https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41cfHcb7qd8
also being discussed here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20335-radiant-spike-puts-out-more-than-current.html?s=b3d60c1a2678c607133a4734070229c0
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.12.07, 13:57:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41cfHcb7qd8
also being discussed here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20335-radiant-spike-puts-out-more-than-current.html?s=b3d60c1a2678c607133a4734070229c0
Oh dear C.C
Quote : Secondary coil puts out many many more times than the primary coil.
Um-no.
Quote: The small group who are working on a similar project should take note, because this is how its done (I should also say that this isn't limited to any particular switching model, its a free for all when you know what you're doing.
Only they dont know what there doing.
Energy over time seems to be slipping right over there head's.
Interesting and it isn't Energy over time but power over time which is Energy. Sometimes it is the most benign events which can have the most profound meaning... did anyone catch it?, the LED's. You see I know very many people who understand power but very few who truly understand the construct of Energy. Can anyone tell me why the center LED's generally always blows first?. Why not the first or the last, why the center?.
AC
Energy over time.... like as in Joules / Seconds ... is Power. Joules per second = Watts. Power over time.... as in W / S or Watts per second ... is a rate of change of power, as when a load has changing resistance. Perhaps you mean Power _times_ Time, as in Watt-seconds, which is Energy in Joules. But that's not really important, just algebra words, we all (here) know what it means. Sometimes people use "over time" to mean "during", which translates to algebra multiplication, but "over" can also describe algebraic division, as in Joules/Second.
But that video... ten and a half minutes I'll never get back. But at least he's got all the ingredients for an Overunity Claim: A maze of colored clipleads, a cheap DMM, some coils and magnets, and of course.... a battery.
The LEGO pendulum is a nice touch though, more fun than a rotor.
Here's my Light-powered Perpendupetulum, which doesn't even have a separate trigger winding, or any battery at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dMPQs5vpek
(Those 18650 Li-ion batteries are pretty amazing. They have a really flat discharge curve even at pretty high currents. I accidentally shorted one on my bench a few days ago by letting the connector come in contact with some metal. It stayed shorted for a fair few seconds, long enough to heat up the wires and connector to the point of insulation melting and smoking. When I disconnected it from the "short" and measured the voltage it was still at the original charge voltage, it was still in the flat region of the discharge curve.)
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 14:31:05
Quote : Secondary coil puts out many many more times than the primary coil.
Um-no.
Quote: The small group who are working on a similar project should take note, because this is how its done (I should also say that this isn't limited to any particular switching model, its a free for all when you know what you're doing.
Only they dont know what there doing.
Energy over time seems to be slipping right over there head's.
You are committing the same crime that you publicly accused me of......specifically, talking about something you cannot possibly know, and so that you know, I am referring to my bench! I have not shared it with you, and it matters very little to me what your connections may or may not have shared with you, you still no nothing about my bench!
Get this through your thick skin, I made no claims, I made a statement, whether you get it or not, is your problem. I have no beef with you, it's clear you have issues with me, hence your taking my "statement" as an attack. Get over yourself.....its not "your" movement, if you had any sense at all you would "know" my statement
COULD NOT, DOES NOT apply to you....SAVVY!
I had absolutely no desire to post here, however, felt obligated as you took my statement out of context.....you are making a habit of this and its getting old.....really fast!
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.12.07, 21:00:11
QuoteI had absolutely no desire to post here,
Why dont you like posting in this forum EF ?
Quoteyou took my statement out of context.....you are making a habit of this and its getting old.....really fast!
I took nothing out of context.....i posted it just as you stated-
Quote: The small group who are working on a similar project should take note, because this is how its done (I should also say that this isn't limited to any particular switching model, its a free for all when you know what you're doing.
This is your very reply to cool joules statement-->The secondary coil puts out !many many! more times than the primary.
The fact is-it dose not. What is being shown there is a mechanical/visual version of the joule thief-nothing more. You stated that this is how it's done. Maybe you could explain how what is done then,if it dosnt refer to cool joules experiment.
QuoteYou are committing the same crime that you publicly accused me of......specifically, talking about something you cannot possibly know,
No im not. I know exactly what is happening with cool joules setup-->which is what you commented on.
Quoteand so that you know, I am referring to my bench!
And i was not. I was referring to the DUT,and the comment you posted under that very thread.--->nothing to do with your bench buddy.
QuoteI have not shared it with you, and it matters very little to me what your connections may or may not have shared with you, you still no nothing about my bench!
Like i said,i !never! commented on anything to do with your bench,i was commenting on the statements directly related to the video and DUT.
QuoteGet this through your thick skin, I made no claims, I made a statement,
Rubbish. Quote: --because this is how its done.
That is a claim,not a statement.
Quotewhether you get it or not, is your problem. I have no beef with you, it's clear you have issues with me, hence your taking my "statement" as an attack. Get over yourself.....its not "your" movement, if you had any sense at all you would "know" my statement COULD NOT, DOES NOT apply to you....SAVVY!
however, felt obligated as
I think your biggest problem EF,is you dont like being wrong,and you hate being corrected. Why not just learn from your mistakes as i have done many times,both here and at OU.com. You will see here many threads where i am learning-take the coils,electric and magnetic field thread for instance-->i continue to learn from my mistakes. You on the other hand love to comment on other peoples work,but have a big hissy fit when others try to correct you. On that note,i have never made comments on your bench work,as we never see any of it--you show nothing.
So how about ! you ! replicate Cool joules DUT,and do some accurate energy(being electrical/magnetic in this case) over time calculations,and then come back and tell us all that this is how it's done.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 22:55:59
Why dont you like posting in this forum EF ?
Erfinder, not EF! Let the assumptions begin....
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 22:55:59
I took nothing out of context.....i posted it just as you stated-
Quote: The small group who are working on a similar project should take note, because this is how its done (I should also say that this isn't limited to any particular switching model, its a free for all when you know what you're doing.
This is your very reply to cool joules statement-->The secondary coil puts out !many many! more times than the primary.
The fact is-it dose not. What is being shown there is a mechanical/visual version of the joule thief-nothing more. You stated that this is how it's done. Maybe you could explain how what is done then,if it dosnt refer to cool joules experiment.
See....your error is to be found in
your assumption to what my statement was referring. Instead of you asking for clarification, you decided to judge as you have been taught by those who have on several occasions handed you your ass. You assume that I am in agreement with his claim, I am not, what my statement referred to were some of the relations found in the rig he demonstrated, yes I could have been more specific, however, such is the case when posting on impulse.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 22:55:59
No im not. I know exactly what is happening with cool joules setup-->which is what you commented on.
This is a repeating pattern with you, "you know exactly what's going on" in everyone's setup....
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 22:55:59
And i was not. I was referring to the DUT,and the comment you posted under that very thread.--->nothing to do with your bench buddy.
We aren't friends guy..I am not your buddy.....
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 22:55:59
Like i said,i !never! commented on anything to do with your bench,i was commenting on the statements directly related to the video and DUT.
Good, you weren't commenting on my bench. However, your failure was in making an assumption regarding my statement, your dislike for me fueled your post. All you had to do was ask for clarification, no, you chose to do what you always do in such instances. You judged first, and are only now asking questions.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 22:55:59
Rubbish. Quote: --because this is how its done.
That is a claim,not a statement.
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about because you don't know what I am referring to, you assume to know what I am referring to. I made a statement, you would have demonstrated great wisdom had you asked for clarification. Had you done so, I would have engaged you with respect, now, you can kiss my ass.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 22:55:59
I think your biggest problem EF,is you dont like being wrong,and you hate being corrected. Why not just learn from your mistakes as i have done many times,both here and at OU.com. You will see here many threads where i am learning-take the coils,electric and magnetic field thread for instance-->i continue to learn from my mistakes. You on the other hand love to comment on other peoples work,but have a big hissy fit when others try to correct you. On that note,i have never made comments on your bench work,as we never see any of it--you show nothing.
Again Brad, it's Erfinder not EF. Where I come from, everyone's wrong. You are in the same boat as everyone else. This is a sinking ship, sailing the high shit seas. That which you hold for gospel, and allow others to shovel down your throat is shit. Can I prove this? Nah..... Do I need to? Nope..... It's pretty clear that mankind has turned this beautiful spaceship into a shit sandwich. I liked you better before you were converted, when being wrong was a matter of opinion, or perspective, theirs not your own. I don't mind being corrected, by a fellow seeker, you are no longer a fellow seeker in my opinion.
