a shipping container. I suppose if this gizmo does what we want I can consider a 50 ton purchase, but for now this is still strictly experimental.
Dear Matt.
It's been many a year since I last used Devcon but I'm sure it resembles putty, you might find you will have to press the inner toroid pretty firmly. May be Brad could fill in the blanks ?
And yes I would employ both " belt and braces " although HDPE is pretty slippy the last thing you want is a damaged mould.
Cheers Grum.
I discovered there are two types of steel impregnated Devcon, 10110 which is a putty and 10120 which is called "liquid steel". Based on the mixing ratio, I tend to agree even the liquid form probably won't be even as thin as syrup. I really didn't want to use putty like Brad because once it's set, the inner core cannot be reused for anything else.
My hope was to make a clamshell like outer core where I can try different inner cores, different winding ratios, etc. Once a fairly good combination is found, then I can try different outer core material. Surely a drop-the-inner-core-in, place the top-half of the outer core on, wind the primary and test, is the fastest way to see what the capabilities are.
Actually getting pretty excited about this device. Mainly because I worked on a similar concept months ago and got stuck on the geometry. What Brad came up with reopens the door. Getting this to a point where some serious power numbers can be evaluated is the kind of stuff I live for.
Quote from: Grumage on 2015.11.06, 20:50:54
Dear Matt.
It's been many a year since I last used Devcon but I'm sure it resembles putty, you might find you will have to press the inner toroid pretty firmly. May be Brad could fill in the blanks ?
And yes I would employ both " belt and braces " although HDPE is pretty slippy the last thing you want is a damaged mould.
Cheers Grum.
Yes,devcon is a thick putty-much like pottery clay.
Matt. I hope you put a small positive tapper on the wall of your mold's?,so as once the bond between mold and product is broken,the product will fall out easily.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.06, 23:10:13
Matt. I hope you put a small positive tapper on the wall of your mold's?,so as once the bond between mold and product is broken,the product will fall out easily.
Unfortunately, this is going to take some sanding which I've already started. To my discovery, when HDPE is cut, the material left behind tries to warp into the missing space. In effect, the current taper is actually backwards from what I need. A quick runout clearly shows it. So I'll hand sand and polish for a while until I have a few thousandths of taper.
I knew this wasn't going to be easy, but it's still cheaper than having something professionally made, plus I get to learn why we call them professionals.
Ugh, HDPE is not my favourite material to work with. Not as bad as UHMW but still.... ugh. Try Delrin instead: it will be dimensionally stable, and you can machine it to a very smooth surface easily. Probably won't even need any mold release compound.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.11.07, 01:46:56
Ugh, HDPE is not my favourite material to work with. Not as bad as UHMW but still.... ugh. Try Delrin instead: it will be dimensionally stable, and you can machine it to a very smooth surface easily. Probably won't even need any mold release compound.
Delrin would have been my first choice, but it's a bit pricey and I didn't see the thickness I needed.
I have never tried UHMW before, but the specs appear quite similar to HDPE--isn't too awful expensive and I can get all kinds of thicknesses. Says it's self-lubricating too.
For CNC routing of plastic, I found an Amana Tool single flute spiral bit that works magic even on my rather sloppy home-built CNC machine. This bit is so hard and so sharp it cuts plastic like butter. I only wish they made a variant that had some taper to it. If they did, I could match the taper in my CAM program and do pocket cuts for molds with ease. Some day maybe I can get a "real" mill and make this kind of work a hobby that pays for itself. 'Til then, use what I have or can afford. Russ keeps hounding me to get or build a 3D printer, but I just can't see myself tinkering with something like that. I'd need to have 28 hour days if I were to jump into that fray.
Starting a rewind tonight. Got an iron outer core a metglass inner. Unfortunately my SG only goes as high as 1mhz but we'll see what happens :)
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.06, 23:09:19
I discovered there are two types of steel impregnated Devcon, 10110 which is a putty and 10120 which is called "liquid steel". Based on the mixing ratio, I tend to agree even the liquid form probably won't be even as thin as syrup. I really didn't want to use putty like Brad because once it's set, the inner core cannot be reused for anything else.
My hope was to make a clamshell like outer core where I can try different inner cores, different winding ratios, etc. Once a fairly good combination is found, then I can try different outer core material. Surely a drop-the-inner-core-in, place the top-half of the outer core on, wind the primary and test, is the fastest way to see what the capabilities are.
Actually getting pretty excited about this device. Mainly because I worked on a similar concept months ago and got stuck on the geometry. What Brad came up with reopens the door. Getting this to a point where some serious power numbers can be evaluated is the kind of stuff I live for.
Dear Matt.
That sounds like a plan, cast two halves of the Devcon on a really flat surface so you can drop in your inner Torroid.
With regards to your cutter, Tungsten Carbide? You can put a taper on quite simply if you have a Diamond cutting disc to hand, those used for ceramic tile cutting work really well. With my background I have a dedicated bench grinder fitted with a rather expensive Diamond in Bronze lapping wheel, the TC just doesn't stand a chance! :)
Cheers Grum.
As I mentioned before, it would be a good idea (if we want to get all scientific and all that C.C) to measure a cast toroid for AL value and plot high frequency loss of the cast material to get some kind of a baseline.
Maybe I'll order some of the putty and see what I can find.
Regards
That's a good idea ION. You may have to walk me through the procedure. Thinking I should run a validation against my inner core that already has factory specs:
http://www.cwsbytemark.com/images/OD%20740.pdf
CK740060 is stamped on the core; chart says AL of 206.
If I can produce a number within 5% then the same procedure can be used for:
1. the outer core alone
2. outer core with embedded core testing primary
3. outer core with embedded core testing secondary
Those four numbers should give us a hint what might be happening inside there.
Quote from: ION on 2015.11.07, 12:51:21
As I mentioned before, it would be a good idea (if we want to get all scientific and all that C.C) to measure a cast toroid for AL value and plot high frequency loss of the cast material to get some kind of a baseline.
Maybe I'll order some of the putty and see what I can find.
Regards
Ion
Below is a pic of the new inner secondary-along with info.
The inductance is quite low on this one,although i did not measure the inductance on either of the other two before i cast the outer core around them,so i have no reference to go against ATM.
Anyway,what kind of testing should i do,or you would like me to do before i cast the outer core around this one.
I wound this one as neat as i could,but still have to try and space the outer loops a little better yet.
Brad.
TinMan
Re: Testing cores
To Note....ION is presently redoing his internet service due to Clear channel dropping all subscribers .
may be spotty responses for a few days yet.
just passing it along..
Chet
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.11.08, 15:02:05
TinMan
Re: Testing cores
To Note....ION is presently redoing his internet service due to Clear channel dropping all subscribers .
may be spotty responses for a few days yet.
just passing it along..
Chet
Yes my internet is dialup right now and not working that well, so I will let Smudge and or Verpies take over for the initial testing. If you have a data sheet on the core, no need to calculate the AL value as it should be on the data sheet.
http://www.dextermag.com/resource-center/magnetic-core-calculators/AL-inductance-calculator.
For high frequency loss factor, it is a bit more tricky, but you can get a rough idea by sweeping frequency and noting the amplitude across a current shunt resistor, but this is only good at high frequencies, and then capacitance will wreak havoc with the reading. There are netter ways, perhaps others can suggest. Another crude method would be to measure the heating value of the core vs. frequency over a slow sweep.
Gotta run right now.
Cheers, later
ION
Hopefully this is a good reference:
http://meettechniek.info/passive/magnetic-permeability.html
@tinman
Nice rebuild but you are basically making the same mistakes.
wattsup
Quote from: wattsup on 2015.11.09, 13:31:53
@tinman
Nice rebuild but you are basically making the same mistakes.
wattsup
As this is my design,and we are still working on what is going on with it,how is it that !im! making mistake's ?
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.08, 23:34:56
Hopefully this is a good reference:
http://meettechniek.info/passive/magnetic-permeability.html
Hi Matt,
From Brad's measurement (200 turns=120uH on his given sized core) it is possible to use software to arrive at the magnetic permeability and the A
L inductance factor of the core he made.
I would refer to the free Mini Ring core calculator (I mentioned this yesterday at the OU forum, see http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg465294/#msg465294 (http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg465294/#msg465294) ) and TinselKoala also drew attention to another free program, the Coil32 (see http://coil32.net/ (http://coil32.net/) and for this latter program Windows, Linux and Android versions are available).
From these programs the magnetic permeability comes out as u=2.2 and A
L is 3 nH/N
2. (Of course, this latter A
L value comes also from the link ION referred to in his above post.)
