OverUnity Research

As an introduction

Quote
N. E. Zaev's article about using environmental heat to generate electricity was published somewhere in 1991. According to some internet resources, N.E. Zaev was researching this concept since 1960s, probably in cooperation with P.K. Oshepkov, founder of Public Institute of Energy Inversion. I heard first time about Zaev's idea of conversion of environmental heat to electricity about ten years ago. Since that time I made a lot of experiments and attempts to build such device without any significant progress. In desperation, I started studding everything related to magnetic properties, BH curves etc. And accidentally, last year a chain of unexpected events was triggered, which brought me to understanding and some experimental results. Here, in this short summary, I am trying to document a path which one have to follow in order to be able understand and build such device.

Short story here, can post more details if interesting  :)

https://ferd041.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/h2e.pdf

Dear Vasik

you said this at the end of the paper:

And results are quite interesting. I made very rough measurements with oscilloscope, but over all
trend is clearly visible. Despite "common" sense expectation that while increasing current and
core being saturated performance should be decreasing due to higher loses, above schematic
demonstrates an opposite behavior. COP increasing proportionally to maximum magnetization
current.

Is it possible that the heat from the wire wrapped around the core fed extra heat to the core at higher current,which would produce a more linear curve?

I'm sure you probably already considered this.

Since Smudge (Cyril)  is mentioned in the paper, I'm sure he may be able to comment on your work.

Thank you.

P.S. I wonder if you've heard of the Strachan/Aspden device

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=48.0

Quote from: ION on 2017.04.25, 22:15:16
Dear Vasik

you said this at the end of the paper:

And results are quite interesting. I made very rough measurements with oscilloscope, but over all
trend is clearly visible. Despite "common" sense expectation that while increasing current and
core being saturated performance should be decreasing due to higher loses, above schematic
demonstrates an opposite behavior. COP increasing proportionally to maximum magnetization
current.

Is it possible that the heat from the wire wrapped around the core fed extra heat to the core at higher current,which would produce a more linear curve?

I'm sure you probably already considered this.

Since Smudge (Cyril)  is mentioned in the paper, I'm sure he may be able to comment on your work.

Thank you.

P.S. I wonder if you've heard of the Strachan/Aspden device

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=48.0

Dear ION,

Thank you for bringing to my attention Strachan/Aspden device.
I haven't seen it before.

Regarding my experiment, the document I posted to start this topic made some time ago.
I made more accurate measurements since that time and I can see COP about 200%  (output 2 times more than input) for some tests.
It could be that there is some mistake, but I haven't found it yet.
Of course, self runner would eliminate all doubts, but energy levels here too small and so far I was not able achieve looping.

I will provide more details in next posts.

Thanks,
Vasik

I made several steps to improve experiment.

While studying BH curves I was using core tracers and for power measurements flyback-like setup.
I got an idea to combine both in one, something like this (see attached pictures)

Now both currents from primary and secondary can be observer on same sense resistor

I tried this idea and it worked well

attached schematic of experiment, photo of setup and some scope traces

As a next step I decided use MCU to improve measurement.

First build was based on ATmega32 and was not very successful. MCU performance was not enough. So I decided to use ARM based Arduino Duo.
This setup can do about 1Msample/sec with 12 bit ADC resolution.
I use scilab scripts to process results and draw graphs (see attached).

If somebody want repeat this I can share all source codes, detailed schematics etc...

Probably too much information, its difficult to capture several years effort in a few posts :)

Sometimes earlier I made these documents for those who want try this experiment but don't want dive too deep into digital measurements

Attached "How to observe FE at home", "How to observe core cooling"  and "How build your own tiny MEG" ;)

Dear vasik

I appreciate all the work you put into this project and I will take the time to read it all.

I like the current source drive approach.

Regarding your LTSpice drawing with input and output sharing the same current shunt resistor, Could you try something like this to loop the device:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=604.msg9550#msg9550

Rather than wasting power in 100 ohm resistor. I'm sure maybe you have tried something similar.

A suggestion: maybe work at higher voltages where semiconductor diode drops will have less impact on losses might help to get to self runner.

Regards and thanks for sharing this. 200% is impressive.

P.S any Arduino based design is appreciated, code, schematics etc will help me to learn that platform which I am also now tinkering with.

Dear ION,

Yes, I understand that diode introduce significant loses here.
However it is important keep load resistance low, so that time when current flows in secondary much longer than driver pulse.
This is one of important requirements to get FE in such setup. And it makes difficult to loop it.

I made flashlight (just one LED) with similar idea you described but a little different arrangement.
Flyback driven with very short pulses and LED connected so that current goes back into battery.
MCU used here as pulse generator.
I hoped that such arrangement increase battery life. It worked several months but then I got tired waiting and switched it off  :)

Regards,
Vasik

I enjoyed reading your work in this area. Thanks for including the code for the long running light.

Maybe next time you test use a small value charged capacitor as input source instead of batteries so you can easily monitor and measure charge depletion, plus not have to wait so long for it to run down (unless you needed the light).  :)

Regards

QuoteP.S any Arduino based design is appreciated, code, schematics etc will help me to learn that platform which I am also now tinkering with.

I have placed some of my hardware/software/tools projects into git repository
https://github.com/vasik041/openlab

This project probably a good start
https://github.com/vasik041/openlab/tree/master/tools/h_bridge

It's a pulse generator based on Arduino Uno R3 board + LCD board (and also optional two rotary encoders). Originally I used it to control HBridge but it can be used as general purpose pulse generator.
I will be happy answer your questions if some info is missing.

Kind Regards

PS I will post schematic for my setup with Arduino Due later, unfortunately don't have it in presentable form right now

Quote from: ION on 2017.04.28, 05:02:24
I enjoyed reading your work in this area. Thanks for including the code for the long running light.

Maybe next time you test use a small value charged capacitor as input source instead of batteries so you can easily monitor and measure charge depletion, plus not have to wait so long for it to run down (unless you needed the light).  :)

Regards

I can't remove battery, it's a most important component of any Free Energy device :)

On a serious side, with capacitor it last only a minute or so. It was reported by  many people that charging battery with "proper" short pulses can make it work much longer and some even call it FE. There is quite resonable electro chemical explanation behind such behavior. Battery is not capacitor but...my idea with this build was to try whether there is some similar effect in batteries like dielectic absorbtion in capacitors. (Discharging with very short pulse with long pause between pulses so that  battery/capacitor can gain some charge back due to dielectic absorbtion or some similar process). This was outcome of my "discovery" of entropy effects in coils and capacitors. There should be something similar in batteries. It is probably interesting topic for further research, but I personaly believe that FE device should work without batteries and so haven't put much efforts into this.

Regards

QuotePS I will post schematic for my setup with Arduino Due later

Here schematic of setup I use with Arduino Duo
and source code https://github.com/vasik041/openlab/tree/master/ferd/core_tracer

I use setup with two PC. One running host program (https://github.com/vasik041/openlab/tree/master/ferd/core_tracer/host) which allow adjust parameters and present results
Arduino board connected to another PC (old laptop) where running network-to-com bridge (https://github.com/vasik041/openlab/tree/master/ferd/core_tracer/comsrv)
This way risk to damage good PC during experiments is smaller  :)

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.04.28, 07:35:15

I can't remove battery, it's a most important component of any Free Energy device :)

On a serious side, with capacitor it last only a minute or so. It was reported by  many people that charging battery with "proper" short pulses can make it work much longer and some even call it FE. There is quite resonable electro chemical explanation behind such behavior. Battery is not capacitor but...my idea with this build was to try whether there is some similar effect in batteries like dielectic absorbtion in capacitors. (Discharging with very short pulse with long pause between pulses so that  battery/capacitor can gain some charge back due to dielectic absorbtion or some similar process). This was outcome of my "discovery" of entropy effects in coils and capacitors. There should be something similar in batteries. It is probably interesting topic for further research, but I personaly believe that FE device should work without batteries and so haven't put much efforts into this.

Regards

Yes, I understand the claimed effect that only happens with batteries.

Maybe you could explain why you used the capacitor 470uF, extra diode 1N5819 and 4.7 mH inductor to loop energy back to input. A much sharper pulse could occur withe just the LED back to the source battery since one side of your secondary is at ground potential, this is possible.