You are learning, I agree, you are learning how to forget what attracted you to these types of platforms in the first place....again my opinion. One minute you speak with the authority of one who has it figured out and will in his own time lead the rest to the promise land, and in the next minute you are the bitch of the guy who tells you how to properly make measurements.
I have been around for a while, longer than I care to mention, and one thing I can say with absolute certainty........you aren't the man I once admired and respected.
As far as my presenting my work, you really think I am going to let you call my work rubbish? Do you even hear yourself anymore? Who in the hell do you think you are? Your attitude is worse than that from those few who can and do speak with authority! At least they have the decency, and humility to NOT perform a replication of something that the "KNEW IN ADVANCE or OTHERWISE" would not pan out! No, you do the replication, and piss in the guys face you call peer. I am reminded of the post I made that started this...the comment about it being better to be pissed off than pissed on. You took offense, strange behavior from one who publicly pissed on a fellow peer, literally stating the "truth as you see it" that his work was "rubbish.........It's this type that you have become that keeps me content, I know exactly who to approach and when. As I told you before, you aren't worth the time, not anymore.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.07, 22:55:59
So how about ! you ! replicate Cool joules DUT,and do some accurate energy(being electrical/magnetic in this case) over time calculations,and then come back and tell us all that this is how it's done.
Brad
You assume my work isn't related....you assume I haven't been here...If I were looking for what you and others demonstrate, I would do as you suggest. Fact is Tinman, I'm not, my research is removed from the established. My stuff wouldn't interest you anyway, mindless rubbish.........why in the hell are you still around if you got it all worked out.....(note the lack of question mark.....)
I'm not getting paid for this soooo lets just end it......Savvy!
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.12.07, 13:57:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41cfHcb7qd8
also being discussed here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20335-radiant-spike-puts-out-more-than-current.html?s=b3d60c1a2678c607133a4734070229c0
The efficient energy recovery is always good. And when using square pulse on the coil which got 2 wires in paralel on primary coil bobin (would be 1:1 transformer in other use) the spike from that other coil can be easily passed over diode back to the power supply capacitor for BEMF recovery. This way voids B e d i n i galvanic connection problem.
Also depending on your setup the losses can be minimized then the circuit can run for prolonged time.
P.S> Erfinder and Tinman - the wrestling on the forum never do any good... You better cooperate instead.
@TK
QuoteBut that video... ten and a half minutes I'll never get back. But at least he's got all the ingredients for an Overunity Claim: A maze of colored clipleads, a cheap DMM, some coils and magnets, and of course.... a battery.
You could think of it this way, you have spent decades chasing free energy and gotten nowhere... so what's another 10 1/2 minutes?. I mean really, and I'm just wasting my time responding to your post which I just realized now so Uhm I guess were done.
AC
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.12.08, 00:20:50
I'm not getting paid for this soooo lets just end it......Savvy!
QuoteSee....your error is to be found in your assumption to what my statement was referring. Instead of you asking for clarification, you decided to judge as you have been taught by those who have on several occasions handed you your ass.
By that im guessing you mean-by those who have taught me what i am really seeing,and what is really happening within devices i present? (or so you perceive)
QuoteYou assume that I am in agreement with his claim, I am not, what my statement referred to were some of the relations found in the rig he demonstrated, yes I could have been more specific, however, such is the case when posting on impulse.
One would have thought you would have also pointed out the very important fact that his claim was incorrect. To me(and others) it looked like you were in agreement with him and his claim when you stated-this is how it's done.
QuoteThis is a repeating pattern with you, "you know exactly what's going on" in everyone's setup....
Says the man who said my RT was not in anyway the same as JM's generator.
And 2-if it is obvious,then yes,i can tell you what is happening within some one elses device-such as cool joules latest setup being discussed here O0.
QuoteWe aren't friends guy..I am not your buddy.....
Lol-sorry. I guess it's an Aussie thing,and the context it was written under. Easy to understand as to how you missed the sarcasm.
QuoteQuoteGood, you weren't commenting on my bench. However, your failure was in making an assumption regarding my statement, your dislike for me fueled your post. All you had to do was ask for clarification, no, you chose to do what you always do in such instances. You judged first, and are only now asking questions.
Im asking no question's,nor am i judging. I only commented on your comment.
QuoteAgain, you have no idea what you're talking about because you don't know what I am referring to, you assume to know what I am referring to. I made a statement, you would have demonstrated great wisdom had you asked for clarification. Had you done so, I would have engaged you with respect, now, you can kiss my ass.
How to use the flyback to improve a systems efficiency ?
And i kiss no one's ass !! buddy !!
QuoteAgain Brad, it's Erfinder not EF. Where I come from, everyone's wrong. You are in the same boat as everyone else.
No-i have my own boat O0
QuoteThis is a sinking ship, sailing the high shit seas. That which you hold for gospel, and allow others to shovel down your throat is shit.
Before i comment on this-i will ask for clarification Erfinder. What other's are you referring to that are shoveling shit down my throat ?.
QuoteCan I prove this? Nah..... Do I need to? Nope..... It's pretty clear that mankind has turned this beautiful spaceship into a shit sandwich.
Now that we can agree on.
QuoteI liked you better before you were converted, when being wrong was a matter of opinion, or perspective, theirs not your own.
In the coming month's,you will see that this is not the case Erfinder. Piece by piece we put the puzzle together. Bit by bit-person by person,we see what they !think ! they know,and how they see things as being a reality.
QuoteYou are learning, I agree, you are learning how to forget what attracted you to these types of platforms in the first place....again my opinion. One minute you speak with the authority of one who has it figured out and will in his own time lead the rest to the promise land, and in the next minute you are the bitch of the guy who tells you how to properly make measurements.
Once again-incorrect. I am no one's bitch. As i said,in months to come,you will have to eat your word's,as you have me figured all wrong. Now it is you that have made an incorrect assumption--and a big one.
QuoteI have been around for a while, longer than I care to mention, and one thing I can say with absolute certainty........you aren't the man I once admired and respected.
As i said,soon these words you shall eat.
QuoteAs far as my presenting my work, you really think I am going to let you call my work rubbish?
Once again-wrong. I have seen some of your work,and i have seen no rubbish.
QuoteI am reminded of the post I made that started this...the comment about it being better to be pissed off than pissed on. You took offense, strange behavior from one who publicly pissed on a fellow peer, literally stating the "truth as you see it" that his work was "rubbish.
And who might that have been?.
QuoteIt's this type that you have become that keeps me content, I know exactly who to approach and when. As I told you before, you aren't worth the time, not anymore.
Why? .Because i left the bedini camp behind,and decided to learn-to know what im seeing--no magical radiant energy from a pulse motor that makes it a free energy machine?.
QuoteYou assume my work isn't related....you assume I haven't been here...If I were looking for what you and others demonstrate, I would do as you suggest. Fact is Tinman, I'm not, my research is removed from the established. My stuff wouldn't interest you anyway, mindless rubbish.........why in the hell are you still around if you got it all worked out.....(note the lack of question mark.....)
Why are you here on !! overunity research!! if you do not intend on posting any of your finding--in fact,posting nothing at all but talk.
QuoteI don't mind being corrected, by a fellow seeker, you are no longer a fellow seeker in my opinion.
It a good thing your opinion means nothing to me then O0
QuoteWho in the hell do you think you are?
Brad
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.12.08, 07:10:41
@TK
You could think of it this way, you have spent decades chasing free energy and gotten nowhere... so what's another 10 1/2 minutes?. I mean really, and I'm just wasting my time responding to your post which I just realized now so Uhm I guess were done.
AC
What we could do is see how easy it is to achieve--which is exactly what im going to do now.
I have LEGO lol.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.08, 10:07:19
By that im guessing you mean-by those who have taught me what i am really seeing,and what is really happening within devices i present? (or so you perceive)
One would have thought you would have also pointed out the very important fact that his claim was incorrect. To me(and others) it looked like you were in agreement with him and his claim when you stated-this is how it's done.
Says the man who said my RT was not in anyway the same as JM's generator.
And 2-if it is obvious,then yes,i can tell you what is happening within some one elses device-such as cool joules latest setup being discussed here O0.
Lol-sorry. I guess it's an Aussie thing,and the context it was written under. Easy to understand as to how you missed the sarcasm.
Im asking no question's,nor am i judging. I only commented on your comment.
How to use the flyback to improve a systems efficiency ?
And i kiss no one's ass !! buddy !!
No-i have my own boat O0
Before i comment on this-i will ask for clarification Erfinder. What other's are you referring to that are shoveling shit down my throat ?.