Naturally, Brad's inductance meter uses a certain (and fixed) test frequency which is normally anything between 80 to 120 Hz, maybe some hundred Hz, this may be included in the specifications. This test frequency cannot be changed for a given L meter, unless it falls in the high-priced category where the test frequency choices can be many. At the OU forum a good suggestion was to check the test frequency with an oscilloscope while measuring an inductance (in case it is not included in the user manual).
The link you gave can surely be useful to measure the permeability of a core, the advantage is that the test frequency can be chosen at will. The test does need a good, non inductive resistor though.
Gyula
Dear Matt and gyula
Thanks for your added links to nail down the permeability of the core with and without the putty.
I also believe it would be a good idea to check for high frequency losses to get an idea of the of the core upper limit or knee of the core. This should not be that difficult and a sweep is not needed as just a few test frequencies should tell the story.
I would put some ratio (to the primary turns) on the core as a secondary, add a low value load resistor that reflects the generator impedance transformation and plot power drop off with frequency.
The method outlined in Matts link also covers HF losses.
regards
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.09, 13:34:22
As this is my design,and we are still working on what is going on with it,how is it that !im! making mistake's ?
I had the same question Brad.
I suppose one could say we are all making the same mistakes until we hit on the perfect combination, in which case it's mind over matter--that being, if you don't mind, it don't matter. :)
One thing I can say for sure about the construction: If your casting of the inner core works well, this is clearly the way to go. Making a complete HTT using only magnetic powder, resin and copper wire is a slick idea. Basically disposable devices--they either work well or go in the bin. No big loss either way.
My approach using off-the-shelf inner cores and a casted two-piece outer core is focused on being able to change-out the inner core. My feeling is there may be an optimal ratio of core material and geometry at play here. If with some testing it becomes apparent the outer core must be made of something more substantial then powder and resin, I'll look towards a manufacturer building me a custom hollowed out core. Hoping this isn't necessary, because I'm certain it will lead to a cost prohibitive solution.
What I am certain of is we will have some answers in the coming weeks. Whether they be good answers or not...
Time will tell.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.09, 14:42:41
I had the same question Brad.
I suppose one could say we are all making the same mistakes until we hit on the perfect combination, in which case it's mind over matter--that being, if you don't mind, it don't matter. :)
One thing I can say for sure about the construction: If your casting of the inner core works well, this is clearly the way to go. Making a complete HTT using only magnetic powder, resin and copper wire is a slick idea. Basically disposable devices--they either work well or go in the bin. No big loss either way.
My approach using off-the-shelf inner cores and a casted two-piece outer core is focused on being able to change-out the inner core. My feeling is there may be an optimal ratio of core material and geometry at play here. If with some testing it becomes apparent the outer core must be made of something more substantial then powder and resin, I'll look towards a manufacturer building me a custom hollowed out core. Hoping this isn't necessary, because I'm certain it will lead to a cost prohibitive solution.
What I am certain of is we will have some answers in the coming weeks. Whether they be good answers or not...
Time will tell.
I have a feeling this one will not work well with the low perm core,but i will continue on just so we can see what direction is best.
My gut feeling ATM is that both inner and outer cores should be of high permability . It would be nice if we could have a ferrite inner core wound,and then cast a high perm ferrite core around that as our outer core as well. Can i buy ferrite powder from some where ?.
Im off to do some research to see how they make ferrite toroid cores. O0
@tinman
Yep - what I mean by making the same mistake is pretty simple. Arbitrarily winding that secondary coil full around is one. This is the most critical point in the build because once it is encapsulated with an outer core, there is no turning back. This would require that this first stage be taken slowly and investigated as much as possible. If you are really interested I could spend the time required to give you some simple tests that would help hone in on the best method but it takes time and requires commitment. This means you cannot just blow it off if the first results don't pan out like you envisioned like I really feel you did with your zero force build and like so many do after they go to all the trouble of building something to test and throw in the towel after a few token experiments, knowing full well that while the device is on the bench you could learn so many more side effects with very little extra effort. That's why I keep on pushing guys left and right (off tangent as @Smudge put so well).
It's like inspecting a device that is in the center of a dark room. One flashlight shines on it and you get a pretty good idea of what it is but with two or three flashlights placed around the device , you will get a much better idea.
This would be a pretty crazy and difficult task because there are so many variables to consider and the intended topology closes certain doors of effect while it opens others but to understand this would take some time, if you have the stomach for it and realize the results may take time to mature into a solid understanding (good or bad) (if such exists), I would be willing to take up the challenge as a part time project that would still leave you and me open for our other shenanigans - hehehe.
I had taken six months off OU and regular work to finish the outside of my garage that I built two years ago plus I completely redid my home while super insulating it to match the garage. It's all done and I will be making a new time lapse video (garage video already on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbLyewMeBt4 ) of the total works but I am now free to return to OU research, but this time, I will be integrating my Spin Conveyance construct in all my works and I am more then sure you guys will start to see the effects on our bench in a new light because if you guys continue like this, you will be turning in circles for more years and years.
Some of the things you may require are as follows;
1) Variac to be able to experiment with low voltage 50 or 60HZ AC straight from the mains.
2) Computer sound card connected to a stereo amplifier*. (*Something that you don't mind blowing up - hahaha)
3) Frequency generator software to push AC sinewaves into the coiling via the sound amplifier outputs and permit adjustment of frequency up to 20khz while playing with left/right phase and amplitude.
Get the software from my ftp site here and enjoy this new flexibility: http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Software/frequency-generator/
4) Try to find a tape head used in old 4 track cassette players.
5) 3-4 elcheapo compasses.
6) Try to build yourself a Diode Carousel (search Google or here). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj0ShZV6bhY
The first thing I would ask about your core in core build is why choose a toroid form? Whatever happens in the toroid can happen on a straight core without the polarity cancellation of the coil ends. I would migrate to a toroid form only after the straight form was fully understood. Straight cores would enable slide in flexibility to make quick inner coil changes. hehehe
All the best.
wattsup
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.10, 12:41:20
I have a feeling this one will not work well with the low perm core, but i will continue on just so we can see what direction is best.
My gut feeling ATM is that both inner and outer cores should be of high permability . It would be nice if we could have a ferrite inner core wound, and then cast a high perm ferrite core around that as our outer core as well. Can i buy ferrite powder from some where ?.
Im off to do some research to see how they make ferrite toroid cores. O0
Hi Brad,
I agree, you could use a normal off the shelf toroidal ferrite core as the inner core, with your choice of the size and material grade and wind a coil onto it with a certain number of turns, maybe making one or two taps too.
Then comes the question of obtaining ferrite powder: I have not found such seller.
Iron powder filing is available on ebay and elsewhere but then as you know you need to use binding material (epoxy) which also electrically insulates the iron particles from each other. And such method normally results in low permeability and unpredictable frequency response properties.
What I would suggest is to collect ferrite deflection yokes from old television or computer monitors (they are mounted on the neck of the picture tubes) and then smash them first with a hammer in a strong bag, then grind them to as small as say 1mm or less powder. This way no need for any epoxy and then you could fill a plastic case, see such encapsulation cups here as an example: http://www.plasmetex.com/round_encapsulation_cups_centerpost.html
Of course, such encapsulation should have an inner volume size in which the toroidal ferrite core with its coil can fit in nicely.
To make differently sized plastic encapsulations, perhaps a 3D printer could be used if there is such in your local friends circle.
Alternatively, the outside and inner rings could be cut from thin walled PVC pipes and the two covering sides from a plastic sheet.
The deflection yokes are normally good for up to several tens of kHz for sure and after the smashing and grinding the original permeability of a few thousand will decrease of course because you cannot press the grinding to the original density.
Unfortunately such yokes are not manufactured any more and their ebay prices with the postage go up to AU$ 50-60 or higher:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Phillips-LG-Deflection-Yoke-for-tube-tv-from-TV-repair-shop-NOS-331320301242-/311481396345?hash=item4885bcec79:g:mgkAAOSw~gRVumUI
An alternative ferrite core for grinding would be to choose ferrite pot cores or other off the shelf core types with known specifications. For instance
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/RM5-Philips-POT-Ferrite-Core-3E1-N41-AL-3150-RM5-3E1-X-20sets-/370819150804?hash=item56568b33d4:g:7uIAAOxyY3ZRmnSR
or
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Pot-Core-Power-Ferrite-M2000-OB30-Lot-of-4pcs-2set-/261548963908?hash=item3ce5887844:g:pPoAAOSwDk5T2nun
Of course this is a suggestion but I think with this method the resulting permeability of the home made outer ring core would remain at least in the several hundred range and frequency response would not suffer significantly either. And the permeability of the inner ring core (which would be an off the shelf type) will add to that of the outer core (this comes from the embedding of course) and the 'overall' permeability of the inner core would also increase from the outside core (inductance of the inner coil would be higher after the embedding).