I would think the much sharper current pulse into the battery without these smoothing components would have more of a chance to stimulate the battery internal chemicals.

Regards

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.04.28, 07:31:03
Originally I used it to control HBridge but it can be used as general purpose pulse generator.

What min/max pulse widths were you able to achieve with it ?
What min/max delays between pulses were you able to achieve with it ?

Quote from: verpies on 2017.04.28, 17:04:47
What min/max pulse widths were you able to achieve with it ?
What min/max delays between pulses were you able to achieve with it ?

Minimal pulse length 62.5ns (with 16MHz oscillator). Pulses generated using 16 bit timer (at low frequencies minimal pulse length will be higher).
Delay 100ms - 5us (frequency 10hz - 200khz)

Quote from: ION on 2017.04.28, 16:55:56
Maybe you could explain why you used the capacitor 470uF, extra diode 1N5819 and 4.7 mH inductor to loop energy back to input. A much sharper pulse could occur withe just the LED back to the source battery since one side of your secondary is at ground potential, this is possible.

Sorry, probably my explanation was not clear.
I wanted test an opposite situation - discharging battery with very short pulses and long pauses between them, so that  battery can gain some charge back due to dielectic absorbtion or some similar process.
4.7mH inductor limiting current peaks to provide small "feedback" current into battery during long pauses between pulses.

Regards

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.04.28, 17:58:48
Sorry, probably my explanation was not clear.
I wanted test an opposite situation - discharging battery with very short pulses and long pauses between them, so that  battery can gain some charge back due to dielectic absorbtion or some similar process.
4.7mH inductor limiting current peaks to provide small "feedback" current into battery during long pauses between pulses.

Regards

Vlasik
Your explanation was very clear when I went back and read it again. My mistake, I had another thought on my mind while I was reading it.  :-[ Sorry.

Might be interesting to try it the other way, though.  ;)

Regards

Weekend project:

Quote
Observing negative resistance

Here proposed very simple approach to demonstrate possibility of creating negative resistance in
coils with ferrite core and obtaining some extra power with it.

Dear Vasik

Thank you for the negative resistance document and sim file, your work on this is appreciated.

Regards

Quote from: ION on 2017.05.13, 13:07:37
Dear Vasik

Thank you for the negative resistance document and sim file, your work on this is appreciated.

Regards

Thank you ION  :)

Thanks for sharing your hard work Vasik very impressive  O0

Quote from: ION on 2017.05.13, 13:07:37
Dear Vasik

Thank you for the negative resistance document and sim file, your work on this is appreciated.

Thank, you too!

Take a look at this thread (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg471611/#msg471611) where we have been charging and discharging motor inductors at different rates and recovering energy stored in it into a capacitor.

Quote from: verpies on 2017.05.14, 14:21:52
Thank, you too!

Take a look at this thread (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg471611/#msg471611) where we have been charging and discharging motor inductors at different rates and recovering energy stored in it into a capacitor.

Thanks, that is interesting design, but I not sure why you expect that it will be OU ?
(I haven't read all 59 pages)

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.05.14, 17:29:25
Thanks, that is interesting design, but I not sure why you expect that it will be OU ?
(I haven't read all 59 pages)

Can anyone summarize the final result and where the thread went?

Quote from: ION on 2017.05.14, 17:41:28
Can anyone summarize the final result and where the thread went?

Hi Folks,

The thread at overunity.com Verpies referred to in his post #22 above deals with adding captured flyback energy to the input in an appropiate way to improve the efficiency of a motor, I am not sure where overunity expectation comes into picture.  Here is Luc's results:

http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg476756/#msg476756 (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg476756/#msg476756)   

However, the measured 10% improvement Luc received was limited by the fact that his comparison (unmodified) motor had only 1000 RPM due to lack of correct control circuit for it. See his and my consecutive posts under his post I linked above. 

Itsu also did tests, he may wish to chime in with his results.

Gyula

Thanks Gyula

Well, 10% is certainly an improvement so probably it is patent worthy if all the contributors decided to go that way. Might be a good idea for LUC et al to do a patent search to see if there is any prior art.

Back to the topic I guess.

Regards

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.05.14, 17:29:25
Thanks, that is interesting design, but I not sure why you expect that it will be OU ?
(I haven't read all 59 pages)

I don't remember exactly but that thread had several offshoot threads and I think it started because someone wanted to recover the flyback energy of "back-EMF" from a motor.

I did not aim for OU but was helping them to recover the maximum energy stored in a coil into a capacitor (and measuring it).  This resulted in a slow rising current ramp in the inductor during its charging ...and fast falling current ramp during its discharging.

Such disproportionate inductor current waveforms are also mentioned in your paper (...as well as a cored coil) and that's why I thought it might be relevant.

P.S
^{The only unusual feature of this circuit (http://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/dlattach/attach/154782/image//) is that L2 provides the gate drive voltage for Q3 (this transistor is responsible for resetting/discharging the "recovery capacitor" C2) so L2 takes away the need for a 2nd supply rail.}

Verpies Quote:

QuoteP.S
The only unusual feature of this circuit is that L2 provides the gate drive voltage for Q3 (this transistor is responsible for resetting/discharging the "recovery capacitor" C2) so L2 takes away the need for a 2nd supply rail.

Very nice, a clever circuit design.  O0

Regards

Some more words about negative resistance experiment.

(attached picture: S type negative resistance, region with negative resistance marked with red)

In order to use NR as energy source we can create very short pulse to enter into NR region and "try" be there as long as possible to gain energy as much as possible. This is why such setups always use very short pulses to power the circuit where NDR created (step-down flyback in this particular case).

It is convenient speak about this setup in terms of resistance and negative resistance. These are electronics abstraction terms used to hide actual complex physical process behind the scene. It is fine in standard electronics but usually not ok in case of OU device. We should always remember where negative resistance comes from and why.
In this case it's just different implementation of same idea of CW hysteresis loop and gaining energy from ambient heat through manipulation of magnetic domains of the ferrite core.


BTW It is interesting that this process seems to be quite universal.
If we apply some force (or excitation) to media, nature try compensate our action. But speed of propagation(reaction) is limited by media's properties. If our excitation is short enough, we can gain energy from the media reaction. Examples: electron avalanche in gas discharge, audio shock waves in metals, "radiant" battery chargers etc etc

Hi Vasik,

I've been trying to replicate your test results with the following apparatus that includes a few changes which may be affecting the outcome.  Anyway, after trying several different transformer configurations, this version yields the highest efficiency.

The schematic shows the basic changes as I use a single winding and eliminate the output diode.  M1 and M2 are switched on to provide the charge path for L1 and then switched off while M3 is switched on to provide a reverse current conduction path to ground during the collapse of L1's current thru R1.  Although not lossless, this scheme is extremely efficient.

The core arrangement is seen in the pix below.  The neos are N35, core size is .25" square, and the coil is 150 turns of 5-34 litz with .7 ohm resistance.

The 1st scope pix show the energy required during the charge of L1 from which we can determine to be 7.095 x 32.88e-6 = 233uJ.

The 2nd pix shows the collapse period from which we derive the output energy as .1097^2 x 1.7 x 3.506e-3 = 72uJ resulting in an efficiency of 72/233 = 31%. 

This is far from your results so I'm wondering what it is I'm doing wrong?

Regards,
Pm

Hi Partzman,

Nice setup and thanks for trying replicate this :)

You have driver pulse about 30us and collapse time 2 or 3ms, is this correct ?
What is repetition frequency ?
From scope traces I can say that you saturating core too much. Have you tried change magnets orientation ? Do you see difference ?

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.19, 17:54:50
Hi Partzman,

Nice setup and thanks for trying replicate this :)

You have driver pulse about 30us and collapse time 2 or 3ms, is this correct ?

Yes.

Quote
What is repetition frequency ?

10Hz or 100ms period.  Can be lengthened.

Quote
From scope traces I can say that you saturating core too much. Have you tried change magnets orientation ? Do you see difference ?

OK, I'll try some different orientations and also see if I have any ferrite PMs laying around that might work.  I'll also try various input B levels for comparison.  I have a
flyback core as you used but unfortunately it was CA'd together for a different project!