Now that we can agree on.
In the coming month's,you will see that this is not the case Erfinder. Piece by piece we put the puzzle together. Bit by bit-person by person,we see what they !think ! they know,and how they see things as being a reality.
Once again-incorrect. I am no one's bitch. As i said,in months to come,you will have to eat your word's,as you have me figured all wrong. Now it is you that have made an incorrect assumption--and a big one.
As i said,soon these words you shall eat.
Once again-wrong. I have seen some of your work,and i have seen no rubbish.
And who might that have been?.
Why? .Because i left the ###### camp behind,and decided to learn-to know what im seeing--no magical radiant energy from a pulse motor that makes it a free energy machine?.
Why are you here on !! overunity research!! if you do not intend on posting any of your finding--in fact,posting nothing at all but talk.
It a good thing your opinion means nothing to me then O0
Brad
90% of the folks here don't post....I was invited, to this site....duh..... Last I checked, its not a requirement that I share anything, and as I pointed out, to you before, I have no interest in sharing my work with an ass hole who has it all figured out anyway......
I can do this all day if you want, however, lets be adults and just ignore each other....
(Note to self, this is the second time I asked Tinman to drop it....)
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.12.08, 10:19:09
I can do this all day if you want, however, lets be adults and just ignore each other....
Quote
90% of the folks here don't post....I was invited, to this site....duh.....
Yea-stupid me for recommending you C.C
QuoteLast I checked, its not a requirement that I share anything, and as I pointed out, to you before, I have no interest in sharing my work with an ass hole who has it all figured out anyway......
Ah,i see. Resorted to personal insult's now. ;D
Have i resorted to insults--no.
Quote(Note to self, this is the second time I asked Tinman to drop it....)
Your the one hurling insult's EF<--yes,back to EF. I tried to be civil,and call you by the name you requested. But as you have decided to call me name's other than my own(e.g -Ass hole),then EF is the best you get from me. But knock ya socks of EF,call me what you will. If you choose to go off into lala land,in stead of actually learning how things really are,then away you go.
Why am i here-->im here to learn and provide where i can,while you seem to be set in your way's,and have no room for what others have to say. You say-
Quote: you are the bitch of the guy who tells you how to properly make measurements.
Where I come from, everyone's wrong.
You are in the same boat as everyone else.
An ass hole who has it all figured out.
Lol-your a hoot EF :D
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.08, 13:17:02
Yea-stupid me for recommending you C.C
Ah,i see. Resorted to personal insult's now. ;D
Have i resorted to insults--no.
Your the one hurling insult's EF<--yes,back to EF. I tried to be civil,and call you by the name you requested. But as you have decided to call me name's other than my own(e.g -Ass hole),then EF is the best you get from me. But knock ya socks of EF,call me what you will. If you choose to go off into lala land,in stead of actually learning how things really are,then away you go.
Why am i here-->im here to learn and provide where i can,while you seem to be set in your way's,and have no room for what others have to say. You say-
Quote: you are the bitch of the guy who tells you how to properly make measurements.
Where I come from, everyone's wrong.
You are in the same boat as everyone else.
An ass hole who has it all figured out.
Lol-your a hoot EF :D
Brad
You're a barrel of laughs yourself dick.........
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.12.08, 13:24:59
You're a barrel of laughs yourself dick.........
I'll place that one in the file EF,right next to ass hole. O0
Anyway,lets move on as you said.
What do you see in the inductive kickback spike that some of us here may be missing?.
You are right--some years back i too thought that is where the answer was to free energy-a Bedini fan for sure. I watched my charge battery rise in voltage faster than the run battery dropped,and the radiant energy was flowing in. But over time i began to see my batteries going flat,and so i started looking a little closer to what was going on-->surface charge dear watson O0,and so the journey began toward reality. So is it right just to let cool joule continue on his way thinking he is getting more energy out of his secondary that that of what he is putting into the primary?
It is much like taking a large hammer,and hitting a sheet of glass at a very slow speed,only to find the glass sheet dose not shatter. But then we take a very small hammer,and give it one quick whack,and the glass shatters.
Insults and more insults... I said long time ago that once people realize Newton II law is not properly established in electro-science they will be ready to produce many times the input power.Continous power... from magnetic fields.
Quote from: forest on 2015.12.09, 20:39:57
Insults and more insults... I said long time ago that once people realize Newton II law is not properly established in electro-science they will be ready to produce many times the input power.Continous power... from magnetic fields.
Won't you please step into the spot light and show us how that is done being you seem to know.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.12.09, 22:04:40
Won't you please step into the spot light and show us how that is done being you seem to know.
Yes Forest--please do.
Well that's a relief - for a second then I thought I was going to have to come down there and give both Erfinder & Brad a clip over the ears.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.08, 13:58:05
Anyway,lets move on as you said.
What do you see in the inductive kickback spike that some of us here may be missing?.
Words words and more words.....
I don't think you or anyone for that matter can or even should care about what I think is missing Brad. I once thought that this was a community filled with renegades. I reread the forum creed the other day and cried (figuratively speaking....) When did "free energy research" become methods for proper measurement and measurement practices? As I am a thinking person, I double checked the definition for "energy" and was reminded of the fact that the term itself has no direct relation to measurement or measurement practices....go figure.... It's rather fascinating seeing how the separatists escape the box only to take with them to their camp, tools and practices which are used to build a more ridged box.....(....face palm slap smiley.....) Maybe a name change is in order, or, and this is probably more accurate, I don't belong here. See, I am looking at how one can do work for free, plain and simple. I thought this was the magic frequency, or, the common thought that brought us all together. Equating the idea of "free energy" with "overunity" derailed the runaway train, the train being symbolic of the "free energy" movement.
The greater percentage of "free energy researchers", have given up the quest for free work, or better stated work at no cost to the operator, as the environment does the work. As no concrete methods and or mechanism have been found (no one discussing anything anyway....) and there have been several ideas and concepts surface which lead one to believe that the quest for overunity is far simpler, the majority migrated. In the quest for overunity, the tools for measuring, are the gate keepers, and the laws penned by the elect, are enforced by the skilled with an intensity which can only be compared with fanatical religious fervor. The skilled demand strict adherence to the laws, so we find that we police each other. The hierarchy of the community is established through knowledge of law, the law (words on paper) govern us all. I thought that is what we were ultimately moving away from? Instead its now crystal clear that we only moved away from individuals who didn't know how to, nor cared about performing proper measurements.....the pendulum swings.....we are the extreme opposite of those we left on the other forum, and no different from those who enforce the laws penned by the elect. The neutral position would be ideal....as from that position we could unite the strengths, and avoid the weakness of both.
So what am I doing here if I'm not looking for the consensus idea of free energy or overunity? I have said it before, and I will say it again for posterity. I am not looking for what the majority are looking for. I desire to exchange with researchers, thinkers, philosophers, those who want more than the ability to demonstrate via measurement, more out than in. I want what we were promised, I want devices I contemplate and build to sync with Nature. Scopes and meters aren't going to get us there, and in truth, as I see it, they are the distraction, mechanisms whose true purpose is to prohibit us from looking into the nature of things as we are preoccupied with investigating the nature of the test equipment and procedures. Has anyone noted the trend? All experiments of late are generally well thought out, and well prepared, in the presentation, we are familiarized with the individual's ability to setup testing equipment.....the bulk of the presentation is about the testing equipment...the idea being presented.....is secondary. Most of the brilliant ideas being shared never make it far because the meters indicate that there's nothing to be found in the idea?!?!?! The perfect time for the word "rubbish". You aren't going to get the time spent reading this back....
Measurements are positively not required for a a stand alone device that delivers many Watts for an extended period, well beyond electrochemical storage means , that is for days, weeks or years without running down.
In such a device measurements are not required but they may be helpful!
Even the lowly incandescent bulb can be viewed as a measuring device.
Measurement can be a black hole for time when trying to determine if a device has a marginal COP of 0.99 or 1.01. We then get lost in the measurement technique debates.
I am more interested in devices that show an unrefutable margin of gain, (e.g. similar to the SM offerings) to avoid getting bogged down in measurement debates.
Good measurement technique is a valuable tool to help one make decisions regarding fine tuning of a device, not to be discarded, nor to become a hindrance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The limited bandwidth of the typed or texted word or phrase, and it's inability to fully convey emotions in a brief text bite leads to many misunderstandings and misinterpretations on forums and cellphones everywhere. Strange that we moved from coded message transmission (Morse code) to high bandwidth voice transmission where with telephony, emotional content is clearly conveyed, reducing greatly misunderstanding , then we rolled back a half century to teletype style messaging with its attendant interpretation errors due to lack of emotional vocal inflections and cues.