Addition: smashing and grinding a ferrite core sounds barbaric but I think it can lead to a cheap solution. ;)
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2015.11.11, 19:22:54
Hi Brad,
I agree, you could use a normal off the shelf toroidal ferrite core as the inner core, with your choice of the size and material grade and wind a coil onto it with a certain number of turns, maybe making one or two taps too.
Then comes the question of obtaining ferrite powder: I have not found such seller.
Iron powder filing is available on ebay and elsewhere but then as you know you need to use binding material (epoxy) which also electrically insulates the iron particles from each other. And such method normally results in low permeability and unpredictable frequency response properties.
What I would suggest is to collect ferrite deflection yokes from old television or computer monitors (they are mounted on the neck of the picture tubes) and then smash them first with a hammer in a strong bag, then grind them to as small as say 1mm or less powder. This way no need for any epoxy and then you could fill a plastic case, see such encapsulation cups here as an example: http://www.plasmetex.com/round_encapsulation_cups_centerpost.html
Of course, such encapsulation should have an inner volume size in which the toroidal ferrite core with its coil can fit in nicely.
To make differently sized plastic encapsulations, perhaps a 3D printer could be used if there is such in your local friends circle.
Alternatively, the outside and inner rings could be cut from thin walled PVC pipes and the two covering sides from a plastic sheet.
The deflection yokes are normally good for up to several tens of kHz for sure and after the smashing and grinding the original permeability of a few thousand will decrease of course because you cannot press the grinding to the original density.
Unfortunately such yokes are not manufactured any more and their ebay prices with the postage go up to AU$ 50-60 or higher:
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Phillips-LG-Deflection-Yoke-for-tube-tv-from-TV-repair-shop-NOS-331320301242-/311481396345?hash=item4885bcec79:g:mgkAAOSw~gRVumUI
An alternative ferrite core for grinding would be to choose ferrite pot cores or other off the shelf core types with known specifications. For instance
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/RM5-Philips-POT-Ferrite-Core-3E1-N41-AL-3150-RM5-3E1-X-20sets-/370819150804?hash=item56568b33d4:g:7uIAAOxyY3ZRmnSR
or
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Pot-Core-Power-Ferrite-M2000-OB30-Lot-of-4pcs-2set-/261548963908?hash=item3ce5887844:g:pPoAAOSwDk5T2nun
Of course this is a suggestion but I think with this method the resulting permeability of the home made outer ring core would remain at least in the several hundred range and frequency response would not suffer significantly either. And the permeability of the inner ring core (which would be an off the shelf type) will add to that of the outer core (this comes from the embedding of course) and the 'overall' permeability of the inner core would also increase from the outside core (inductance of the inner coil would be higher after the embedding).
Addition: smashing and grinding a ferrite core sounds barbaric but I think it can lead to a cheap solution. ;)
Gyula
Hi Gyula.
I should have the third done by tomorrow,and we can see what difference the low perm inner core will have.
I'll keep at it until we have the best result's O0
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.14, 11:59:04
I should have the third done by tomorrow,and we can see what difference the low perm inner core will have.
Curious Brad, what are your expectations with this core?
I started really thinking about what might be happening with this device and came up with a concept I'm calling:
Asymmetric CoherencyYou probably all know what a one-way mirror is in regards to light. Now think about one-way frosted glass, then apply that thought to a magnetic field.
The concept, the way I envision it, allows a magnetic field to transfer from the outer winding (primary) to the inner core coherently, causing a voltage to be produced on the secondary. However, the reverse magnetic field from the back EMF of the load (the secondary) doesn't transfer coherently to the outer core or primary; instead it stays locked in the inner core or disperses chaotically to the outside.
The two main reasons this happens is due to the different permeability of the two cores and the geometry. In effect, the outer core acts somewhat like a shield where it partially allows the magnetic field to penetrate inwards, but does not allow an inside magnetic field to penetrate outwards. I should say it allows the magnetic field to come out, but in the process of doing so, the magnetic field is disrupted, distorted and no longer coherent, i.e. like frosted glass does to light. Keep in mind how magnetic shielding actually works--it doesn't stop the magnetic field, it simply redirects it and in the case of the HTT we want it to redirect this magnetic field in a way where the primary windings never really become induced by it.
If I'm right about this concept or it is at least usable as a template, we should be able to alter core material, windings, frequencies and geometry to some optimal condition where power transfer from primary to secondary is maximized, while the back EMF of the load is nearly eliminated from reaching the source. In essence the back EMF seen at the source is simply noise with an average voltage of near zero.
The above concept also has me thinking what current or amperage actually is. It's almost like current is the collision of forward EMF and reverse EMF. Granted, this thought is rather primitive and doesn't take into account phase shift, but it does help to partially understand the flow of electrical energy. It becomes clear with a source voltage, an HTT in the middle and a load on the end, we have a normal relationship between the HTT and the load, but between the source and the HTT, something is a bit different. It's that something we need to focus on. It's the place where COP > 1 might hide.
Oh and don't even ask where the excess energy may come from. First we need to obtain it, repeatedly, then we can do some brainstorming.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.14, 15:40:07
Curious Brad, what are your expectations with this core?
I started really thinking about what might be happening with this device and came up with a concept I'm calling: Asymmetric Coherency
You probably all know what a one-way mirror is in regards to light. Now think about one-way frosted glass, then apply that thought to a magnetic field.
The concept, the way I envision it, allows a magnetic field to transfer from the outer winding (primary) to the inner core coherently, causing a voltage to be produced on the secondary. However, the reverse magnetic field from the back EMF of the load (the secondary) doesn't transfer coherently to the outer core or primary; instead it stays locked in the inner core or disperses chaotically to the outside.
The two main reasons this happens is due to the different permeability of the two cores and the geometry. In effect, the outer core acts somewhat like a shield where it partially allows the magnetic field to penetrate inwards, but does not allow an inside magnetic field to penetrate outwards. I should say it allows the magnetic field to come out, but in the process of doing so, the magnetic field is disrupted, distorted and no longer coherent, i.e. like frosted glass does to light. Keep in mind how magnetic shielding actually works--it doesn't stop the magnetic field, it simply redirects it and in the case of the HTT we want it to redirect this magnetic field in a way where the primary windings never really become induced by it.
If I'm right about this concept or it is at least usable as a template, we should be able to alter core material, windings, frequencies and geometry to some optimal condition where power transfer from primary to secondary is maximized, while the back EMF of the load is nearly eliminated from reaching the source. In essence the back EMF seen at the source is simply noise with an average voltage of near zero.
The above concept also has me thinking what current or amperage actually is. It's almost like current is the collision of forward EMF and reverse EMF. Granted, this thought is rather primitive and doesn't take into account phase shift, but it does help to partially understand the flow of electrical energy. It becomes clear with a source voltage, an HTT in the middle and a load on the end, we have a normal relationship between the HTT and the load, but between the source and the HTT, something is a bit different. It's that something we need to focus on. It's the place where COP > 1 might hide.
Oh and don't even ask where the excess energy may come from. First we need to obtain it, repeatedly, then we can do some brainstorming.
Well The third build is absolute rubbish. The inner secondary is lucky to output half the power being sent to the primary. Also,no matter what the frequency,i cannot get that negative resistance effect-not even close.
This tells me that the inner core must be of a high permeability. I also believe that the higher the permeability of the outer core,the better the results will be-but i have a limit as to how high i can get the permeability of the outer core. The inner core is no problem,as it would seem that !off the shelf! ferrite cores are best for this design.
I have ordered a large ferrite core from Ebay,and will be trying again when that arrives. This will give me some time to experiment with different compounds for the outer core.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.14, 15:40:07
The concept, the way I envision it, allows a magnetic field to transfer from the outer winding (primary) to the inner core coherently, causing a voltage to be produced on the secondary. However, the reverse magnetic field from the back EMF of the load (the secondary) doesn't transfer coherently to the outer core or primary; instead it stays locked in the inner core or disperses chaotically to the outside.
You might take a look on http://pesn.com/2011/03/20/9501793_Two_Toroid_Over-Unity_Gabriel_Device_--_Part_1/ for this concept.
Cheers!
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.11.18, 10:12:23
You might take a look on http://pesn.com/2011/03/20/9501793_Two_Toroid_Over-Unity_Gabriel_Device_--_Part_1/ for this concept.