Regards,
Pm

Quote
Regards,
-V.

To avoid multiple "trials and errors" approach you can try measure you core static BH curve
like it described in FE R&D Basics on page 93 (https://ferd041.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/fe_basics.pdf)
but you need two identical cores.

When you insert magnets you should get curve like this (see attached)
Maximum L on the curve corresponds to current which creates B equals but opposite to magnet.
This is good reference point for next experiments when you pulse core with magnets.

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.19, 19:57:03
To avoid multiple "trials and errors" approach you can try measure you core static BH curve
like it described in FE R&D Basics on page 93 (https://ferd041.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/fe_basics.pdf)
but you need two identical cores.

When you insert magnets you should get curve like this (see attached)
Maximum L on the curve corresponds to current which creates B equals but opposite to magnet.
This is good reference point for next experiments when you pulse core with magnets.

Regards,
-V.

OK, now you've lost me here!  I understand the parametric inductance change in the FE pdf, but the BH curve you show with change from quadrant 3 to quadrant 1 showing an increase in inductance flux at H~0
has me confused!  How did/do you achieve that?

My scope has advanced math so I can measure and display inductance change or flux density with or without any PM in place, but I'm not sure quite how to proceed from here.

Regards,
Pm

Edit:

This is graph for L (inductance) vs I (current).
It is not traditional B(H) curve, sorry for confusion.
But B(H) curve can be derived from it, because  L ~ mu, mu = B / H, H ~ I.

Anyway, purpose of this exercise is to determine how magnet insertion affect B(H) curve.
For this setup magnet should create bias for approximately half of core saturation.

You can try see it on regular B(H) curve but could be difficult.

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: partzman on 2017.11.19, 17:00:20
Hi Vasik,

I've been trying to replicate your test results with the following apparatus that includes a few changes which may be affecting the outcome.  Anyway, after trying several different transformer configurations, this version yields the highest efficiency.

The schematic shows the basic changes as I use a single winding and eliminate the output diode.  M1 and M2 are switched on to provide the charge path for L1 and then switched off while M3 is switched on to provide a reverse current conduction path to ground during the collapse of L1's current thru R1.  Although not lossless, this scheme is extremely efficient.

The core arrangement is seen in the pix below.  The neos are N35, core size is .25" square, and the coil is 150 turns of 5-34 litz with .7 ohm resistance.

The 1st scope pix show the energy required during the charge of L1 from which we can determine to be 7.095 x 32.88e-6 = 233uJ.

The 2nd pix shows the collapse period from which we derive the output energy as .1097^2 x 1.7 x 3.506e-3 = 72uJ resulting in an efficiency of 72/233 = 31%. 

This is far from your results so I'm wondering what it is I'm doing wrong?

Regards,
Pm

I am surprised  that the efficiency is so low Pm.

I have built pulse motors with 60%+ on the output, to that of the input.


Brad

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.20, 05:07:12
This is graph for L (inductance) vs I (current).
It is not traditional B(H) curve, sorry for confusion.
But B(H) curve can be derived from it, because  L ~ mu, mu = B / H, H ~ I.

Anyway, purpose of this exercise is to determine how magnet insertion affect B(H) curve.
For this setup magnet should create bias for approximately half of core saturation.

You can try see it on regular B(H) curve but could be difficult.

Regards,
-V.

OK, now I get it!

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: TinMan on 2017.11.20, 05:36:33
I am surprised  that the efficiency is so low Pm.

I have built pulse motors with 60%+ on the output, to that of the input.


Brad

Yes me too!  I am driving the core pretty hard and I think that is the general problem as Vasik points out.

Regards,
Pm

Edit:  One thing I'll point out is that if I shorten the measurement period of the collapse or output portion of the cycle, it will reach upwards of 50-60% efficiency.  There is a point where maximum efficiency is reached and then declines on either side of that particular point.  I'm sure mathematically this ideal point can be calculated for this type of decay response but I'm not up to it!

Hi Vasik,

I seem unable to see an efficiency above ~45% with my setup no matter what bias levels I use.  So in looking at your tiny "Meg" pdf, are your primary and secondary windings bifilar wound and tightly coupled as I initially assumed?

Regards,
Pm

Hi Partzman,

Yes, just take two wires and wound the coil (do no twist wires).

You can also try adjust load resistor. There is non-linear Pout(Rload) curve, looks like this (attached).

Regards,
-V.

Hi Vasik,

OK, I've reached an efficiency of 84% at this point in time and would like to confirm your measurement protocol.  In your power calculations, I assume you use the mean of the input current and the rms of the load voltage correct?

Regards,
Pm

Hi Partzman,

I calculate input energy as Power supply voltage * Peak current * Pulse time / 2, assuming no serious saturation happen.
Output power estimates as Peak current * Peak current * Output transient time / 10.
Coefficient 10 comes from 2 x 5 T,  2 from integration and 5T is a time required for exponential function to reach 0 (or transient time).

My cheap scope does not calculate RMS very well, it can be used only as a very rough estimation.
If you have really good scope it probably gives better results.

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.21, 16:55:36
Hi Partzman,

I calculate input energy as Power supply voltage * Peak current * Pulse time / 2, assuming no serious saturation happen.

OK I understand.  My input current waveforms however are not linear so using your formula above with the inductance increasing would result in an understated input energy level.

Quote
Output power estimates as Peak current * Peak current * Output transient time / 10.
Coefficient 10 comes from 2 x 5 T,  2 from integration and 5T is a time required for exponential function to reach 0 (or transient time).

Forgive me but I don't understand your method above.  Perhaps it would help if you were to use one of the data columns as an example
from your Meg doc measurements I've attached below.

Quote
My cheap scope does not calculate RMS very well, it can be used only as a very rough estimation.
If you have really good scope it probably gives better results.

Regards,
-V.

Yes, my scope is a Tek MDO3034 and it does give excellent results.

Regards,
Pm

I assume you referring to table in meg2.pdf

Attaching original .xls file (and .pdf version in case you can't open .xls files)

In this calculations I used divide by 12 coefficient for output power calculations (not 10) as theory suggests.

-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.21, 20:01:15
I assume you referring to table in meg2.pdf

Attaching original .xls file (and .pdf version in case you can't open .xls files)

In this calculations I used divide by 12 coefficient for output power calculations (not 10) as theory suggests.

-V.

Hi Vasik,

Thanks for clarifying your procedure to calculate the power levels.  Using your protocol, I've attached scope shots below of the same transformer design and circuit I've been testing that will allow us to determine the variables to use in your equations.  For the record, the load resistance in this case is 16.94 ohms non-inductive.

The pulse repetition time Ts = 50ms = 50000us and the power supply Ups = 30v dc.

The remaining parameters are pulse duration Tp = 11.12us, peak input current Imax = 0.106A, peak output voltage Uout = 1.74v, and the output transient time Tout = 1.068ms = 1068us.  Therefore, the input duty factor Q = Tp/Ts = 0.0002224 and the output duty factor Qo = Tout/Ts = 0.02136.

The input power in mw is Ps = Ups * Imax/2 * Q * 1000 = 30 * .106/2 * 0.0002224 * 1000 = .354mw.

The output power in mw is Pout = Uout * Uout * Qo * 1000/12 = 1.74 * 1.74 * 0.02136 * 1000/12 = 5.39mw.

So, using your method the COP = Pout/Ps = 5.39/.354 = 15.22 .

For comparison, my method to determine the COP using energy levels is as follows- 

Measure the mean input energy using the scope pix "Vt Tp".  The Math channel(red) indicates a mean power of 1.494 watts over the period of 11.12us resulting in an input energy level of 16.61uJ.

The output is measured by taking the rms value of the output voltage across the 16.94 ohm load during the collapse time period.  Referencing scope pix "Vt Tout" we see the output voltage on Ch3(pnk) is 0.4582v rms and the period is 1.068ms, so the output energy level is .4582^2 / 16.94 * 1.068e-3 = 13.24uJ.

Using my method the COP = 13.24/16.61 = .80 .  These energy levels could be converted to power levels over the pulse repetition time Ts with the same resulting COP as you well know.

So, it appears that our numbers differ due to our different measurement protocols if I have done the calculations above correctly!  The question I guess is which method is correct?