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.12.10, 12:31:42
Words words and more words.....
I don't think you or anyone for that matter can or even should care about what I think is missing Brad. I once thought that this was a community filled with renegades. I reread the forum creed the other day and cried (figuratively speaking....) When did "free energy research" become methods for proper measurement and measurement practices? As I am a thinking person, I double checked the definition for "energy" and was reminded of the fact that the term itself has no direct relation to measurement or measurement practices....go figure.... It's rather fascinating seeing how the separatists escape the box only to take with them to their camp, tools and practices which are used to build a more ridged box.....(....face palm slap smiley.....) Maybe a name change is in order, or, and this is probably more accurate, I don't belong here. See, I am looking at how one can do work for free, plain and simple. I thought this was the magic frequency, or, the common thought that brought us all together. Equating the idea of "free energy" with "overunity" derailed the runaway train, the train being symbolic of the "free energy" movement.
The greater percentage of "free energy researchers", have given up the quest for free work, or better stated work at no cost to the operator, as the environment does the work. As no concrete methods and or mechanism have been found (no one discussing anything anyway....) and there have been several ideas and concepts surface which lead one to believe that the quest for overunity is far simpler, the majority migrated. In the quest for overunity, the tools for measuring, are the gate keepers, and the laws penned by the elect, are enforced by the skilled with an intensity which can only be compared with fanatical religious fervor. The skilled demand strict adherence to the laws, so we find that we police each other. The hierarchy of the community is established through knowledge of law, the law (words on paper) govern us all. I thought that is what we were ultimately moving away from? Instead its now crystal clear that we only moved away from individuals who didn't know how to, nor cared about performing proper measurements.....the pendulum swings.....we are the extreme opposite of those we left on the other forum, and no different from those who enforce the laws penned by the elect. The neutral position would be ideal....as from that position we could unite the strengths, and avoid the weakness of both.
So what am I doing here if I'm not looking for the consensus idea of free energy or overunity? I have said it before, and I will say it again for posterity. I am not looking for what the majority are looking for. I desire to exchange with researchers, thinkers, philosophers, those who want more than the ability to demonstrate via measurement, more out than in. I want what we were promised, I want devices I contemplate and build to sync with Nature. Scopes and meters aren't going to get us there, and in truth, as I see it, they are the distraction, mechanisms whose true purpose is to prohibit us from looking into the nature of things as we are preoccupied with investigating the nature of the test equipment and procedures. Has anyone noted the trend? All experiments of late are generally well thought out, and well prepared, in the presentation, we are familiarized with the individual's ability to setup testing equipment.....the bulk of the presentation is about the testing equipment...the idea being presented.....is secondary. Most of the brilliant ideas being shared never make it far because the meters indicate that there's nothing to be found in the idea?!?!?! The perfect time for the word "rubbish". You aren't going to get the time spent reading this back....
I took the time to read your post Erfinder-i always will.
You think im all for the main stream--i follow the EE guy's,and take what they say as gospel.
Well im about to turn there measurement procedures upside down. Now you get to see(what you call)the old me. Fact is,that old me never left--he has always been working in the background ,looking for the oddities.
Below are 3 video's,and the circuits to go along with them. Now you see me showing how things are not as cut and dried in measurement procedures as they say.
lets look at a quote from ION-- :Even the lowly incandescent bulb can be viewed as a measuring device.
I agree with this,but there accurate power measurements do not.
Below you see two circuit's. The first is a pulse motor circuit that is for video 1 and 2,and the second circuit is for video 3.
In these video's i show more power dissipated by an incandescent bulb with less current flowing through it,and less power being dissipated by that same bulb with more current flowing through it.
You wanted to see power dissipation that makes no sense,then watch the 3 video's below.
The old me is still here ,alive and well Erfinder O0.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfqvIjABXZ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lElIrYuKGag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMHk3m6DsFE
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.10, 15:21:34
I took the time to read your post Erfinder-i always will.
You think im all for the main stream--i follow the EE guy's,and take what they say as gospel.
Well im about to turn there measurement procedures upside down. Now you get to see(what you call)the old me. Fact is,that old me never left--he has always been working in the background ,looking for the oddities.
Below are 3 video's,and the circuits to go along with them. Now you see me showing how things are not as cut and dried in measurement procedures as they say.
lets look at a quote from ION-- :Even the lowly incandescent bulb can be viewed as a measuring device.
I agree with this,but there accurate power measurements do not.
Below you see two circuit's. The first is a pulse motor circuit that is for video 1 and 2,and the second circuit is for video 3.
In these video's i show more power dissipated by an incandescent bulb with less current flowing through it,and less power being dissipated by that same bulb with more current flowing through it.
You wanted to see power dissipation that makes no sense,then watch the 3 video's below.
The old me is still here ,alive and well Erfinder O0.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfqvIjABXZ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lElIrYuKGag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMHk3m6DsFE
Brad
Now you are talking! Show em! Forgive me if I don't participate in this one. Time is ticking and I would rather devote all I can to finding a means through which I am allowed to sync my apparatus with Nature. If and when the means is found, measuring takes on a new dimension.
It felt really good reading the words "the old me never left".... the words ring genuine. To celebrate this joyous occasion, I ask you to consider accepting my apology. Brad, please forgive me, my behavior was and is inexcusable, and unbecoming of one who considers himself a gentleman. I cannot in all honesty state that I will not loose my cool again, however, following your example, I will do my best to remain respectful.
It never occurred to me that you were the reason why I am here. No idea why, as I have never shown you anything...not directly anyway...I appreciate the vote of confidence.
If you don't mind my saying, in the future, if you have a tech that you are working on that you know you will not disclose completely, don't bring it up. You really pissed me off when you did this, not because I want, or even need what you were working on, on the contrary....I stated before that our work parallels, and your announcement filled me with joy because finally, I had a peer. Then the let down....you went dark. Thats a little history....now to your question...what do I think some may be missing....
- No one considers the differences between an expanding magnetic field, and a collapsing magnetic field. When considering them, the state of the circuit must also be taken into account.
- None seem to care that the collapsing magnetic field is not and cannot be captured and sent to the recovery battery or capacitor, a potential born out of opposition to change is recovered.
- None seem to care that the collapsing magnetic field is changing in strength and time, and as such can and does induce. It's inducing influence is being limited to the coil where the change in current was made.
- None recognize that transformer action, excited by the collapsing magnetic field has the ability to boost recovery.
- None seem to understand that recovery and generation are one. The recovery mechanism teaches how to generate without opposition.
- As the none of the above have been addressed, the LC nature of systems we build has never been addressed.
- As the LC nature of the system has not been found, the concept of geometric resonance cannot be addressed.
- As none of the above have been addressed, the relation between geometry based resonance and text book electrical resonance has not been established.
- As the topic of resonance has not been addressed, the nature of the currents as they move between L and C before, after and at resonance cannot be addressed.
- As the nature of the current moving between L and C has not been addressed, we are not able to appreciate the possibility of the existence of a second mobility, what I call the repelling force.
These are a few of the things which I have found that I feel others are missing, I'm pretty sure you weren't expecting this.... It's not about picking up the text book or measuring anything, its about knowing what you want, and being able to spot those things which impede you from accomplishing your goal. The list is much much longer than this, and I hope you can appreciate why I say that we don't have a second to loose in chasing that which is for lack of a better way of putting it, a distraction.
Regards
Quote from: ION on 2015.12.10, 13:45:29
Measurements are positively not required for a a stand alone device that delivers many Watts for an extended period, well beyond electrochemical storage means , that is for days, weeks or years without running down.
Could not agree more, the necessity for taking measurements to verify COP>1 demonstrates that the system is operating in a COP<1 environment.
Simple observation of excess energy over time doing work, is sufficient proof of observable, replicable and repeatable fact.
Explaining it can be quite a bit more tricky!
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.10, 15:21:34
You wanted to see power dissipation that makes no sense,then watch the 3 video's below.
The only thing I can suggest Brad, is for these types of signals, one really needs a measurement tool capable of true signal integration--much different than average voltage.