Thanks for finding that link T. I knew I had seen it before but could not recall a reference to it.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.18, 10:07:31
Well The third build is absolute rubbish. The inner secondary is lucky to output half the power being sent to the primary. Also,no matter what the frequency,i cannot get that negative resistance effect-not even close.
This tells me that the inner core must be of a high permeability. I also believe that the higher the permeability of the outer core,the better the results will be-but i have a limit as to how high i can get the permeability of the outer core. The inner core is no problem,as it would seem that !off the shelf! ferrite cores are best for this design.
I have ordered a large ferrite core from Ebay,and will be trying again when that arrives. This will give me some time to experiment with different compounds for the outer core.
Kind of what I expected.
I just ordered two nanocrystalline cores:
http://www.cwsbytemark.com/images/CN65-50-25Gfi.pdf
(http://www.cwsbytemark.com/images/product_images/CN65-50-25Gsmall.jpg)
I also have some machinable wax on the way so casting hollow cores should no longer be a problem.
Now if I could only get up the ambition to make a pulse motor from an old microwave oven while I wait... :D
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.18, 10:07:31
Well The third build is absolute rubbish. The inner secondary is lucky to output half the power being sent to the primary. Also,no matter what the frequency,i cannot get that negative resistance effect-not even close.
This tells me that the inner core must be of a high permeability. I also believe that the higher the permeability of the outer core,the better the results will be-but i have a limit as to how high i can get the permeability of the outer core. The inner core is no problem,as it would seem that !off the shelf! ferrite cores are best for this design.
I have ordered a large ferrite core from Ebay,and will be trying again when that arrives. This will give me some time to experiment with different compounds for the outer core.
No again. This should simply confirm that winding the secondary all around the core is not efficient. The amount of outer coil impress would have to be so perfect to "push" output out of that inner coil will be too great with outer and inner core forces working for or against each other while the inner secondary is trying to output whatever it can.
For the impress to be activated by the outer primary, then amplified by the outer core that then exerts to the inner secondary before it can influence the inner core. Chances of that happening successfully on a first few trials basis is slimmer then winning the lotto let alone finding a new core material to favor the process. So many variables at play here. Traps will abound and only increase in the cancellation potential which you have already maximized by winding the secondary all around. Do the cores require rebiasing? So how can the outer primary and core rebias the inner core? If the inner coil is the output coil, what happens when the inner core is saturated and cannot reset (rebias)?
So what tests did you do with the inner core alone to find out how permeable that core is? It's very easy. You wind a 3 turn coil on the inner core and pulse it while you scope a second 3 turn coil on the same core that can slide closer or further away from the pulsed coil. This will tell you how far the pulsed coil can impress via the core to the second coil. If the second coil cannot pick up anything while it is on the opposite side of the inner core, this will confirm that a secondary wound all around is not good and that the impress to pickup has to be shorter runs, many few turn secondaries in parallel to exit the output before it gets cancelled.
So with your last build all I would want to know more then I know now is as follows.
Just short the secondary or put a pot on it. Put your CH1 scope on the primary since it will be the output and put the CH2 on the secondary. Take any separate coil and put it to your pulse generator and place that coil under your RT. Play with the FG that pulses that third coil and find the best frequency that will promote maximum waveforms in one or both RT coils. The idea here is to use the inner secondary as the primary and the outer primary as the secondary where the two cores become active via the inner coil and add together as active total mass that the outer primary can output. You may need to split the outer primary into halves or quads and see which ones output the most because for sure, even if a third coil can impress enough to the RT inner coil, since that coil is wound all around it will still always have dead spots.
The other option is as follows.
Put the FG onto the inner coil where you also take a separate coil that has a core and many winds on it and add this in series with the inner secondary on the negative side of the pulse. Play with the FG and see how the output is in the outer primary. Again you may need to split the outer primary into halves or quads. Then try the same but now on the outer primary and output the secondary.
Small tests man.
Also, yesterday my wife picked up a can of this stuff at Canadian Tire. It was 10 bucks instead of 40.
http://www.rustoleum.com/en/product-catalog/consumer-brands/specialty/magnetic
@TinMan I know this is your show, your build, "your design" but man, do you want some help or not. Just say the word and I will no longer bug you. I will be putting up a new Half Coil Syndrome 2 youtube hopefully tomorrow, the contents of which should help clarify some of our most standard mistakes with pulsed coils. Every OUer needs to get this sunk into their heads. The game was never played by natures rules but forced by mans rules. hehehe
Listen man, learning is a two way street. One small side test on your part can save days of crap for many others and vise versa. We all spend time that hopefully saves time for others. The hours of trials I do on my bench to find the effects that help me make my videos is to open eyes and save years of hassles for others. If one shown effect can do that to only one guy that opens his eyes to an even newer effect, then the work gets compounded and that's how we all progress in this venue of illusion filled traps and misconceptions.
wattsup
PS: I have to say that your latest stint with @Erfinder was not cool. It does not cost anything to show some respect and the dividends in the long run could be worth it with just one new idea. You never know in advance from where that spark will come.
Quote from: wattsup on 2015.11.18, 14:32:02
No again. This should simply confirm that winding the secondary all around the core is not efficient. The amount of outer coil impress would have to be so perfect to "push" output out of that inner coil will be too great with outer and inner core forces working for or against each other while the inner secondary is trying to output whatever it can.
For the impress to be activated by the outer primary, then amplified by the outer core that then exerts to the inner secondary before it can influence the inner core. Chances of that happening successfully on a first few trials basis is slimmer then winning the lotto let alone finding a new core material to favor the process. So many variables at play here. Traps will abound and only increase in the cancellation potential which you have already maximized by winding the secondary all around. Do the cores require rebiasing? So how can the outer primary and core rebias the inner core? If the inner coil is the output coil, what happens when the inner core is saturated and cannot reset (rebias)?
So what tests did you do with the inner core alone to find out how permeable that core is? It's very easy. You wind a 3 turn coil on the inner core and pulse it while you scope a second 3 turn coil on the same core that can slide closer or further away from the pulsed coil. This will tell you how far the pulsed coil can impress via the core to the second coil. If the second coil cannot pick up anything while it is on the opposite side of the inner core, this will confirm that a secondary wound all around is not good and that the impress to pickup has to be shorter runs, many few turn secondaries in parallel to exit the output before it gets cancelled.
So with your last build all I would want to know more then I know now is as follows.
Just short the secondary or put a pot on it. Put your CH1 scope on the primary since it will be the output and put the CH2 on the secondary. Take any separate coil and put it to your pulse generator and place that coil under your RT. Play with the FG that pulses that third coil and find the best frequency that will promote maximum waveforms in one or both RT coils. The idea here is to use the inner secondary as the primary and the outer primary as the secondary where the two cores become active via the inner coil and add together as active total mass that the outer primary can output. You may need to split the outer primary into halves or quads and see which ones output the most because for sure, even if a third coil can impress enough to the RT inner coil, since that coil is wound all around it will still always have dead spots.
The other option is as follows.
Put the FG onto the inner coil where you also take a separate coil that has a core and many winds on it and add this in series with the inner secondary on the negative side of the pulse. Play with the FG and see how the output is in the outer primary. Again you may need to split the outer primary into halves or quads. Then try the same but now on the outer primary and output the secondary.
Small tests man.
Also, yesterday my wife picked up a can of this stuff at Canadian Tire. It was 10 bucks instead of 40.
http://www.rustoleum.com/en/product-catalog/consumer-brands/specialty/magnetic
@TinMan I know this is your show, your build, "your design" but man, do you want some help or not. Just say the word and I will no longer bug you. I will be putting up a new Half Coil Syndrome 2 youtube hopefully tomorrow, the contents of which should help clarify some of our most standard mistakes with pulsed coils. Every OUer needs to get this sunk into their heads. The game was never played by natures rules but forced by mans rules. hehehe
Listen man, learning is a two way street. One small side test on your part can save days of crap for many others and vise versa. We all spend time that hopefully saves time for others. The hours of trials I do on my bench to find the effects that help me make my videos is to open eyes and save years of hassles for others. If one shown effect can do that to only one guy that opens his eyes to an even newer effect, then the work gets compounded and that's how we all progress in this venue of illusion filled traps and misconceptions.
wattsup
QuotePS: I have to say that your latest stint with @Erfinder was not cool. It does not cost anything to show some respect and the dividends in the long run could be worth it with just one new idea. You never know in advance from where that spark will come.