Regards,
Pm

Hi Partzman,

The difference is that I used load resistor 1 ohm and omitted it from formula.

Formula for with Rload will be Pout = Uout * Uout * Qo * 1000/12 / Rload and so


Pout = 1.74 * 1.74 * 0.02136 * 1000/12 / 16.94 = 0.31mw
COP = 0.89

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.22, 04:48:41
Hi Partzman,

The difference is that I used load resistor 1 ohm and omitted it from formula.

Formula for with Rload will be Pout = Uout * Uout * Qo * 1000/12 / Rload and so


Pout = 1.74 * 1.74 * 0.02136 * 1000/12 / 16.94 = 0.31mw
COP = 0.89

Regards,
-V.

Hi Vasik,

In the early morning hours while not sleeping I realized this very thing so the mystery is solved but it still leaves me with sub performance tests.  I'm wondering if copper and core mass differences would matter theoretically as your core/coil combo in your Meg2 pdf is considerably larger than my current test transformer?  Your ratio of core/pm area is greater than my setup as well so I think I need to try a larger core.

As a side note, in the past while running experiments with certain powdered metal cores, I noticed this possible adiabatic demagnetization.  If a given coil/core was fed with a constant current 'x' for a period of time and then allowed to collapse, the energy was slightly greater than that measured from the same coil/core when ramped to the peak current level 'x' from a dc supply.  At the time I thot this was some kind of flux delay but now I wonder!?  I will revisit those tests.

Regards,
Pm   

Not quite related maybe but I saw once a patent when similar computation was done and claiming it is useful efficient usage of energy. It was some quite old patent when the input was high frequency DC pulses of much higher voltage then normally applied for common electric appliances for 230V AC. It was like 320-400VDC in very sharp strange pulses - according to patent resulting in the sam energy conversion output (heat or light) with lower energy input.

Hi Vasik,

Update, I've been able to reach a COP = .963 with much fine tuning using an optimum load of 113 ohms with the 1/4" square core arrangement but don't seem to be able to reach any higher efficiency!

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2017.11.22, 13:28:45
Hi Vasik,

[snip]

As a side note, in the past while running experiments with certain powdered metal cores, I noticed this possible adiabatic demagnetization.  If a given coil/core was fed with a constant current 'x' for a period of time and then allowed to collapse, the energy was slightly greater than that measured from the same coil/core when ramped to the peak current level 'x' from a dc supply.  At the time I thot this was some kind of flux delay but now I wonder!?  I will revisit those tests.

Regards,
Pm

FWIW, here are some results of my earlier tests of profiling a T225-26B powdered iron core under the conditions I mentioned above.

200ma    delta = 1.11
300ma    delta = 1.13
400ma    delta = 1.15
....
1000ma  delta = 1.24

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2017.11.22, 13:28:45
I'm wondering if copper and core mass differences would matter theoretically as your core/coil combo in your Meg2 pdf is considerably larger than my current test transformer?

Hi Partzman,

Yes, according to my understanding core volume is important here. Core is a "working body" in such setups where actual energy gain happens.

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: forest on 2017.11.22, 14:37:50
Not quite related maybe but I saw once a patent when similar computation was done and claiming it is useful efficient usage of energy. It was some quite old patent when the input was high frequency DC pulses of much higher voltage then normally applied for common electric appliances for 230V AC. It was like 320-400VDC in very sharp strange pulses - according to patent resulting in the sam energy conversion output (heat or light) with lower energy input.

I think application of short and very strong force (pulses in case of electronic setups) can be used to construct devices for extracting energy from all kinds different media. I think that this is a universal method. Reason why it works is that speed of media reaction on such "disturbance" is limited (depends on media) and we can use reaction of the media to perform useful work.

Quote from: partzman on 2017.11.22, 16:37:52
Hi Vasik,

Update, I've been able to reach a COP = .963 with much fine tuning using an optimum load of 113 ohms with the 1/4" square core arrangement but don't seem to be able to reach any higher efficiency!

Regards,
Pm

So you got nice very efficient converter :) Now you can try optimize it even more.
Such high load resistor suggest that you have too big coil inductance. Perhaps you can try reduce number of turns e.g. by half.
Inductance will be smaller and so maximum power transfer point will occur with smaller load resistance.
Smaller resistance will allow you have longer transient time (so heat can perform more work)
and on the primary side you also will need shorter pulse.
Something like this :)

Quote from: partzman on 2017.11.22, 17:24:16
FWIW, here are some results of my earlier tests of profiling a T225-26B powdered iron core under the conditions I mentioned above.

200ma    delta = 1.11
300ma    delta = 1.13
400ma    delta = 1.15
....
1000ma  delta = 1.24

Regards,
Pm

Powdered iron is very perspective material for experiments because it has much higher permeability (but I not sure about losses)...


Edit: PS If you have IR thermometer than you probably can see that core cools down in such mode (you need run it for a while to see the effect)

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.22, 19:04:34
So you got nice very efficient converter :) Now you can try optimize it even more.
Such high load resistor suggest that you have too big coil inductance. Perhaps you can try reduce number of turns e.g. by half.
Inductance will be smaller and so maximum power transfer point will occur with smaller load resistance.
Smaller resistance will allow you have longer transient time (so heat can perform more work)
and on the primary side you also will need shorter pulse.
Something like this :)

Vasik,

OK, I have finally achieved a gain of ~1.03 by dropping the turns, using a complete E core, optimizing Rload, and increasing the supply to 60v dc to reduce the input pulse period that seems to improve the efficiency.  The energy is low level at ~10uJ but real and repeatable.  For maximum accuracy, I have to manually adjust the channel gains on the scope to utilize the full screen 8 bit resolution and for comparison I check against the hi-res mode which is 12 bits minimum but doesn't allow averaging.  They compare favorably.  I'm also using a Tek TCP0020 current probe with auto zeroing that has proven itself to be accurate at these frequencies.

This is still with a modified 1/4" square core so I will now try using a larger core to compare the results.

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2017.11.22, 22:04:56
Vasik,

OK, I have finally achieved a gain of ~1.03 by dropping the turns, using a complete E core, optimizing Rload, and increasing the supply to 60v dc to reduce the input pulse period that seems to improve the efficiency.  The energy is low level at ~10uJ but real and repeatable.  For maximum accuracy, I have to manually adjust the channel gains on the scope to utilize the full screen 8 bit resolution and for comparison I check against the hi-res mode which is 12 bits minimum but doesn't allow averaging.  They compare favorably.  I'm also using a Tek TCP0020 current probe with auto zeroing that has proven itself to be accurate at these frequencies.

This is still with a modified 1/4" square core so I will now try using a larger core to compare the results.

Regards,
Pm

Hi Partzman,

Congratulations and thank you for doing this.
In my experiments E core with small gap in central leg and tiny magnets behaved better. I guess because gap is smaller and magnetic field of permanent magnet not "squeezed" outside. There is lots of improvements of possible but in general it works :)

Regards,
-V.

BTW have you tried reversing magnets polarity ? different magnets size ?

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.23, 04:37:08
Hi Partzman,

Congratulations and thank you for doing this.
In my experiments E core with small gap in central leg and tiny magnets behaved better. I guess because gap is smaller and magnetic field of permanent magnet not "squeezed" outside. There is lots of improvements of possible but in general it works :)

Regards,
-V.

BTW have you tried reversing magnets polarity ? different magnets size ?

Hi Vasik,

It's a pleasure to do the experiments! 

I will have to grind the center leg of the E core for the magnet placement and then lap for a good fit.  I also will try some other configurations I have used in the past such as placing the PMs
outside the core, etc.

Yes, I have tried reversing the magnetic polarity so that the primary bucks or aids the PM core flux if this is what you mean.  If you mean to change the bucking PM pole from north to south, no
I haven't tried this.

At this time I have a rather limited number of neo PM sizes but what I have I hope will be more favorable using larger core sizes.

I'm wondering if instead of using a resistive load for the output, what the results might be if a low voltage sink was used to extend the collapse time?  The output energy could be easily calculated
over the lengthened time period until the secondary current was fully depleted.  I will give this a try.

Regards,
Pm

Hi Partzman,

You have nice attitude. Most people don't like doing experiments and demand ready solutions forgetting how long it takes sometimes from scientific discovery to real applications.