My exploration in this topic has led me to three choices:
1. If you have a nice pure sine wave, you can use RMS values for power calculation.
2. If you have a nice clean square wave, you can use average or mean values for power calculation.
3. Anything else requires you somehow get back to the source power and make it flat-line DC and measure there.
Also, attached is the spec sheet for a device I have found rather inexpensive and very valuable for current measurements. I have put it side-by-side against precision current shunts and the accuracy within its frequency range exceeds that of my scope. In certain situations this device really reveals what adding any resistance to a circuit actually does.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.12.10, 15:21:34
The old me is still here ,alive and well Erfinder O0.
Good to have you back Brad. I was starting to worry a little you might be a bit bipolar--all seems to matter what mood you're in when asked a question.
This stuff is more complicated than it looks and having two perspectives active while analyzing a device is helpful--so please try to kick-in both the new and old Brad at the same time if possible. And always remember you have other sets of eyes trying to help and understand with you. I'm pretty sure we all are seeking and hoping for the same goal. It only takes one of us to move us all in the right direction. You have done many experiments I go back and refer to when I'm not sure what I'm looking at. So yes Brad, we do appreciate what you do and together we can get there.
Below is an example where power measurements become non-trivial.
I have a 92uF cap connected to an air-core coil, approximately 17 meters of wire.
Scope channel A (yellow) is monitoring the amperage circulating in the tank circuit.
Scope channel B (blue) is monitoring the current driving the tank circuit from my PA amp.
I have tuned the frequency for the lowest possible amperage required from the PA amp. Notice the signal shape. The actual amperage here is something less than the peak of 2.88 amps and more than 720mA RMS, but by how much...? Very difficult to say unless you integrate across one complete cycle. I seem to recall some high-end scopes can actually do this calculation, but for the rest of us...
However, the amperage in the tank circuit shows a nice sine wave and we can be pretty sure the 10 amps RMS is quite accurate.
Of course the trick now is, can I extract this cyclic 10 amps in the tank circuit without adding any more amps to the driver...? Supposedly Dally did it and Ruslan, but can we do it?
The rms function on a modern sampling 'scope should not be limited to sine waves but should be accurate for any wave shape. Doesn't the SigLent manual make this clear? For a series of sampled values the math rms function should square each value, take the mean value of that series of squared values then take the square root of that mean value. The important thing is to ensure that the samples are taken over a full cycle or a number of full cycles, else there is an error due to incomplete sampling. Alternatively the scope can take a running mean value over many cycles where the error gradually reduces to insignificant proportions. I would guess that the SigLent 'scope does just that. However if the math channel just takes the peak to peak values then uses the sine wave calculation we are all familiar with then of course it is limited to sine waves, but I can't imagine a scope manufacturer doing that.
Smudge
Wow so Camelot is back to its peaceful mode. Great.
@TinMan
In the videos when the cap is connected the scope frequency reading goes blank, so there may be a relation to what you are seeing because of that. I know when the waveform goes off the screen because of a wrong volt/div setting, the readings can go blank, but is it the same when the frequency is not shown or read properly.
I get what you are trying to show there but there are so many variables in this set-up that it would require way to much analysis for me right now as I am busy on some other stuff.
But I think the 1st 25v bulb always had enough amperage already, more then it needs so it is passing some to the motor stage when that cap is shorting out the 1st bulb and battery.
Reading the light bulb through a solar panel is another quandary because it wants light which is really only available via voltage and not a function of amperage when amperage is always sufficient more will not produce more light. I don't think you can equate brighter light with more amperage. Hmmmmmm. It's hard to put in words.
I personally do not work my bench like that. I rarely use the ground clip of the scope except when I know what I am trying to show but in general just the probe is enough to show what is going on at that one point, which I am more interested in then a differential reading across two points.
Guys will say, yes but what you see is not a differential and how do you make due without a reference. Well my reference is the open ground to atmosphere which is the same everywhere around. But more to the point, with just the probe poking around and seeing the different waveforms is the point of reference as a fair comparison by itself.
I think if there was a formal method to use only the scope probe and be able to rationalize those waveforms, because sometimes they show some very crazy results, that guys will get a better heartbeat of their devices then by simply reading differentials. Example: What would you see if the CH1 probe was on that second bulb without ground compared to a CH2 referenced reading across the CVR. hahaha
wattsup
@ Smudge,
To be honest, I'm not real confident in the numbers my scope is showing.
Based on this explanation:
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/accircuits/rms-voltage.html
It seems to be using the graphical method vice the analytical method.
The only way I would know for sure though is to dump the sampling points to a file and calculate them by hand.
Also, this being an AC signal, I would really need to split the numbers into two segments, each showing the direction of current flow. In the case of my PA amp, current that flows back into it is likely just lost and cannot be assumed as power generated by the DUT. Unfortunately, with the current and voltage in-phase, this is real power that could do real work if properly accounted for and distributed as appropriate. This is something Jim Murray talks about when passing source power through a load and to some device. If the device sends power back to the source, in effect the load gets access to this power twice even though it was only generated once.
I guess in summary and to my point, power calculations cannot be assumed see-spot-run based on a few screen shots. Real number crunching and verification is required.
@ Matt,
That RMS Voltage Tutorial treats the "graphical" method as though it only applies to sine waves, and that is not true. That "graphical" method (which is not really graphical but is classical sampling method) applies to square waves, triangular waves, pulses, in fact any waveform. And since your scope performs that "graphical" method you can have confidence that it gives correct results if done over full cycles or as a running value over many cycles, and at sufficiently high sampling rate.
Smudge
I think I'll do some data dumps and do a crosscheck on a spreadsheet.
You've got me very curious now. I have always taken those readings with a grain of salt, but it's looking like I was incorrect in my belief about these modern test instruments.
Thank you Smudge for jumping in here and setting me straight.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.12, 18:00:39
Also, this being an AC signal, I would really need to split the numbers into two segments, each showing the direction of current flow. In the case of my PA amp, current that flows back into it is likely just lost and cannot be assumed as power generated by the DUT.
I got thinking about this some more...
Would it be valid to say that ALL power in AC form flows from the source, like a PA amp? I'm thinking so. Power does not flow from the DUT to the source. All that happens is the source changes direction. So if you have in-phase (voltage & current) sine wave signals, lets say 10 watts peak-to-peak, the actual power delivered by the source can never be zero or negative. You have the positive side PLUS the negative side. So in my example of 10 watts PtP, that's 5 watts (positive) * 0.7071 PLUS 5 watts (negative) * 0.7071 or more simply just 10 watts * 0.7071 = 7.07 watts.
For the case when voltage and current is out-of-phase, I still think the same is true. The only exception (and I'll have to do some serious thinking about this) is if by some means the source is actually working as a sink for part of the cycle, meaning
the voltage kicked-back by the DUT exceeds the voltage of the source, in which case the voltage potential dominates the direction of current flow. I'm pretty sure this is what was happening with Bill Alec's transformer device--he wasn't taking into consideration the direction of current flow due to the difference in voltage potential. Likely he just added the whole cycle to the wrong side of the equation instead of just the small part where the source & sink trade spots.
To me, the part I underlined would be a very difficult measurement to make, because in all likelihood the source and DUT are connected together; you can only get one voltage reading for both, so you have no good way to see the voltage on each the source and DUT. If you could get these two measurements somehow, then you would know exactly when and where voltage domination takes place and thusly true current flow direction.
Just a thought and some ramblings to consider.
M@
@Erfinder
QuoteI don't think you or anyone for that matter can or even should care about what I think is missing Brad. I once thought that this was a community filled with renegades. I reread the forum creed the other day and cried (figuratively speaking....) When did "free energy research" become methods for proper measurement and measurement practices? As I am a thinking person, I double checked the definition for "energy" and was reminded of the fact that the term itself has no direct relation to measurement or measurement practices....go figure.... It's rather fascinating seeing how the separatists escape the box only to take with them to their camp, tools and practices which are used to build a more ridged box.....(....face palm slap smiley.....) Maybe a name change is in order, or, and this is probably more accurate, I don't belong here. See, I am looking at how one can do work for free, plain and simple. I thought this was the magic frequency, or, the common thought that brought us all together. Equating the idea of "free energy" with "overunity" derailed the runaway train, the train being symbolic of the "free energy" movement.
Well said and I couldn't agree with you more. I also like your other comments concerning the phrase "free work" which seems more fitting in light of the quagmire "free energy" has become.
AC
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.14, 01:31:09
I got thinking about this some more...
Would it be valid to say that ALL power in AC form flows from the source, like a PA amp? I'm thinking so. Power does not flow from the DUT to the source. All that happens is the source changes direction. So if you have in-phase (voltage & current) sine wave signals, lets say 10 watts peak-to-peak
You shouldn't talk of power being peak-to-peak, that is reserved for voltage. For your in-phase example the power is delivered in positive bursts, so only peak power is relevant.