It was not i that lost respect first. Perhaps you had better go read what happened again,and then remove your incorrect statement above. What was not cool was Erfinder making the faulse claim that he knew how my system worked,and that i was misleading people when i associated my RT with that of one of Jim Murry's generators. I know how both of them work,and Erfinder dose not-->so why dose that mean it was i that lost respect?.
Respect is earned,and can be lost just as easy when unfounded claims are made against those that had that earned respect.
You are starting down the same path ,with your insistence that you know how !once again! to better a device that i have been working on,and through my own time and testing,know what outcomes are best. In stead of doing that-taking a stab in the dark as to how you think my device work's,maybe you should build your own,and carry out test as you see fit.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.19, 11:56:20
It was not i that lost respect first. Perhaps you had better go read what happened again,and then remove your incorrect statement above. What was not cool was Erfinder making the faulse claim that he knew how my system worked,and that i was misleading people when i associated my RT with that of one of Jim Murry's generators. I know how both of them work,and Erfinder dose not-->so why dose that mean it was i that lost respect?.
Respect is earned,and can be lost just as easy when unfounded claims are made against those that had that earned respect.
You are starting down the same path Matt,with your insistence that you know how !once again! to better a device that i have been working on,and through my own time and testing,know what outcomes are best. In stead of doing that-taking a stab in the dark as to how you think my device work's,maybe you should build your own,and carry out test as you see fit.
Brad
Here's some truth for you Brad. I have no idea what you know, and by the same token, you have no idea what I know, agree on that. Take this further I don't care what you know, and I am pretty sure that the feeling is mutual.
I can and will continue to say whatever I want regarding the RT and Murray machines. I dropped the the debate on the other forum because you have it all figured out anyway, and are providing your superior knowledge free of charge to the public via monetized videos on YouTube, talk about conflict of interest. You know I know that you don't owe anyone anything, but its rather interesting observing you label those you dislike as "criminal" for providing the gullible with, using a term you use often, "rubbish" you are in my opinion no better. I guess you feel justified because you aren't taking the money directly from your peers.....See in a similar manner, you dear Tinman are doing your part in perpetuating the BS you claim to hate. With that being said, you just might owe those folks you are bad mouthing an apology......
One video and you would be an overnight success story, those who threaten, couldn't, because those who would buy you would show up to your doorstep first. I'm sure you would take the money.....I mean, you are accepting money from YouTube......
You would be wise to acknowledge those who did it before you and did it better than you, receiving patents on concepts which were properly named, and not simply dubbed with a catchy title. Watching your following I am reminded of another who motivated many to mutilate perfectly good machines, you didn't like him either, none with a half decent understanding of how things work listened to the man.
I'm reminded of a gentleman by the name of Alexanderson who patented a rather interesting mechanism which has a hell of a lot more in common with what you claim (
going by what YOU have provided). The concept as with many of the electro-mechanical machines you have demonstrated are lifted from elsewhere. That's my opinion, and I don't care what you or any of your following thinks about that statement. All I see over and over again is a face lift on someone else work. No harm in this, this is how the world works, however, claiming and or suggesting that you have provide the community with something original is insulting. There is nothing original about any of it. I can (won't because I don't feel like it) site old patents which share many commonalities with concepts you have been demonstrating over the years. Having things in common doesn't make them the same, and so you know if it is the same.....and it was my work you copy and present as your own, I would be taking legal action against you, just saying......
If you don't want me responding to your posts, don't mention my name.
Regards
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.19, 11:56:20
You are starting down the same path Matt,with your insistence that you know how !once again! ...
Just for reference, Matt (Matt Watts, me) and wattsup are two different people with likely far different backgrounds.
I'm not here to fight, argue or debate with anyone. I'm only here to see a device function as intended, on my own bench. This has always been my simple goal. I don't expect to ever understand how such a device really works, only that it does, repeatedly. Concepts that I come up with or use to analyze a device are only tools or support fabrication to help proceed in the right direction, like scaffolding used to build a building--they likely won't be present when the building is finished.
Now back to the project...
I was able to melt my first batch of machinable wax into a slab. Since this material is easily recyclable, I need to make some modification to the spoil board on my CNC router so the chips don't go flying all over the garage. Once I get that done, I'll start cutting and hopefully shortly thereafter mix up some resin and do a pour.
I don't know how guys like Brad are able to move so fast--maybe I'm just more careful or maybe I just have a lot of other things on my plate. Whatever it is, I'll get there. It just won't be in a matter of hours; more like a matter of weeks.
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.11.19, 14:54:05
If you don't want me responding to your posts, don't mention my name.
Also just for the record, this is
my workbench thread--based on Brad's HTT yes, though I see the Gabriel device is a close competitor. I'm not following any detailed instructions; just using my instincts and resources best I can.
Please feel free to contribute however you would like Erfinder, particularly technical details. If Brad feels so inclined, he is welcome to contribute here also. I'm mostly interested in details and methods that will bring this type of device off paper and into my hand or everyone's hand if that be the case. A list of things that have been tried and their results is helpful. I don't know about everyone else, but I have a sense of urgency to get something working. Maybe I know instinctively my time is running out or the writing is on the wall. Whatever it is, something is guiding me to find a solution and do it expediently.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.19, 18:15:11
I don't know about everyone else, but I have a sense of urgency to get something working. Maybe I know instinctively my time is running out or the writing is on the wall. Whatever it is, something is guiding me to find a solution and do it expediently.
I have no prior knowledge of what you are doing on this project.
Can you explain very simply what your project goals are, method, theory etc ?
What do you expect to achieve ? COP>1 ?
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.19, 11:56:20
You are starting down the same path Matt,with your insistence that you know how !once again! to better a device that i have been working on,and through my own time and testing,know what outcomes are best. In stead of doing that-taking a stab in the dark as to how you think my device work's,maybe you should build your own,and carry out test as you see fit.
Brad
@TinMan
Hallelujah brother. I finally have your answer which I can summarize as a simple "no thanks". It took some pocking and prodding but eventually I get the gist of it. At least I know where you stand and I will leave you with your own.
But just to be very very clear, the only one taking shots in the dark is you. Every day is another project that just pop up and then no more noise. Anyways, I was just trying to help you move forward while I was also trying to learn (and help others learn) at least something more then I already know. Be that as it may, please disregard my previous post as I am just pulling any offer to continue on this subject. Also, removing anything of my post would be useless since you copied the total post in your rebuttal.
But again just to be very very clear. I never said I know how better to improve your device. What I provided were some ideas the results of which would have provided a new angle, but if you take them as an insult, that is your problem, not mine.
So all there remains is to wish you "all the best".
wattsup
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.11.19, 18:37:14
I have no prior knowledge of what you are doing on this project.
Can you explain very simply what your project goals are, method, theory etc ?
The goal is to easily and in a repeatable fashion build a dual core toroid transformer. Brad has termed his embodiment the Hybrid Toroid Transformer. The inner core will be an OEM part, but the outer core will be fabricated. The method I'm proceeding with is to CNC cut a mould into machinable wax, pour in a mixture of resin laced with magnetic material (steel) and allow it to harden. Once cured, I will melt away the wax and retrieve the two outer core halves. These two clam shell halves will be fitted over the pre-wound OEM toroid core, then a primary winding will be wound around this outer shell. Once assembled, I will use a simple push-pull driver to excite the primary winding and begin taking measurements of input versus output power. Various frequencies will be tried in pursuit of optimizing efficiency. From this data I may proceed to try other OEM inner cores and winding ratios as well as fabricate various outer cores using different geometries and resin materials. I will continue these optimizations until it is clear in my mind this device has merit or is a dead end.
The theory I'm basing this experimentation on, I posted previously. I have termed the concept Asymmetric Coherency. I have no idea if it is correct or even applicable at this time. The data I gather will help me make that determination.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.11.19, 18:37:14
What do you expect to achieve ? COP>1 ?
I truly do not expect to be wildly successful. I am hoping for a self-running device, preferably with considerable excess energy that can be easily harvested. For now, even a failure that leads to a better understanding is welcome. I fully suspect a completely electrical device can be made--one that powers itself as well as other devices. I have seen too many artifacts to assume this possibility simply does not exist. I have thought for a long time many experimenters simply did not pay enough attention to detail and skipped right over the accuracies needed to end up with a functioning device--right idea; poor implementation. Some call it Survival of the Fittest where nature adjusts ad nauseum until she gets it right. I see no reason why we wouldn't follow in her footsteps.
Looks like a lot of work has gone into that build Mike!
Do you have a sound historical reference that indicates a potential COP>1 performance from this design ?
Is there a hypothesis available that suggests why an energy gain in this setup might be seen ?