Quote from: partzman on 2017.11.23, 15:02:01
Yes, I have tried reversing the magnetic polarity so that the primary bucks or aids the PM core flux if this is what you mean.

Yes, that is what I mean.

Quote
If you mean to change the bucking PM pole from north to south, no I haven't tried this.

I think there is no difference. I haven't paid attention to this.

Quote
I'm wondering if instead of using a resistive load for the output, what the results might be if a low voltage sink was used to extend the collapse time?  The output energy could be easily calculated over the lengthened time period until the secondary current was fully depleted.  I will give this a try.

You can use electronic load, current sink. It allow you find MPTP easily but I don't think that it will extend collapse time.
May be I miss something ?

Regards,
-V.

Dear Vasik,

i was looking at the meg2.pdf which can be found here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.msg61109#msg61109
and i found that the mentioned core (which is very hard to find if it exists at all) does not match the mentioned magnets.
The used core has a middle gap of 1mm wide (the G1000 part) but the magnets are 1.5mm thick, see below.
So something does not add up, any idea what? 

core E55/21 N27, B66335-G1000-X127                                  = 1mm gap
Q-05-04-1.5-N magnets inserted into core's central leg gap     = 1.5mm wide magnets

Regards Itsu

Dear Itsu,

I am attaching page from EPCOS catalog.
You can also see it online https://en.tdk.eu/download/519704/069c210d0363d7b4682d9ff22c2ba503/ferrites-and-accessories-db-130501.pdf (page 448).

E core consists of two parts. Each part has 1mm gap.
1+1 = 2 > 1.5
Does it add up now ?

Core bought on sale, it is obsolete. E27 is core material replaced by E87 and E97.

Yes, it is very hard to find :-/

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=B66335-G1000-X127&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xepcos+e+core+e55.TRS0&_nkw=epcos+e+core+e55&_sacat=0

Regards,
-V.

Quote1+1 = 2 > 1.5
Does it add up now ?

Almost, still having a 0.5mm difference, but i guess that is ok.  I thought the magnets should fit snuggly inbetween the gap.

Quote
Core bought on sale, it is obsolete. E27 is core material replaced by E87 and E97.

Yes, it is very hard to find :-/

Right, its replaced by N87 material now, guess that that also is of no concern then?
By the way, the ebay link only shows non-gapped cores.


Anyway, thanks for the comments, i will try to locate the correct, or close to, components.

A good source might be this one in the UK:  http://pacecomponents.worldsecuresystems.com/shop     thanks to Grumage


Regards Itsu 

Quote from: Itsu on 2017.11.26, 10:19:20
Almost, still having a 0.5mm difference, but i guess that is ok.  I thought the magnets should fit snuggly inbetween the gap.
Right, its replaced by N87 material now, guess that that also is of no concern then?
By the way, the ebay link only shows non-gapped cores.
Anyway, thanks for the comments, i will try to locate the correct, or close to, components.
A good source might be this one in the UK:  http://pacecomponents.worldsecuresystems.com/shop     thanks to Grumage
Regards Itsu

For experiments you can choose anything you have at hand. No need to search for exact same components.
I do not know if they are optimal. Most probably not.

Regards,
-V.

Thanks -V,   i will try with what i have and see if i also can reach cop >1 with it.

Itsu

Hi Vasik and Itsu,

Attached is a test with a core/pm arrangement that is at least easier for me to construct and tune using the same previously described circuitry.  The core is .25" (6.35mm) square, the end pole pieces are cut out of a donor core, and the pm's are N35.  The pm polarity is such that like poles face the center ferrite so the short legs of the E core are biased either in an aid or buck mode referenced to the coil flux.  The pm's can slide up and down on the ferrite pole pieces for fine tuning the ratio of core/pm saturation.  In this test case, the pm flux aids the coil flux.

I have found that by shortening the input pulse period by increasing the supply voltage while maintaining the same input current peak maximizes the efficiency.  This makes sense IMO if we are charging the coil by an adiabatic means.  The overall period between test sampling is 50ms.

The first scope pix shows the mean input current offset from the probe measurement, and is subtracted from the mean input current if necessary for measurement accuracy.  This is very important in the process of calculating the energy because if not done, you will be chasing your results all over the place.  The scope traces are averaged over 32 cycles minimum.

The second scope pix shows the input measurements and the third pix is the output measurement.  Note that the input current is measured in mean and the output volts in rms.

The load for this test is 65.5 ohms and the coil is 146 turns.  The core is Magnetics "P" material with an initial permeability of ~2500 at 25 degrees C.

The calculated input energy is 7.34 x 3.06e-6 = 22.46uJ and the output energy is 2.121^2/65.5 x 334e-6 = 22.94uJ.  The apparent COP = 22.94/22.46 = 1.0214.

Regards,
Pm

Edit.

Hi Partzman,

Interesting core arrangement, I haven't tried it like this :)
The issue with such setups is that mu of magnet is almost 1 (like an air gap).
But in order to increase useful energy we need reduce it so we get more energy in core and coils.

Losses in coil can be calculated as I^2 R t, so decreasing pulse time you can decrease losses at the same time rising voltage proportionally to achieve same peak current.

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.26, 17:48:03
Hi Partzman,

Interesting core arrangement, I haven't tried it like this :)
The issue with such setups is that mu of magnet is almost 1 (like an air gap).
But in order to increase useful energy we need reduce it so we get more energy in core and coils.

Thanks for the comment!  Yes I understand the mu of the PM but I don't understand what you mean exactly by needing to reduce it, or do you mean to reduce the effects of the low mu on the overall circuit operation?

Quote
Losses in coil can be calculated as I^2 R t, so decreasing pulse time you can decrease losses at the same time rising voltage proportionally to achieve same peak current.

Regards,
-V.

Again I agree, so I re-ran the test with a 60v dc supply to compare the losses in the primary to see if the gain is due to decreased loss in the coil or possibly due to adiabatic charging of the coil.  When keeping the peak input current the same as well as the load used in the 120v dc test, the COP = .9355 with a 60v dc supply.  The dcr of the 146 turn coil is .67 ohms.

In the test posted earlier, the input mean current is 61.05ma for a period of 3.06us resulting in a loss of 8nJ.

Using a 60v dc supply with all else kept the same except the input period, the input mean current is 65.3ma for a period of 6.524us resulting in a loss of 19nJ.  The current measurements in this case should be in rms so we should apply a correction factor but I think as we shall see, the results would be insignificant either way.

So, the gain resulting from the decrease in I^2 R t at 120v dc is ~11nJ.  This is ~.05% of the average input energy.  The gain in COP however is ~(1.02-.94)/.94 = 8.5%.  It would appear the gain increase is coming from some source other than just the decrease in coil loss.

Regards,
Pm     

Quote from: partzman on 2017.11.26, 20:40:16
Thanks for the comment!  Yes I understand the mu of the PM but I don't understand what you mean exactly by needing to reduce it, or do you mean to reduce the effects of the low mu on the overall circuit operation?

Sorry for being unclear. I mean reduce gap occupied with magnets or height of magnets.

See for example this http://www.vias.org/matsch_capmag/matsch_caps_magnetics_chap3_17.html
"Although the air gap has a volume of only 1.1 percent that of the iron, it stores 24.4 times the energy stored in the iron."

Using electric circuit analogy you can think of magnet as current source with high internal resistance and ferrite core like a short circuit for it.

Quote
It would appear the gain increase is coming from some source other than just the decrease in coil loss.

Yes you right. There are two components here. One is losses on coil resistance and other is that making driver pulse shorter we increase ratio
between output and input pulse time. The more this ratio is the more FE we get.

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.11.27, 05:12:26
Sorry for being unclear. I mean reduce gap occupied with magnets or height of magnets.

See for example this http://www.vias.org/matsch_capmag/matsch_caps_magnetics_chap3_17.html
"Although the air gap has a volume of only 1.1 percent that of the iron, it stores 24.4 times the energy stored in the iron."

Using electric circuit analogy you can think of magnet as current source with high internal resistance and ferrite core like a short circuit for it.

Hi Vasik,

OK, I understand now and thanks for the informative link above.