Quotethe actual power delivered by the source can never be zero or negative.
Of course it can. When both voltage and current are passing through zero there is no power being delivered. Power is energy flow, and with sine waves the energy is delivered in bursts, each half cycle delivers a known quantity of energy. The rms function is merely a way to create the equivalent averaged power as a continuous energy flow that we know as DC.
QuoteYou have the positive side PLUS the negative side. So in my example of 10 watts PtP, that's 5 watts (positive) * 0.7071
No, you are confusing PtP voltage with PtP power. The O.7071 applies to the peak voltage. That gives you the effective DC voltage that would supply the same average power as the peaky sine wave. If you have a 10 watt peak power (that repeats every half cycle) its average is 5 watts.
QuotePLUS 5 watts (negative) * 0.7071 or more simply just 10 watts * 0.7071 = 7.07 watts.
No. no, no. You can't add power for successive half cycles. If you follow that road you would add another half cycle power and get an even bigger number, and then another and so on. If you want to add things then you add the energy delivered each half cycle. And in the 10 watt peak power example the energy (joules or watt-seconds) in each half cycle is 5 watts multiplied by the half-cycle time . The next half cycle delivers the same amount of energy so the total energy in 1 full cycle is now 5 watts multiplied by the full cycle time. That quantity of energy is delivered at the cycle rate which is the frequency, so the average power becomes 5*cycle-time*frequency and since cycle-time=1/frequency you end up with 5 watts (joules/sec).
QuoteFor the case when voltage and current is out-of-phase, I still think the same is true.
If you take 90 degree phase shift as an example there are points in time where either voltage or current is zero, hence power flow is zero. There are regions where both voltage and current are positive where you get power delivered from source to load. There are regions where both voltage and current are negative where you also get power delivered from source to load. And there are regions where one is positive while the other is negative where power flows from the load back to the source. This is quite often referred to as "reactive power flow" because that 90 degree situation applies to inductors and capacitors that store energy on the forward flows, then give that energy back on the reverse flows.
QuoteThe only exception (and I'll have to do some serious thinking about this) is if by some means the source is actually working as a sink for part of the cycle, meaning the voltage kicked-back by the DUT exceeds the voltage of the source, in which case the voltage potential dominates the direction of current flow. I'm pretty sure this is what was happening with Bill Alec's transformer device--he wasn't taking into consideration the direction of current flow due to the difference in voltage potential. Likely he just added the whole cycle to the wrong side of the equation instead of just the small part where the source & sink trade spots.
To me, the part I underlined would be a very difficult measurement to make, because in all likelihood the source and DUT are connected together; you can only get one voltage reading for both, so you have no good way to see the voltage on each the source and DUT. If you could get these two measurements somehow, then you would know exactly when and where voltage domination takes place and thusly true current flow direction.
But the current direction is easily monitored so you then know in which way the power is flowing.
Smudge
I agree Smudge. I should have stated "per cycle". The chunk of which is transferred in a specific time region/sector.
The last part still has me thinking though. Sure I can collect data that gives me the direction of current flow, but still sitting in my mind is the voltage potential between source and DUT. I also cannot put my finger on why I see AC power differently, I just do. It's not a zero referenced thing. From a single vantage point, it is a push/pull phenomena which takes energy to make happen either way. If we color code two leads from the source as black and white, the source may be pushing on the white lead and pulling on the black lead. Then it changes direction and pushes on the black lead and pulls on the white. Or you could say it does nothing on white lead and only pushes or pulls on the black lead. My gut feeling is the frame of reference is important even though the abstract concept seems the same. My thought on this has to do with charge which we don't normally reference to the environment; instead we just connect the white or neutral lead to ground and call it good. There is no mandate to do this however, giving us the concept of "floating", which we can live with using a DMM, but not so easy with a scope which typically forces us to ground one side. So suppose for a moment we have a source and DUT that is floating and after running for a few minutes we detect the whole DUT is now sitting at a voltage potential of 50,000 volts referenced to earth. How did that happen and where did the charge imbalance come from?
I understand the concept of reactive power, but at the same time I'm not completely convinced. If the voltage at the DUT is lower than the voltage of the source, but the measurement of the current is negative, I'm compelled to think this is not reactive power, i.e. the DUT is not pushing power back to the source. Again, we can't know what those two voltages are exactly at any instant in time because they are hooked together and there is only one voltage to measure. We are kind of stuck. The only way to truly measure the two voltages is to break the circuit and by doing so we completely destroy the natural dynamics of the system, intended or otherwise.
I guess what I'm getting at is a means to validate how systems like Ruslan's, Akula, Dally and many others could possibly operate. Like a lawyer looking for a loophole, I'm trying to see if there is something we missed. A case where if you did standard measuring practices, you would actually kill any OU that might exists, but when simply connected to a light bulb for example, clearly shows something anomalous. If I could actually spot where we go wrong in taking measurements, maybe this could provide a means to build similar devices as well as explain how to properly test and tune an OU device. I know there are several very qualified people (like yourself) that test systems with high precision, known principals and prove beyond any reasonable doubt they operate as designed in the under-unity realm. I ask myself though, could this be the very reason we don't have a flurry of OU devices. Is it possible the very reason we don't is because we don't test and measure them with a framework that allows for the very phenomena we seek to expose itself.
Hey Matt
I enjoyed your last post and your moving in the right direction and I started writing a response and wanted to explain many of the things I know may be going through your mind then deleted it. Then I thought about sending a PM for a chat but that's not going to fly. My only advice would be to stop listening to most of the people here, I know you want to and your looking for direction but they cannot help you only you can... it's that simple.
In fact I was where your at a very long time ago, stuck between a rock and a hard place. Knowing something was seriously flawed in other's logic but not knowing how to proceed and it is not my place to tell you. So here is my answer, your subconscious mind has most likely already put most of the pieces together but your not listening. Your trying to force a square peg into a round hole and it just ain't working because you want to comply and get along with others. The problem here is others cannot help you and these thoughts your having are not theirs because your not them.
So I will put this to you the only way I know how, you need to discard this dependence on others and find your own way. You need to stand on your own two feet and let your own good judgement guide you despite what others may think. Lose the measures and equations and focus on concepts, discard the terminology and semantics and embrace simplicity, do what you do not for yourself but something greater than yourself.
Myself I'm a farm boy, born and raised, but that doesn't mean I'm stupid and every time I look up to the stars I know we were meant for something better than the fucking stupidity I see down here. We are given a short time here and what we do matters, do your own thing, make a few waves, follow your own arrow, have some fun and never follow the beaten path... life is but a brief moment in time my friend...be great in your own time whenever you can.
Merry Christmas and a awesome new year.
AC
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.15, 01:28:26
I agree Smudge. I should have stated "per cycle". The chunk of which is transferred in a specific time region/sector.
The last part still has me thinking though. Sure I can collect data that gives me the direction of current flow, but still sitting in my mind is the voltage potential between source and DUT. I also cannot put my finger on why I see AC power differently, I just do. It's not a zero referenced thing. From a single vantage point, it is a push/pull phenomena which takes energy to make happen either way. If we color code two leads from the source as black and white, the source may be pushing on the white lead and pulling on the black lead. Then it changes direction and pushes on the black lead and pulls on the white. Or you could say it does nothing on white lead and only pushes or pulls on the black lead. My gut feeling is the frame of reference is important even though the abstract concept seems the same. My thought on this has to do with charge which we don't normally reference to the environment; instead we just connect the white or neutral lead to ground and call it good. There is no mandate to do this however, giving us the concept of "floating", which we can live with using a DMM, but not so easy with a scope which typically forces us to ground one side. So suppose for a moment we have a source and DUT that is floating and after running for a few minutes we detect the whole DUT is now sitting at a voltage potential of 50,000 volts referenced to earth. How did that happen and where did the charge imbalance come from?
I understand the concept of reactive power, but at the same time I'm not completely convinced. If the voltage at the DUT is lower than the voltage of the source, but the measurement of the current is negative, I'm compelled to think this is not reactive power, i.e. the DUT is not pushing power back to the source. Again, we can't know what those two voltages are exactly at any instant in time because they are hooked together and there is only one voltage to measure. We are kind of stuck. The only way to truly measure the two voltages is to break the circuit and by doing so we completely destroy the natural dynamics of the system, intended or otherwise.