I am really trying to find a why ? for doing this.
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.11.19, 14:54:05
Here's some truth for you Brad. I have no idea what you know, and by the same token, you have no idea what I know, agree on that. Take this further I don't care what you know, and I am pretty sure that the feeling is mutual.
I can and will continue to say whatever I want regarding the RT and Murray machines. I dropped the the debate on the other forum because you have it all figured out anyway, and are providing your superior knowledge free of charge to the public via monetized videos on YouTube, talk about conflict of interest. You know I know that you don't owe anyone anything, but its rather interesting observing you label those you dislike as "criminal" for providing the gullible with, using a term you use often, "rubbish" you are in my opinion no better. I guess you feel justified because you aren't taking the money directly from your peers.....See in a similar manner, you dear Tinman are doing your part in perpetuating the BS you claim to hate. With that being said, you just might owe those folks you are bad mouthing an apology......
One video and you would be an overnight success story, those who threaten, couldn't, because those who would buy you would show up to your doorstep first. I'm sure you would take the money.....I mean, you are accepting money from YouTube......
You would be wise to acknowledge those who did it before you and did it better than you, receiving patents on concepts which were properly named, and not simply dubbed with a catchy title. Watching your following I am reminded of another who motivated many to mutilate perfectly good machines, you didn't like him either, none with a half decent understanding of how things work listened to the man.
I'm reminded of a gentleman by the name of Alexanderson who patented a rather interesting mechanism which has a hell of a lot more in common with what you claim (going by what YOU have provided). The concept as with many of the electro-mechanical machines you have demonstrated are lifted from elsewhere. That's my opinion, and I don't care what you or any of your following thinks about that statement. All I see over and over again is a face lift on someone else work. No harm in this, this is how the world works, however, claiming and or suggesting that you have provide the community with something original is insulting. There is nothing original about any of it. I can (won't because I don't feel like it) site old patents which share many commonalities with concepts you have been demonstrating over the years. Having things in common doesn't make them the same, and so you know if it is the same.....and it was my work you copy and present as your own, I would be taking legal action against you, just saying......
If you don't want me responding to your posts, don't mention my name.
Regards
If you dont want your name mentioned,then stop pretending you know how my devices work,and how you !think! they are based around or related to other devices. I dont go chasing patented designs to replicate or redesign,i build what i come up with. If you are also one of those who complain about me recovering some of my cost from youtube(very petty indeed),then dont watch my video's. No one pays me but those who advertise on my video's,and also make money from that advertising. I wonder if you are one that is happy to watch entertainment on television,while paying for the power the television uses?,but also one to complain about people like me who allow adverts on my video's so as i can afford to do what i do-experiment and share results. What do the adverts on my youtube channel cost you Erfinder?. I do not sell books of secrets,that are absolute crap-i present actual finding's,and show true results.
You so chuffed up about me making a little money from my video's?,well here is a few of things that money went toward.
1-Prizes in the pulse motor build off's for 3 years straight
2-$150.00 toward getting slider a scope so as he could better his experimental data.
3-the posting of transformers to all parts of the globe,where i also provided the transformers free of charge.
So here i am sharing my earnings with those that need it most-and here you are pissing and moaning that it's wrong of me to be earning a little from all my work.
You really are the pits Erfinder--i always thought you were better than that.
Brad
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.19, 20:29:03
I am hoping for a self-running device, preferably with considerable excess energy that can be easily harvested. For now, even a failure that leads to a better understanding is welcome. I fully suspect a completely electrical device can be made--one that powers itself as well as other devices. I have seen too many artifacts to assume this possibility simply does not exist.
The part I highlighted in bold is the bit I have a hard time understanding.
How can you have a better understanding when you don't know why your doing it in the first place ?
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.11.20, 17:03:22
If you dont want your name mentioned,then stop pretending you know how my devices work,and how you !think! they are based around or related to other devices. I dont go chasing patented designs to replicate or redesign,i build what i come up with. If you are also one of those who complain about me recovering some of my cost from youtube(very petty indeed),then dont watch my video's. No one pays me but those who advertise on my video's,and also make money from that advertising. I wonder if you are one that is happy to watch entertainment on television,while paying for the power the television uses?,but also one to complain about people like me who allow adverts on my video's so as i can afford to do what i do-experiment and share results. What do the adverts on my youtube channel cost you Erfinder?. I do not sell books of secrets,that are absolute crap-i present actual finding's,and show true results.
You so chuffed up about me making a little money from my video's?,well here is a few of things that money went toward.
1-Prizes in the pulse motor build off's for 3 years straight
2-$150.00 toward getting slider a scope so as he could better his experimental data.
3-the posting of transformers to all parts of the globe,where i also provided the transformers free of charge.
So here i am sharing my earnings with those that need it most-and here you are pissing and moaning that it's wrong of me to be earning a little from all my work.
You really are the pits Erfinder--i always thought you were better than that.
Brad
You aren't worth my time, not anymore..... Stop cluttering this thread.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.19, 18:00:24
Just for reference, Matt (Matt Watts, me) and wattsup are two different people with likely far different backgrounds.
I'm not here to fight, argue or debate with anyone. I'm only here to see a device function as intended, on my own bench. This has always been my simple goal. I don't expect to ever understand how such a device really works, only that it does, repeatedly. Concepts that I come up with or use to analyze a device are only tools or support fabrication to help proceed in the right direction, like scaffolding used to build a building--they likely won't be present when the building is finished.
Now back to the project...
I was able to melt my first batch of machinable wax into a slab. Since this material is easily recyclable, I need to make some modification to the spoil board on my CNC router so the chips don't go flying all over the garage. Once I get that done, I'll start cutting and hopefully shortly thereafter mix up some resin and do a pour.
I don't know how guys like Brad are able to move so fast--maybe I'm just more careful or maybe I just have a lot of other things on my plate. Whatever it is, I'll get there. It just won't be in a matter of hours; more like a matter of weeks.
Yes-sorry Matt. I put your name in a reply to wattsup
Will fix that now.
Brad
Quote from: wattsup on 2015.11.19, 20:08:09
@TinMan
Hallelujah brother. I finally have your answer which I can summarize as a simple "no thanks". It took some pocking and prodding but eventually I get the gist of it. At least I know where you stand and I will leave you with your own.
But just to be very very clear, the only one taking shots in the dark is you. Every day is another project that just pop up and then no more noise. Anyways, I was just trying to help you move forward while I was also trying to learn (and help others learn) at least something more then I already know. Be that as it may, please disregard my previous post as I am just pulling any offer to continue on this subject. Also, removing anything of my post would be useless since you copied the total post in your rebuttal.
But again just to be very very clear. I never said I know how better to improve your device. What I provided were some ideas the results of which would have provided a new angle, but if you take them as an insult, that is your problem, not mine.
So all there remains is to wish you "all the best".
wattsup
It's like this wattsup.
If i dont see much interest in a project ,then why continue with it. As this one holds interest for a few,and i have seen results that are odd,then i will continue with it. I have made and tested 3 such transformers now,and have on order a larger ferrite core. I cant do much until that arrives,so im filling in my time with other projects people has asked me to do. The RT is that one device i cannot do anything about ATM,as there is more to what happened than most know about-but i do have a couple of guys looking into it.
I do listen to what others have to say,and i try what they ask when and if i can. But building one of these HTT's is both time consuming and not very cheap--so i just cant put into place everyone's ideas. So in the case of the HTT,i have to follow what i feel is the best path,and if others feel that there is a better way,then i only ask that they spend there time and money building there own device.
Brad
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.11.20, 19:23:13
Stop cluttering this thread.
Dont even try ^-^
You guys crack me up. :D
Not that I needed cracking up or anything.
EA, seriously? I don't know why I'm doing this? That's news to me. Truth is, I know exactly why I'm doing it. I'll give you one reason that is way down on my list--so my wife doesn't assign me other choirs I'd really rather not do.
Erfinder, TinMan, we all need to go out someplace and do a little pistol shooting. I can tell. Over in these parts, gun control is defined by how accurately and quickly you can hit your target. I suspect though I wouldn't have to worry about you guys shooting a hole in your foot. What I would have to worry about is the both of you shooting a hole in mine. :/
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.22, 09:17:39
You guys crack me up. :D
Not that I needed cracking up or anything.
EA, seriously? I don't know why I'm doing this? That's news to me. Truth is, I know exactly why I'm doing it. I'll give you one reason that is way down on my list--so my wife doesn't assign me other choirs I'd really rather not do.