Regards,
Pm

Still waiting for some ordered cores, but meanwhile i was trying to capture the BH curve of an ungapped E-core setup i have.
Both coils are 120 turns of 0.4mm² magnet wire, see picture.

The BH curve is shown in screenshot below.

The idea is to produce an identical BH curve with some gapped E-cores, and then try to manipulate with some magnets in the gap this curve
so it shows the looped curve which is responsable for the extra energy.

Would this be a sensible approach?

Itsu

Hi Itsu,

I not sure what you mean "looped curve" but
in standard situation curve traversed anti-clockwise and area inside the curve corresponds to energy loss.
To achieve energy gain you need traverse curve clockwise.
This can be achieved by inserting magnet and asymmetric pulses (short in, long out).

Regards,
-V.

PS I am attaching Cyril's paper where he explains energy gain/loss. Please read only first 4 pages :)

Vasic,

with "looped curve" i was pointing to the reversed part of the BH curve as mentioned and showed in the h2e.pdf

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2017.11.30, 09:57:52
Vasik,
with "looped curve" i was pointing to the reversed part of the BH curve as mentioned and showed in the h2e.pdf
Itsu

Ok, I see.
In this setup for best performance you need find such magnet/core gap which bias core approximately to half of saturation.

Regards,
-V.

Here the same setup, but now using a similar, but gapped, E-core (4mm gap). I have used the same coils as on the non-gapped E-core above.
This setup is based on the setup used by JL Naudin for his 2SGen tests:  http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm   (2SGen Episode 10:)

Will be manipulating the gap with some magnets, not sure how to find out if the core is half saturated.

Thanks,   regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2017.11.30, 20:13:50
Here the same setup, but now using a similar, but gapped, E-core (4mm gap). I have used the same coils as on the non-gapped E-core above.
This setup is based on the setup used by JL Naudin for his 2SGen tests:  http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm   (2SGen Episode 10:)

Will be manipulating the gap with some magnets, not sure how to find out if the core is half saturated.

Thanks,   regards Itsu

Itsu,

I'm sure Vasik will have more to add to this but IMO you could use the formulae found at this link-

https://www.supermagnete.de/eng/faq/How-do-you-calculate-the-magnetic-flux-density

to calculate the PM requirements based on Br, size and shape, gap, etc, compared to the Bsat of your core material.

In my test set, the overall flux density of the Pm is close to the Bsat of the material so this is not ideal.

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: Itsu on 2017.11.30, 20:13:50
Will be manipulating the gap with some magnets, not sure how to find out if the core is half saturated.

Hi Itsu,

I described the procedure here
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3453.msg65653#msg65653

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: partzman on 2017.12.01, 16:26:16
I'm sure Vasik will have more to add to this but IMO you could use the formulae found at this link-
https://www.supermagnete.de/eng/faq/How-do-you-calculate-the-magnetic-flux-density

In my experience theoretical calculations for magnetic circuits are difficult and give not satisfactory results.
There are many factors which contribute to the issue.
For example small air gap make big difference, but you can't measure it precisely.

Regards,
-V.

Hi Vasik and Itsu,

In my attempts to find different PM/core combos I have discovered a source of measurement error in my previous tests using my circuit as posted. 

The error lies with the slow turn off time of the P-channel mosfet M2 in the "Vasik Test Schematic".  The turn off delay between M1 and M2 is only ~130ns but when the cursors are correctly lined up on the input measurements to account for this, the overall COP<1 in all the tests I'm currently running!  This error was also responsible for the apparent gains at the higher supply voltages due to the reduced input measurement periods which amplified the error.

I have created a gapped (.010") core arrangement wherein a PM is placed between two vertical ferrite poles and this assembly is placed across the core gap.  A separate ferrite pole is placed across the top of the two vertical poles that allows tuning of the amount of PM flux reaching the core.  See pix below.  In this manner the % of coil/PM flux can be set and optimized experimentally.  With this arrangement, I still can not achieve COP>1 with the above error correction.

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2017.12.01, 20:44:19
Hi Vasik and Itsu,

In my attempts to find different PM/core combos I have discovered a source of measurement error in my previous tests using my circuit as posted. 

The error lies with the slow turn off time of the P-channel mosfet M2 in the "Vasik Test Schematic".  The turn off delay between M1 and M2 is only ~130ns but when the cursors are correctly lined up on the input measurements to account for this, the overall COP<1 in all the tests I'm currently running!  This error was also responsible for the apparent gains at the higher supply voltages due to the reduced input measurement periods which amplified the error.

I have created a gapped (.010") core arrangement wherein a PM is placed between two vertical ferrite poles and this assembly is placed across the core gap.  A separate ferrite pole is placed across the top of the two vertical poles that allows tuning of the amount of PM flux reaching the core.  See pix below.  In this manner the % of coil/PM flux can be set and optimized experimentally.  With this arrangement, I still can not achieve COP>1 with the above error correction.

Regards,
Pm

Hi Partzman,

It's good that you found an issue with measurements.
Have you tried measuring BH curve ? Can you see offset created by permanent magnet ?
For me such core setups never worked, I guess because magnet too "far away" and its field get too dispersed...

Regards,
-V.

Edit: I tried draw how it supposed to be, please see attached picture.

Quote from: partzman on 2017.12.01, 20:44:19
Hi Vasik and Itsu,

In my attempts to find different PM/core combos I have discovered a source of measurement error in my previous tests using my circuit as posted. 

The error lies with the slow turn off time of the P-channel mosfet M2 in the "Vasik Test Schematic".  The turn off delay between M1 and M2 is only ~130ns but when the cursors are correctly lined up on the input measurements to account for this, the overall COP<1 in all the tests I'm currently running!  This error was also responsible for the apparent gains at the higher supply voltages due to the reduced input measurement periods which amplified the error.

I have created a gapped (.010") core arrangement wherein a PM is placed between two vertical ferrite poles and this assembly is placed across the core gap.  A separate ferrite pole is placed across the top of the two vertical poles that allows tuning of the amount of PM flux reaching the core.  See pix below.  In this manner the % of coil/PM flux can be set and optimized experimentally.  With this arrangement, I still can not achieve COP>1 with the above error correction.

Regards,
Pm

Nice work PM. Carry on!
Timing issues plague efforts to make good power measurements in the kinds of devices that interest us. You've identified a timing issue related to the circuitry, but when I read this I also thought of timing issues related to scope probes, specifically active probes like differential voltage probes and current probes. As you know these will always have some lag time or latency in what they send to the scope, when compared to ordinary passive voltage probes. This is referred to in the literature as "probe skew". Most modern scopes will have some way, either automated or manual, to "de-skew" channel timing measurements to account for differences in latency between different types of probes connected to different channels of the scope. Probe latency usually won't be as much as 130 ns though! But it can be enough to screw up power calculations involving probes of different latencies.
Even the Rigol 1054z scopes have a manual setting to delay channels for de-skewing purposes. So if we are using an active current probe with, say, 30 ns latency in CH1 and a passive voltage probe with essentially zero latency in CH2, to get accurate power computations we would need to delay CH2 by that same 30 ns in order to synchronize the probes.
(This was one of the errors that Steorn made in their early Orbo magnetic motor testing; they failed to de-skew their active differential and current probe channels to have them properly synchronized.)

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.12.02, 06:09:34
Hi Partzman,

It's good that you found an issue with measurements.
Have you tried measuring BH curve ? Can you see offset created by permanent magnet ?
For me such core setups never worked, I guess because magnet too "far away" and its field get too dispersed...

Regards,
-V.

Edit: I tried draw how it supposed to be, please see attached picture.

Hi Vasik,

I have not yet done a BH curve measurement with this arrangement but was rather using the change in inductance for determining the PM flux offset effects on the core.  With the advanced math on the scope, I can produce an integrated flux waveform that I would like to use as a source for the BH curve rather than external analog components, but I haven't found how the scope will allow this at the moment.  It seems to be fixed on channels 3 and 4 for the XY display.