I guess what I'm getting at is a means to validate how systems like Ruslan's, Akula, Dally and many others could possibly operate. Like a lawyer looking for a loophole, I'm trying to see if there is something we missed. A case where if you did standard measuring practices, you would actually kill any OU that might exists, but when simply connected to a light bulb for example, clearly shows something anomalous. If I could actually spot where we go wrong in taking measurements, maybe this could provide a means to build similar devices as well as explain how to properly test and tune an OU device. I know there are several very qualified people (like yourself) that test systems with high precision, known principals and prove beyond any reasonable doubt they operate as designed in the under-unity realm. I ask myself though, could this be the very reason we don't have a flurry of OU devices. Is it possible the very reason we don't is because we don't test and measure them with a framework that allows for the very phenomena we seek to expose itself.
TK does floating measurements with his scope, he has a scope with a switch installed so he can have the scope floating or grounded just from memory, I think he may have installed it himself or the scope already had it, but I am fairly sure he does do floating measurements when he feels it is proper.
Speaking of incandescent light bulbs and current, I think I remember showing at OU dot com a HF circuit I made up which appeared to pass way more current through a bulb than it was rated for but the phase difference was there and with the power factor considered the bulb was apparently using about the right amount of power for the calculations and a lot of current went "unused" as it were. The bulb itself had a fair bit of inductance considering the frequency I used and that also figured in with the phase difference ect.
I still have the setup in working order, it produced some crazy tank voltages for the turns and input voltage, and perfect sine waves with a DC pulsed input, though they deformed under some loads, lots of resonant rise, the setup was able to hold a resonant rise while powering a fluro tube with real current spikes through the tube but the power the tube consumed was difficult to define for me at the time. I could do better. I think it would all work out considering all energies ect. but that's neither here nor there. The incandescent bulb passing more current than it consumed due to phase difference at HF is noticeable, the inductance of a regular incandescent bulb shows itself, such a bulb can be made to produce spikes just like a coil as well, if it has inductance of course.
Just to clear things up.... as far as "floating" the scope goes.... this can be a dangerous practice. It is much better to float the DUT than to float the scope, from a safety viewpoint. The fact that the scope probe reference leads are connected by the Mains connection to an Earth ground can be a valid concern when testing devices that have unknown, maybe "OU" characteristics. In cases where that issue has been raised, I have sometimes used an isolation transformer that doesn't have a straight-through ground connections as many do, or a "ground-lift" adapter that simply removes the ground prong from the mains connection, or I've used scopes that are actually ground-isolated themselves such as the Fluke 123 or 199 ScopeMeters. This is not my normal practice though.
The "switch" that Farmhand remembers is probably the one on my old Interstate (Racal-Dana) F43 FG, which has a built-in ground isolation switch that floats the signal "ground" or Black, BNC shield, output connection. This switch is normally on the rear panel of the instrument which is hard to get to in my "stack" so I installed a parallel switch on the front panel. Not too many more modern FGs seem to have this feature, I think. Their "black" or BNC Shield outputs are connected permanently to chassis and Mains ground. For instruments that can be isolated, of course whenever the BNC connections are used to connect the FG to another, grounded instrument, this isolation goes away, so one has to be careful using it. The same is true when "floating" the scope itself: as soon as a probe reference lead is connected to something else like another instrument's ground that isn't floated, the isolation is removed.
I've taught myself to be very conscious of inadvertent groundloops of this kind; that is one reason why I'm an advocate of clean, simple layouts so that the chances of making wiring mistakes are minimized. And I do this because of costly mistakes I've made, myself! Fortunately only instruments have suffered, I haven't electrocuted myself (yet)! :D
@Smudge: Unfortunately TinMan's scope has a little weirdness concerning the Math trace. While it does the usual Math functions, like trace multiplication of a voltage and a current trace to obtain an instantaneous power curve, it _does not_ do any automatic Measurements on the resulting Math trace. SO it can't even take the "mean" or average value of the Math trace or p-p or any other measurements of it. This may be a flaw in the old firmware or it may just be a peculiarity of the particular model of the scope. The User's Manual for the 1000 series Atten scopes gives instructions for getting measurements from the Math trace but TinMan's scope doesn't seem to have the necessary options in its Menus, so he can't do it. We've gone over this several times and it doesn't seem to be "user error", it's a flaw in the scope itself. It may be possible to download the channel trace data to a CSV file for a spreadsheet and use the spreadsheet to generate and then get measurements on the Math trace but as far as I can tell he hasn't tried to do this yet. It seems very strange to me that a scope with Math capability can't do measurements on the resulting Math trace, but there it is.
As far as TinMan's experimental setup where the bulb got brighter but the "average" or mean current through it was less... I did repeat and reproduce that effect using a simple pulsed circuit and did some measurements on it. We had a big discussion on OU about it, where we showed that using "average" values of voltage and current gave wrong results when computing average power. My scope, fortunately, does do Measurements on its Math trace, so I was able to show that the bulb brightness in the experiment follows the power, as it should. Less brightness, less power dissipated in the bulb according to the properly obtained and computed measurements, and more brightness = more power dissipated in the bulb. The Red Herring was only using the mean current instead of doing the instantaneous multiplication of current x voltage and then taking the mean of the resulting Instantaneous Power trace.
My bad Tinsel, It was the Function Generator then and not a scope, I remembered falsely. Concerning the Math trace and no calculations my RIGOL DS1052E scope does produce a math trace but there is no way to get any Math measurement from it directly, as a readout. I remember someone urged me to produce a CSV file to get a calculation from it but I had no idea what to do with it. My bad again. I should learn. The limited Math function of my scope is a sore point with me as I thought it would do it considering it offered the Math trace/function. But no dice. I sure cannot afford to buy another better one.
Thanks for clearing that up Tinsel, appreciated muchly. Still no Cheeseburgers ?
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.10, 20:52:02
Below is an example where power measurements become non-trivial.
I have a 92uF cap connected to an air-core coil, approximately 17 meters of wire.
Scope channel A (yellow) is monitoring the amperage circulating in the tank circuit.
Scope channel B (blue) is monitoring the current driving the tank circuit from my PA amp.
I have tuned the frequency for the lowest possible amperage required from the PA amp. Notice the signal shape. The actual amperage here is something less than the peak of 2.88 amps and more than 720mA RMS, but by how much...? Very difficult to say unless you integrate across one complete cycle. I seem to recall some high-end scopes can actually do this calculation, but for the rest of us...
However, the amperage in the tank circuit shows a nice sine wave and we can be pretty sure the 10 amps RMS is quite accurate.
Of course the trick now is, can I extract this cyclic 10 amps in the tank circuit without adding any more amps to the driver...? Supposedly Dally did it and Ruslan, but can we do it?
Matt, in your case I have a couple of comments. First is that I think your scope does have Math capability, so you should be able to generate an instantaneous power curve by multiplying a Current Trace by a Voltage(drop) trace. I don't know if your scope will have the same problem doing measurements on the Math as Brad's scope does (since Atten and Siglent scopes are very similar). I'd suggest that you try and see if you can get a Math trace and then get your automatic Measurements to find the mean and other values for the Math trace.
Performing the instantaneous multiplication of V and I and then getting the mean of the resulting trace is the proper way to compute "average power" with the scope. This is basically integrating over time and then dividing by the time, to obtain an average Joules per second value, ie Watts.
However.... the Current Sense transformer that you cited is probably introducing a Phase Shift of its own in the measurement it displays. You could test for this by doing a comparison of the signal from the CST, with the Vdrop across an inline current-viewing-resistor, on a pulsed or sinusoidal signal, to see if there is a phase shift between the readings. If you do have a phase shift this means that you can't use the Math to do a simple IP multiplication without first correcting for the phase shift.
This is why it is often better to use a CVR rather than a transformer when doing power measurements. Even expensive actual Current Probes will have propagation delays and phase shifts too, so even when using these kinds of probes you still have to be aware of and correct for these factors when using them for Power measurements.
The scope can probably compute the RMS value of a complicated signal properly, so you should be able to use and compare the RMS values of both current signals in your scopeshot. How useful this information is, is questionable though. I'd suggest that you do a proper _average power_ comparison of the input and output powers, since as TinMan's experiment shows, simply comparing the current values can lead you down a garden path chasing after those slippery Red Herrings.