Erfinder, TinMan, we all need to go out someplace and do a little pistol shooting. I can tell. Over in these parts, gun control is defined by how accurately and quickly you can hit your target. I suspect though I wouldn't have to worry about you guys shooting a hole in your foot. What I would have to worry about is the both of you shooting a hole in mine. :/
You made it clear that this is "your" bench. I am a professional, and will conduct myself in your lab as a professional. To hold a grudge is to cut myself off from a part of myself, so I hold none. I patiently away my opportunity to assist you.
Regards
O0
Progress is slow, but good...
And for those that may be curious...
It's not a dud, but using a push-pull driver is about sixes. Efficient, but no OU so far.
Next test is going to be driving it with an audio amp.
Stay tuned...
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.11.28, 06:41:47
And for those that may be curious...
It's not a dud, but using a push-pull driver is about sixes. Efficient, but no OU so far.
Next test is going to be driving it with an audio amp.
Stay tuned...
Dear Matt.
May I be the first to congratulate you on such a fine pair of cold castings.? They look like off the shelf !!
Lets hope your results come out as well. ;)
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2015.11.28, 18:23:35
May I be the first to congratulate you on such a fine pair of cold castings.? They look like off the shelf !!
Yes I must admit, when I reached into the pan of melted wax with the tongs and pulled the first casting out, I thought I was in the twilight zone--couldn't believe how perfect it looked. Never saw a large pot core like this before. My measurements where pretty much spot-on too--the wound inside core dropped right in snug as a glove.
With this particular material, having a thin coating of wax all around it really does give it that factory look-n-feel. The top part where I made the pour is the only place where things look a little ragged. I tried sanding a little with emery cloth, but the material is really rather hard. The more I worked on it, the quicker it became obvious it probably doesn't matter anyway. So I left it alone and just put everything together.
I did forget to mention...
When you add the hardener to the Devcon steel mixture, it is really runny. To thicken things up a bit, I added quite a bit of S-280 steel shot to the mix, poured then tapped it down into the mold with the flat head of a nail. I could see bubbles coming up so I kept working at it until I could tell the mixture was starting to set up--probably about 30 minutes. I'm sure if one had a vacuum chamber you could get almost all the bubbles out. I don't have anything like that so I just did the best I could tapping and vibrating the mold.
Anyway, not too shabby. I'm using a nanocrystaline inner core instead of the megaflux core I initially wound. Pretty certain there is a lot of room for improvement. Need to run through a series of tests and see which avenue looks most promising. Brad being in the lead with this particular device may share some tricks he has discovered.
Incredible work Matt, looks amazing.
What everyone has been waiting for, power measurements...
I used two precision shunts for current measurements:
0.01 ohm 1% on the input (A channel probe set to amps @ 100X)
0.20 ohm 1% on the output (A channel probe set to amps @ 5X)
The scope measurements reflect actual amperage readings.
Sine wave signal produced from BK function generator into a Pyramid PA amp with primary connected to 4 ohm output.
So I calculate:
Input power = 2.08A * 9.60V = 19.97 Watts
Output power = 0.310A * 64.0V = 19.84 Watts
Efficiency = 99%
Not bad for the first real attempt.
Anyone spot obvious measurement errors?
Any suggestions what I should vary for the next trial?
Hi Matt
What were your winding ratio's? or did I miss them somewhere!!
Just curious on the voltage output around 7:1, also would be interesting to know what the impedance of the primary coil is as you are driving with a 4 ohm impedance matching from your amp, just wondering how much reflected power there might be if any.
99% is very good, does it change with frequency?
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.12.01, 18:49:11
What were your winding ratio's? or did I miss them somewhere!!
22:155 or just a tad over 7 to 1, step-up.
So I cannot concur with Brad's 2 to 1 voltage increase having 100 turns each, primary and secondary. I would have thought in a step-up configuration, Brad's demonstrated effect would be magnified.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.12.01, 18:49:11
Just curious on the voltage output around 7:1, also would be interesting to know what the impedance of the primary coil is as you are driving with a 4 ohm impedance matching from your amp, just wondering how much reflected power there might be if any.
With the relatively low turn count on the primary, I'm pretty certain if I had a two or one ohm output on the amplifier I could achieve better matching. Hooking it to the eight ohm output shows a clear decrease in power transfer.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.12.01, 18:49:11
99% is very good, does it change with frequency?
It runs rather flat between 550Hz and 2100Hz. Above that it begins to slowly roll-off. Below 550Hz I see what looks like clipping of the sine wave, but only on one of the peaks, not both as I would typically see.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.01, 18:28:56
What everyone has been waiting for, power measurements...
I used two precision shunts for current measurements:
0.01 ohm 1% on the input (A channel probe set to amps @ 100X)
0.20 ohm 1% on the output (A channel probe set to amps @ 5X)
The scope measurements reflect actual amperage readings.
Sine wave signal produced from BK function generator into a Pyramid PA amp with primary connected to 4 ohm output.
So I calculate:
Input power = 2.08A * 9.60V = 19.97 Watts
Output power = 0.310A * 64.0V = 19.84 Watts
Efficiency = 99%
Not bad for the first real attempt.
Anyone spot obvious measurement errors?
Any suggestions what I should vary for the next trial?
99% efficient-not bad at all.
I must ask-do you still have the air gap between the pot core and inner secondary?. If so,then i wonder what the efficiency would be if that air gap is eliminated as it is in my HTT ?.
Look at what you have achieved at home on your workbench Matt-the inferior materials used to that of what can be used(E.G-ferrite)-everything going against you,and yet you still achieved to produce a transformer that is 99% efficient. O0
Brad
Matt, how are you connecting your scope to the current-monitoring shunts? Are you using normal probes on the 1x setting, or what?
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.02, 00:34:43
99% efficient-not bad at all.
Thanks goes to you Brad. I had an idea, but needed a mechanic like yourself to show me how to go about it.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.02, 00:34:43
I must ask-do you still have the air gap between the pot core and inner secondary?. If so,then i wonder what the efficiency would be if that air gap is eliminated as it is in my HTT ?.
It's a snug fit, but certainly the individual copper wires have no coating around them like your initial prototype. When I was speaking to my son about the turns ratio not behaving like yours did, he thinks I need to goop-up the inner core with Devcon and mash it altogether, make it a one-piece unit. I tend to agree. There is something about how the magnetic field circulates in this device that is unlike a normal transformer.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.02, 00:34:43
Look at what you have achieved at home on your workbench Matt-the inferior materials used to that of what can be used(E.G-ferrite)-everything going against you,and yet you still achieved to produce a transformer that is 99% efficient. O0
Brad
There is definitely room for improvement here. I feel pretty good about this first test, the power levels and performance achieved. I'll likely keep this one as a baseline and venture out slowly with minor changes in geometry and materials. I'm also open to any and all suggestions you have--this device is as close as I have ever come to the allusive goal.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.12.02, 01:03:44
Matt, how are you connecting your scope to the current-monitoring shunts? Are you using normal probes on the 1x setting, or what?
Normal yes, set to 1X on the physical probe, yellow channel. Both channels are set DC bias. Common ground used for both probes.
On the higher current input side, the scope channel is set to 100X and connected across the 0.01 ohm shunt.
On the output side, the scope channel is set to 5X and connected across the 0.2 ohm shunt.
Only on the output voltage do I set the blue channel probe to 10X and set the scope channel to match.
For the testing I leave all shunts in-place, both input and output. I keep the system running stable and just move the probes (since I don't have a fancy four channel scope like yours). This to me is actually an advantage here because any scope or probe error should be identical between input and output measurements--i.e. if the channel is 2% low, it will be 2% low on both sides.
The load is a 75 watt 110 volt halogen spot light and when driven with a known 20 watt source has identical brightness--checked just for consistency.
Using a digital handheld meter, I can confirm the scope readings are all in the ballpark, with the scope readings likely being more accurate.
This is your ballgame Tinsel; if there is anything you are suspicious of, let me know and I'll recheck it--I get no paycheck for this gizmo either way. Being shy of the 130% efficiency anyway, might as well be sure the measuring is done right now, especially while I have everything still setup.
Oh, one thing I wanted to ask about, the phasing... I'm a little surprised the current and voltage are exactly in-phase. Typically a little offset is noticed. Is this because the device is actually running at full load or is there some other reason?
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.02, 05:49:26
Thanks goes to you Brad. I had an idea, but needed a mechanic like yourself to show me how to go about it.
It's a snug fit, but certainly the individual copper wires have no coating around them like your initial prototype. When I was speaking to my son about the turns ratio not behaving like yours did, he thinks I need to goop-up the inner core with Devcon and mash it altogether, make it a one-piece unit. I tend to agree. There is something about how the magnetic field circulates in this device that is unlike a normal transformer.