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.12.02, 11:26:07
Nice work PM. Carry on!
Timing issues plague efforts to make good power measurements in the kinds of devices that interest us. You've identified a timing issue related to the circuitry, but when I read this I also thought of timing issues related to scope probes, specifically active probes like differential voltage probes and current probes. As you know these will always have some lag time or latency in what they send to the scope, when compared to ordinary passive voltage probes. This is referred to in the literature as "probe skew". Most modern scopes will have some way, either automated or manual, to "de-skew" channel timing measurements to account for differences in latency between different types of probes connected to different channels of the scope. Probe latency usually won't be as much as 130 ns though! But it can be enough to screw up power calculations involving probes of different latencies.
Even the Rigol 1054z scopes have a manual setting to delay channels for de-skewing purposes. So if we are using an active current probe with, say, 30 ns latency in CH1 and a passive voltage probe with essentially zero latency in CH2, to get accurate power computations we would need to delay CH2 by that same 30 ns in order to synchronize the probes.
(This was one of the errors that Steorn made in their early Orbo magnetic motor testing; they failed to de-skew their active differential and current probe channels to have them properly synchronized.)

Hi TK,

Yes, I have been victim of probe de-skew many times in the past as you well know.  In my case, it has been the current probes that are the biggest offender.  They can only be trusted with high frequencies or fast rise and fall time waveforms if checked against a good non-inductive CSR at the frequency of interest.

Tek has automatic de-skewing of probes it recognizes but the fact is, each probe is slightly different and each channel can also be slightly different from the rest, so to really get down to optimum accuracy, it's up to the operator to be sure all are synchronized as you point out.

Regards,
Pm 

Quote from: partzman on 2017.12.02, 15:37:28
Hi TK,

Yes, I have been victim of probe de-skew many times in the past as you well know.  In my case, it has been the current probes that are the biggest offender.  They can only be trusted with high frequencies or fast rise and fall time waveforms if checked against a good non-inductive CSR at the frequency of interest.

Tek has automatic de-skewing of probes it recognizes but the fact is, each probe is slightly different and each channel can also be slightly different from the rest, so to really get down to optimum accuracy, it's up to the operator to be sure all are synchronized as you point out.

Regards,
Pm

Could you not just place all your scope probes on the same point of the DUT-say like the CVR,and make sure all of the scopes waveforms from each channel  are in phase ?


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2017.12.04, 04:30:32
Could you not just place all your scope probes on the same point of the DUT-say like the CVR,and make sure all of the scopes waveforms from each channel  are in phase ?


Brad

Usually, yes. In any case a reading from a current probe should be checked against a reading from a CVR if possible, for timing, frequency response, amplitude of response and even _direction_ of response, as it is easy to get the probe the wrong way round on the conductor and not realize it.

Quote from: TinMan on 2017.12.04, 04:30:32
Could you not just place all your scope probes on the same point of the DUT-say like the CVR,and make sure all of the scopes waveforms from each channel  are in phase ?


Brad

Yes. 

Pm

Hello,

I got some free time and decided update my Arduino Due based core tracer. (New software can be found here https://github.com/vasik041/openlab/tree/master/ferd/core_tracer_v2).
While experimenting I found an error in calculations. I did not take into account gain in ADC channel which measure current.
After fixing the error I do not see COP > 100% any more :( It is a little sad, but good that one more mystery solved.
I don't mean that overall idea of device is wrong, but why it was strange that I can't loop it while measurements show big COP.

I think now anyone still interested in getting OU from ferrite + PM setup should concentrate on negative resistance setup.
It still showing some gain.

My apology to everyone who spent time trying replicate my bogus claims.

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.12.23, 10:07:03
Hello,

I got some free time and decided update my Arduino Due based core tracer. (New software can be found here https://github.com/vasik041/openlab/tree/master/ferd/core_tracer_v2).
While experimenting I found an error in calculations. I did not take into account gain in ADC channel which measure current.
After fixing the error I do not see COP > 100% any more :( It is a little sad, but good that one more mystery solved.
I don't mean that overall idea of device is wrong, but why it was strange that I can't loop it while measurements show big COP.

I think now anyone still interested in getting OU from ferrite + PM setup should concentrate on negative resistance setup.
It still showing some gain.

My apology to everyone who spent time trying replicate my bogus claims.

Regards,
-V.

Vasik,

No apology needed as far as I'm concerned!  I have been in this position myself and know how discouraging it can be, but it is just a part of the cost of searching for answers to solve our energy problems.

I am still researching possible OU from ferrite and PMs so I plan to download your software for the Arduino and give it a try.

Regards,
Pm

Simple experiment - flyback and magnet

Graphs show power supply current vs time.
Driver pulse duration 100us. Secondary coil connected to power supply through diode.

blue - coil's field aligned with magnet's field
yellow - no magnet
red - coil's field anti-aligned with magnet

Those small peaks at the beginning are very interesting ;)

QuoteThose small peaks at the beginning are very interesting ;)

Hi Vasik

Indeed interesting. Wondering what happens if the diode is removed and just a resistive load is placed on the secondary?

Hard to account for the blue reversal unless the experiment was altered in some way e.g. reversed coil leads for blue test.

What do you think is causing this artifact?

Regards

Quote from: ion on 2019.03.24, 04:19:00
Hi Vasik
Indeed interesting. Wondering what happens if the diode is removed and just a resistive load is placed on the secondary?
Hard to account for the blue reversal unless the experiment was altered in some way e.g. reversed coil leads for blue test.
What do you think is causing this artifact?
Regards

Hi Ion,

In these three tests the only difference is magnet presence and orientation.
I guess those peaks are "negative resistance" effect caused increased by magnet.
This need to be investigated further.

I am using "looped flyback" setup. It is very nice - I can see magnetization and demagnetization separately and power balance without complex measurements. Removing diode will complicate things.

Regards,
-V.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2019.03.24, 05:48:42
Hi Ion,

In these three tests the only difference is magnet presence and orientation.
I guess those peaks are "negative resistance" effect caused increased by magnet.
This need to be investigated further.

I am using "looped flyback" setup. It is very nice - I can see magnetization and demagnetization separately and power balance without complex measurements. Removing diode will complicate things.

Regards,
-V.

Thanks for supplying the schematic. I get what you are saying about ease of measurement with the diode supply replenishment.

I was just wondering if the artifact went away when the diode was removed (diode capacitance?) I understand that it's removal would complicate power measurement, but power measurement can be a separate issue.

It is very good that you just flipped the magnet rather than swapping the leads to the coil, as swapping coil leads may have altered the stray capacitance coupling.

It will be interesting to see what you discover with further testing.

Thanks for sharing your work.

Regards
ion

Effect of magnet on BH curve

green - no magnet, red - coil's field anti-aligned with magnet, blue - coil's field co-aligned with magnet's field

Edit:

P.S. This is good illustration to avoid common misconception - field can be "neutralized".
No. Fields are independent in linear media.

Collection of BH curves obtained with curve tracer  :)

Tracer upgrade for shorting coils

Recent advances in the area: CW BH loop and "extra" output current

:)

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2020.10.26, 20:39:00
Recent advances in the area: CW BH loop and "extra" output current

:)

Wow, this is interesting!  I and others I'm sure, would like to see the transformer/coil assembly you used to accomplish this.  O0

Regards,
Pm

This particular traces were obtained with N30 ring core and small ferrite magnet.
Core was sawn to allow magnet freely insertion.
Similar results obtained with ferrite rods (e.g. from magnet antenna).
In opposite to my "common sense" it appeared that open magnetic circuit is important :)

Regards,
V.

Edit: Other important factor is core thickness, if one take too thick core it will be very difficult to saturate it.
To see full BH curve in my case current about 20A-40A is required. If you take smaller core 5-10A will be enough.

I made some improvements to my negative resistance experiment.
It is easier observe NR if we add several impulses together.
He is a simple test schematic I use and example scope traces from it.
Effect is quite small, about 0.4milliW, but quite reliably reproducible now.

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2020.10.26, 20:39:00
Recent advances in the area: CW BH loop and "extra" output current

:)

Vasik,

I'm not sure if anybody is paying attention here but your clockwise BH curve indicates a power gain not loss.  Have you tried more turns on the split toroid to lower the large H field and if so, did you still see a CW BH curve?

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2021.02.10, 20:07:57
Have you tried more turns on the split toroid to lower the large H field and if so, did you still see a CW BH curve?