Getting usable power out of the circulating Reactive power in a tank circuit is something I've addressed in some videos. Basically, the tank is being pumped up by the input source to a value where losses equal the input. Extracting power from the tank can be considered a further "loss". So you can extract real power from the tank, and sometimes this substitutes the extraction loss for some other loss like radiation or heat dissipation in the tank, so the tank can stay "pumped up". But if your extraction exceeds the input source, then the tank will deflate, and perhaps the input source will have to supply more power to keep it pumped up, or perhaps the tank will simply collapse.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.12.18, 09:12:13
My bad Tinsel, It was the Function Generator then and not a scope, I remembered falsely. Concerning the Math trace and no calculations my RIGOL DS1052E scope does produce a math trace but there is no way to get any Math measurement from it directly, as a readout. I remember someone urged me to produce a CSV file to get a calculation from it but I had no idea what to do with it. My bad again. I should learn. The limited Math function of my scope is a sore point with me as I thought it would do it considering it offered the Math trace/function. But no dice. I sure cannot afford to buy another better one.
Thanks for clearing that up Tinsel, appreciated muchly. Still no Cheeseburgers ?
Grr. Yes, I've just reviewed the Manual for the DS1052E, and you are right, it does not allow automatic measurements of the Math channel. But it can at least use the Cursors on the math, so you can get Peak and P-P values anyway. I'm flabbergasted that these scopes don't do Measurements on the Math!
Using the saved CSV values requires some experience with spreadsheets like Excel or OpenOffice/LibreOffice. The CSV stands for "comma separated variables" and what you should get is a file that has two columns representing voltage and time-slice, and the files can get very large if you have the entire buffer rather than just the screen data in the file. This "CSV" file is then imported into the spreadsheet program, then you can use the spreadsheet to graph the data, and/or to do various math functions on it.
I couldn't tell from the Manual whether the scope will save a CSV file of the Math trace, or just the CH1 and CH2 traces. If you can generate a CSV file from your scope (just the screen data not the whole buffer!) and attach it to a comment, I can try to put it into a spreadsheet for you and do some analysis and send it back to you so you can see what the process is.
But I've noticed that some people are complaining that some Rigol scopes don't even save the CSV file properly... I haven't tried it on my DS1054Z so I can't speak to that issue yet.
I think if I use the Ultrascope software on a windows computer it will do it, not sure about save to a file on a usb stick but I have a feeling it will, I can't recall. I haven't set anything up at the new residence as yet but I might just get out the scope and an existing circuit I have here just to check the CSV file to usb stick thing. I need to swap some computers around before I can connect a more powerful PC to the scope than the old laptop, the program will run better then, it was laggy at times on the laptop and seemed out of sync with the scope, kinda sus. i'll try it with a better pc and see, maybe the cable could have been faulty too, I think I remember a faulty connection cable.
Yep it does save CSV file to usb stick and it can do displayed or maximum data also there is a PARA SAVE option, which I haven't read about yet. Incidentally I have the scope on an aluminium benchtop and I hung the scope leads over another thing with no power to it but the blue probe tip was touching the bench top without the ground clips touching the bench top which resulted in the scope displaying a 20 v peak to peak sine wave, and when I touched the bench top it increased a fair bit, so obviously if the scope is not used correctly some really inaccurate measurements could be made, or assumed.
I just saved to CSV file what the scope displayed. ;)
P.S. There is a huge difference in file size when comparing the Displayed data CSV file (20 kb) to the maximum data CSV file (268 kb).
Oh I misread your post TK, I'll get a math trace on screen and save the CSV.
Sorry I misread your post, Here is a CSV file with a math trace on the screen AxB. I had to change the file extension/type to bmp as the site won't allow the uploading of CSV files, you should be able to just change it back.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.12.10, 20:52:02
Below is an example where power measurements become non-trivial.
I have a 92uF cap connected to an air-core coil, approximately 17 meters of wire.
Scope channel A (yellow) is monitoring the amperage circulating in the tank circuit.
Scope channel B (blue) is monitoring the current driving the tank circuit from my PA amp.
I have tuned the frequency for the lowest possible amperage required from the PA amp. Notice the signal shape. The actual amperage here is something less than the peak of 2.88 amps and more than 720mA RMS, but by how much...? Very difficult to say unless you integrate across one complete cycle. I seem to recall some high-end scopes can actually do this calculation, but for the rest of us...
However, the amperage in the tank circuit shows a nice sine wave and we can be pretty sure the 10 amps RMS is quite accurate.
Of course the trick now is, can I extract this cyclic 10 amps in the tank circuit without adding any more amps to the driver...? Supposedly Dally did it and Ruslan, but can we do it?
Maybe if the circuit is floating or grounded in a certain way and somehow synced to the house power phase, it might be possible to light some LED's by utilizing some stray mains power.
Matt here is my set up that I first put together for another reason but ended up getting serious about measuring accurately some parts of it in use, in the clip I am using inductive resisters for CSR's but I did order and fit the circuit with non inductive resisters and have it all setup but it is still up the mountain, illness stopped me suddenly from continuing. But I am much better now. I'll go get it tomorrow and see if I can get some accurate measurements from it, one tank each side and each can get up to 1600 volts peak to peak from a 12.5 volt input and less than one amp input (with no load), but being as it operates at about 420 kHz a lot of energy is radiated and measuring is very difficult due to HF stray stuff and all that bizzo. But I'll have another go and see if things look logical with non inductive resisters and a better layout scheme.
HF circuit, you can skip through to see the more interesting parts by using the preview function on you tube-run the mouse along the time line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFOHk_0IDZg
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.12.18, 11:35:32
Sorry I misread your post, Here is a CSV file with a math trace on the screen AxB. I had to change the file extension/type to bmp as the site won't allow the uploading of CSV files, you should be able to just change it back.
OK, so I've played around with your CSV file in the LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet. There is something weird going on for sure. Did you change some scales or something, or maybe the CSV file isn't reflecting the actual channel voltage scalings properly? Do you have a screenshot of the scope's display of this same data? The screenshot up above appears to have more data on it than what I got in the CSV file, did you change the timebase?
Anyway, here's the process. First I just doubleclicked on the CSV file (after changing the extension back to CSV). It automagically opened the LibreOffice Calc spreadsheet import box. Then I imported it, with the "detect special numbers" box checked and the "delimiter" selected as ' . (Otherwise the CSV's expo notation is imported as text rather than numbers.) Then I widened some columns, selected 5 places after decimal for the number format. The file only contained columns for the time and the two channels, no math. So I added a Math column and had it compute the multiplication of the two channels values. Then I made a plot of the data range, using the "x-y" style plot format, and played around with the axes and etc. to get it to display properly. The spreadsheet math functions did not include RMS, so I had to make up a function to compute the RMS values of the two channels data, and this required having the Squared values, so I added two more columns and had the spreadsheet compute the squared values, then I computed =SQRT(AVERAGE(columnvalues)) to get the root-mean-square values for the CH1 and CH2 data. Getting the average Math was easy using =AVERAGE(columnvalues).
But the values for the CH1 and CH2 voltage values that went in in the first place don't seem right when compared to the "Stray Voltage" screenshot you posted up above. So I don't know really what's going on. I'll have to try to set up something on my scope and look at its CSV values to see if I can figure out if there is any discrepancy in scaling, or what.
Umm yes and no to those questions respectively. I may have changed the scales as I produced the waveform in a haphazard way, and no the scope shot above won't match the CSV data because I used a slightly different method, I touched one probe tip to the bench top (aluminium) and the other probe tip to my right thumb. Which produced a more sinusoidal yellow trace, then I think I had to adjust some vertical scaling to fit the wave forms on the screen but keep them as big as possible, and I did not capture a scope shot of that. My head was not completely in the game. I'll look at the file you produced now, I have Apache open office.
P.S. WOW, TK that is frickin awesome, the math trace looks almost exactly like it did on the screen. It is quite possible the scope does produce an accurate CSV file.
I just woke up so I'll go get a circuit from the mountain in a few hours and try to get it set up early tonight, I'll have to get some kind of table down here to work on. I just gotta hope my cars tow ball is high enough to tow a big trailer meant for a 4x4. Then hope they will lend it to me. Or I could just make up a tank and use the function generator to excite it so I can get a sensible pair of wave forms at a lower frequency from a small setup to test the validity of the CSV data, and to learn to do it myself. I don't have a non inductive resister here but I do have one or three spare ones loose up the mountain.
As those were two voltage measurements out of phase the Watts figure is only demonstrative. But it looks very good. I am suitably impressed. O0
First time I've used the scope in almost a year, time fly's.
Thanks, you've kicked started me again, I feel the need to learn how to do that myself quite acutely.