There is definitely room for improvement here. I feel pretty good about this first test, the power levels and performance achieved. I'll likely keep this one as a baseline and venture out slowly with minor changes in geometry and materials. I'm also open to any and all suggestions you have--this device is as close as I have ever come to the allusive goal.
Yes,leave that one as it is,and build an identical one,but where as you fill in the air gap around the inner windings with the devcon putty,and then carry out the same test.
Also remember what power you have not yet calculated,and that is the power dissipated by the coils in the form of heat--and i expect at those power levels,you may have a little more than that 1% you are missing. O0
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.01, 18:28:56
What everyone has been waiting for, power measurements...
I used two precision shunts for current measurements:
0.01 ohm 1% on the input (A channel probe set to amps @ 100X)
0.20 ohm 1% on the output (A channel probe set to amps @ 5X)
The scope measurements reflect actual amperage readings.
Sine wave signal produced from BK function generator into a Pyramid PA amp with primary connected to 4 ohm output.
So I calculate:
Input power = 2.08A * 9.60V = 19.97 Watts
Output power = 0.310A * 64.0V = 19.84 Watts
Efficiency = 99%
Not bad for the first real attempt.
Anyone spot obvious measurement errors?
Any suggestions what I should vary for the next trial?
Do these calculations include the CVR's power dissipation ?
If not,then the power dissipated by the .01 ohm CVR is 43.2mW,and 19.2mW by the .2 ohm CVR.
This also dose not include the power being dissipated by the two windings them self-in the form of heat.
Brad.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.02, 08:20:15
Do these calculations include the CVR's power dissipation ?
I did not account for the power dissipation of the shunts.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.02, 08:20:15
If not,then the power dissipated by the .01 ohm CVR is 43.2mW,and 19.2mW by the .2 ohm CVR.
This also dose not include the power being dissipated by the two windings them self-in the form of heat.
I get the same values for shunt dissipation. So do I subtract the 43.2mW from the input and add the 19.2mW to the output?
If so, then we have:
Input 19.97 - 0.0432 = 19.93 Watts
Output 19.84 + 0.0192 = 19.86 Watts
Efficiency of 99.6%.
You guys will have to help me out a little in this area, +/- 5% has always been good enough in the past. Not so true when you're on the ragged edge like this.
My thinking is that if you lose power to a shunt on the input, that is power that never makes it to the DUT, so you subtract.
Then power lost to a shunt on the output is power that made it though the DUT, but never made it to the load, so you add.
If that's wrong, please explain it to me better. If there is an argument, I'll just get some current probes and hopefully eliminate all doubt.
And for the dissipation of the windings themselves... I guess I would have to put the whole device in a thermal bath and run it over some length of time to see how many BTUs/Hr it releases. Unless someone knows an easier way...?
@MW
Niceroni.
First thing that I would like to eliminate is any possible adverse condition that could be caused by the secondary leads of the hybrid that pass through the outer core. Maybe consider sliding a shield over the leads where they pass through the core. This will make sure the output is not bypassing the inner core or creating a blockage from that very potent impress point. This is first just to cover all bases. It's either less, same or more. If it is much much less, then there is a problem to consider. More would be nice but doubtful but if it keeps ticking the same great bobbles of goulash, it's alive.
I would then try a few comparable sized transformers one by one and connect the primary in series with the hybrid primary on the side that is not receiving the pulse, then test it. If that transformer has a secondary, put a small bulb on it as this could be quantified later but for now all you need to see is the effect. You will know if there is anything special.
Then, I would wind the second inner core you ordered from ebay in quad and try it again inside your hybrid core. Could be quad all parallel inside with two exiting leads or all leads coming out (latter is better). Any leads coming out through the outer core needs to be shielded. Maybe a thin 8 conductor shielded cable would be good. So will it produce more or less? If it produces more output, then you know that more secondary sections means less cancellation before the output can exit the inner winding. This is what I am suspecting with your present output. Eben though it is in the 99%, a good portion of the output is cancelled before it can exit due to the single full winding. For the primary first do the same one as before to make the comparison then try it with 4 three turns either in Tesla succession mode or all parallel or 2 opposing parallels then both sets parallel.
The other completely far end of experimenting would be by using the inner core as the primary. Then use a small pick up coil to try and map the outer surface that would then show where to start and stop winds for 1 or 2 output secondaries. This is the one I am interested in the most. Seeing if the growth or gain can occur via an expanding core.
wattsup
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.02, 10:43:25
I did not account for the power dissipation of the shunts.
I get the same values for shunt dissipation. So do I subtract the 43.2mW from the input and add the 19.2mW to the output?
If so, then we have:
Input 19.97 - 0.0432 = 19.93 Watts
Output 19.84 + 0.0192 = 19.86 Watts
Efficiency of 99.6%.
You guys will have to help me out a little in this area, +/- 5% has always been good enough in the past. Not so true when you're on the ragged edge like this.
My thinking is that if you lose power to a shunt on the input, that is power that never makes it to the DUT, so you subtract.
Then power lost to a shunt on the output is power that made it though the DUT, but never made it to the load, so you add.
If that's wrong, please explain it to me better. If there is an argument, I'll just get some current probes and hopefully eliminate all doubt.
And for the dissipation of the windings themselves... I guess I would have to put the whole device in a thermal bath and run it over some length of time to see how many BTUs/Hr it releases. Unless someone knows an easier way...?
If you did not account for the CVR on the input as being part of the input,then you dont subtract it from the input.
On the output side-if you did not account for the CVR power dissipation,then you must add that to the total output power being dissipated. There is a way to calculate the power being dissipated across the two coil's,but i am not well versed in this area yet--so maybe ION,Poynt or one of the EE guys could help there.
Yes,+/- 5% dose not cut it when the measurements are this close. Even higher up in the wattage ranges like say 100 watts ,the +/- 5% can mean a difference of 5 watts either way.
Brad
Matt
If you get to the point where you wish to do a thermal analysis of the entire transformer plus load, you can get some ideas for differential test techniques on my bench here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=40.0
I prefer differential testing over baths as the results are real time and can be very exact.
But to each his level of comfort.
Quote from: ION on 2015.12.02, 16:29:22
Matt
If you get to the point where you wish to do a thermal analysis of the entire transformer plus load, you can get some ideas for differential test techniques on my bench here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=40.0
I prefer differential testing over baths as the results are real time and can be very exact.
But to each his level of comfort.
ION
Is there not a way to calculate the power dissipated by each coil by knowing the coils resistance,and the voltage across it?. I think i remember one of you guys telling me how on one of the other HTT threads,whether it was here or at OU.com-im not sure,but i have forgot how it was done that way.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.03, 02:49:34
ION
Is there not a way to calculate the power dissipated by each coil by knowing the coils resistance,and the voltage across it?. I think i remember one of you guys telling me how on one of the other HTT threads,whether it was here or at OU.com-im not sure,but i have forgot how it was done that way.
Brad
It can be done, but it's like trying to hit a moving target, since copper has a positive temperature coefficient of resistance vs temperature, the measurements need to be carefully made considering the cold vs hot temperature of the coil.
The thermal methods I like to use take all these variables into account. All copper losses, eddy losses and thermal power delivered to the load are summed in a final temperature rise and compared to a known input power to a separate control resistor's temperature in a null balance arrangement.
The various implementations of thermal methods are described on my bench in a few threads. If there is more interest I can detail it here.
Some food for thought...
I opened up the two outer core halves and noticed they were not fitting together tightly. Apparently the inner stem was just a few thousands taller than the outside edge. Hmmm... So I proceeded to place a piece of emery cloth on a solid piece of glass and lap the surfaces so they would be equal in height. Took a few hours but now each core halve sits perfectly flat and when assembled there is no perceivable gap. Thinking this would improve the performance I retested. Any guesses what happened...?
Ninety one percent efficiency now--basically, I killed whatever effect might have been happening and now have pretty much a conventional transformer.
So it appears an outside gap may be necessary. I have no idea how much, but I will see if I can find or make some steel washers to fit between the inner stems and try to at least get it back to where it was, possibly better.
Certainly did not expect this to happen, but after watching these videos and thinking a while, I may have some idea what is happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHT9xI01sqw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3w_0y8VYAE
@MW
Make sure you wound the outer primary exactly like is was before relative to the leads of the inner coil.
You have images of the original so compare them. Or remove the primary wind, wind a three turn primary that can slide around as you pulse it and scope the secondary for the highest output. Then start your primary there and try again.
Bummer man, but not the end.
wattsup