Hi Pm,

I tried many different setups. This CW BH curve presents mystery which bothering me for many years.
I still haven't decided whether it is real or not. One one side even people who not aware about FE produce
curves like this (see Fig-4.jpg attached). It is not fully CW BH but have two CW regions.
On the other side, I got these fully CW BH curves and it should give energy gain. But I can't see gain directly in flyback like setup. So, may be my measurements flawed? I build three different traces and all of them gives some CW BH curves. I even found old C. Steinmentz paper presenting such curves (pic.png). Also thermodynamics suggests that it should be possible. So, it should be real ? :)
To obtain such curve, core need to be driven into deep saturation. This requires currents like 10 or 30 amps.
This present significant technical difficulty. If we use longer coil, we got significant loses on a wire resistance and issues with parasite capacitance. Another issue is that curve is non linear, and non-linearity is different during magnetization and demagnetization, so analog integrator gives significant error.
This is interesting research topic but unfortunately my resources are limited, so I don't have all answers (yet).

Regards,
Vasik

Vasik,

Thanks for your reply! 

It is interesting that you did not experience any noticeable gain in the flyback arrangement.  I think there are many factors that would affect the result.

Smudge has written papers on the clockwise BH curve so maybe he would have some comments on your work here.

Regards,
Pm

Here updated version of "observing_negative_resistance.pdf"
I can see tiny gain even in LTSpice simulation...

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2021.02.13, 07:52:30
Here updated version of "observing_negative_resistance.pdf"
I can see tiny gain even in LTSpice simulation...

Nice work!  O0  I ran your sim and got a little different results for the dissipation levels as you can see in the attachment.  Still a slight gain of ~1% though.  I'm using version IV with modified trap and alternate solver with all other parms default.

Regards,
Pm

Hi Pm,

I use older LTSpice XVII and I set maximum timestep 10ns, otherwise it "optimize" too much.
Here again, we have a dilema, is this gain real or just a simulation error ? :)

Regards,
Vasik

Hi Vasik,

Yes that is the question especially at these low gain levels.  However, it is worth pursuing IMO!

Regards,
Pm

Vasik,

I have been reading the documentation of your experiments you have posted in this thread and I would highly recommend to all FE researchers to do the same!  You have many interesting results both in simulation as well as bench work.

I too believe that sims can show OU with the proper models and you have worked with mostly non-linear devices.  I would like to ask if you have any idea how to model the MVP or A field?  Same question goes for the E field or S=EXH?  I have a bench device that exhibits a COP of ~1.20 that uses either the MVP or the Poynting flow as the gain mechanism and would love to be able to simulate it but haven't figured out any way to do that at this point in time.

Again, I really appreciate the work you have achieved!

Regards,
Pm   

Hi Pm,

Thank you for nice words, I appreciate it :)
You can just write equations in LTSpice and it will do simulation. Or you could use SciLab (or Mathlab) for generic simulation. If you share more details about you setup, perhaps I get better idea how to simulate it.

BR,
Vasik

Vasik,

OK, attached is a pix of the basic transformer used in my aforementioned bench experiments.  The cores are EC-52 with a center leg gap and the circuit configuration is that the outside coils are the primaries and are connected in a buck mode to drive the center coil secondary.  The secondary Ls is biased by a constant current inductor Lcc with Lcc>>Ls.  The voltage polarity on Ls is such that when the primaries are being charged, the current in Lcc increases and is clamped at the peak of the primary current.  The device gain comes from the differential current in Lcc.

However, if one examines the layout, the MVP of the primaries is in phase with the Ls MVP resulting in a current gain increase in Lcc that is greater than the applied voltage across Lcc using di=E*t/L.  In the pix, the transformer on the right will exhibit a current increase of ~10% while the transformer on the left will exhibit an increase of ~15% or greater and also produces a larger COP.  Therefore my logic says that the additional coil heighth of the primaries and secondaries provides a greater area for the aiding MVP field between the adjacent winds of the primaries and secondary.  I could be wrong of course!

The two core transformer arrangement has reached a COP~1.25 as the best at the moment but I'm sure this can be improved upon over time.

Regards,
Pm

Pm,

Here an example of magnetic circuit simulation in LTSpice.
I used it when I was experimenting with MEG-like setups.
mu.lib defines core non-linearity mu(H) and mu(B).
May be it will be useful for your setup too. You can add electrical part of setup to the same model if you like.

I would suggest analyze some simpler differences between setups e.g. coils inductance and parasite capacitance.
There might be some simpler explanation for observed difference.

BR,
Vasik

Vasik,

OK thanks for the files and info.  I have tried to simulate the transformers with gyrator/capacitor modeling but they come out conservative.  IOW, since the cores are operating in a linear mode as far as I can tell, I assume there must be some outside energy that is not accounted for in the sim.  I used G/C modeling because I couldn't seem to model the 3-leg core properly otherwise!  The G/C modeling will allow for non-linear core characteristics and separate electrical characteristics but I'm not that proficient with it yet.

I have run this arrangement with non-linearity on the bench and there was gain but not as good as the linear modes. 

I will continue to investigate to see if the gain is explainable by more conventional means.

Thanks for your help!  O0

Regards,
Pm

Edit: The nonlinear modes were symmetrical and I am studying your comments on asymmetrical non-linearity as perhaps this may provide additional gain.

Pm,

I've been thinking about your setup and it boils down to this simple arrangement.
We here have a current source (power supply + Lcc) connected to variable Ls and load.
Thinking from this perspective you can clearly see what affects performance: I and dLs/dt.
I hope it make sense :)

BR,
Vasik

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2021.02.14, 20:15:49
Pm,

I've been thinking about your setup and it boils down to this simple arrangement.
We here have a current source (power supply + Lcc) connected to variable Ls and load.
Thinking from this perspective you can clearly see what affects performance: I and dLs/dt.
I hope it make sense :)

BR,
Vasik

Vasik,

I understand your arrangement but my device is different.  In my previous description, consider that Lcc and Ls are charged in series to a given current level then they are clamped to form a current loop.  The primaries are then ramped up with a current with voltage polarity across Ls such that the Lcc/Ls loop current increases.  Basically there is little to no dLs/dt change as the core is sufficiently gapped to remain in a linear mode.

At the end of a given period, the energy in the primaries is returned to the supply, the current in Lcc is clamped and held, and the current in Ls diminishes to a certain level.  When all the energies are summed in this cycle, there is a gain.   

Regards,
Pm

Pm,

I remember you had a thread with description of your device, scope traces etc.
I think it was two years ago. I can't find that thread anymore.
Could you please give a link ?

Thanks,
Vasik

Vasik,

Check your PMs.

Pm

Vasik,

In your pdf "fe_research2" on page 79 your simulated results of your parallel ring MEG design shows an output of ~5.58mJ.  The modulator input appears to be minuscule!!!  Would you care to discuss this?

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: partzman on 2021.03.03, 16:31:33
Vasik,

In your pdf "fe_research2" on page 79 your simulated results of your parallel ring MEG design shows an output of ~5.58mJ.  The modulator input appears to be minuscule!!!  Would you care to discuss this?

Regards,
Pm

Hi Pm,

Yes, simulation looks good :)
It use technique I described to you - there is magnetic circuit and electronic in same model.
As you see, this work from 2012, I spent considerable time researching MEG-like setups.
It is very difficult to make non-standard core configurations with high quality.
My practical results not so good. With setup like this I got only 50% efficiency.
There were some reports about successful experiments e.g. with resonance modulator, but I stopped that line of research.

BR,
Vasik

Quote from: Vasik041 on 2021.03.03, 17:20:37
Hi Pm,

Yes, simulation looks good :)
It use technique I described to you - there is magnetic circuit and electronic in same model.
As you see, this work from 2012, I spent considerable time researching MEG-like setups.
It is very difficult to make non-standard core configurations with high quality.
My practical results not so good. With setup like this I got only 50% efficiency.
There were some reports about successful experiments e.g. with resonance modulator, but I stopped that line of research.

BR,
Vasik

Hi Vasik,

OK, thanks for the explanation and I too agree that accurate models of core configurations are difficult to say the least.  I have preferred to use the current controlled voltage source models which I see you use as well but when non-linear effects are introduced plus PM bias, accuracy seems to be an issue!

Regards,
Pm