Here are some relevant videos:
dr stiffler L3 added to sfm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TC7GgyWluY
SFM slider May 27 part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYk1mAAzGb8 up to 9Mhz sig gen
part 2 may 27: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3zQCg16r7A&t=5s
lidmotor: sfm build driven by a small tesla coil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNMsynVKngo
Below is lidmotor's schema of the Stiffler SFM. What I don't understand is - how is the signal generator (one wire only) "hooked up" to the toroidal coil? can anyone explain that?
It's through the capacitive link between the magnets and core of the toroid . In His latest video he tosses the toroid set up out and used 2 L3's one capacitively linked to the aluminum heat sink on the back of the cree led assembly. It's all interesting but I wonder what point he's trying to make ...
I believe Mark [slyder] has another battery powered build which he will be posting [it works ...
whatever "it" is ??]
and he will also check to see if its working outside..
PS
did also Beg the opinion of a very good RF man to have a look in the next few days
[a moderator here]
Right Chet - Mark says his version is working, and he'll post a vid soon.
My perennial question is - who can measure the Pout versus Pin? should be fun...
Slider's latest vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S0GO3SIGDk&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=9jhTb1FA_aJONIDz-6
As Mark explains in the video, the signal from the signal generator is connected to a set of magnets, and these adhere to the coil - with a plastic sheet in the way. And Al foil behind the LED.
Thus, NO direct electrical connections.
Fun stuff... my question is - what in Pinput (coming from the signal generator)?
Yep, no wires :)
It is indeed capacitive coupling, which in my opinion Dr. Stiffler has made an art form out of.
It boggles the mind to have a connection to magnets, through 2 layers of plastic and have a split wound coil behind that.
An AV plug I can get my head around, but this ? ???
The Pinput is 'likely' higher than recorded...I should use a capacitor to find out and will.
The measurements shown in a previous vid were 1.46V and approx 7mA. Every meter I ever use seems to blow its mA scale before even being used on that setting ! So I have to use the Amps scale. It was checked on 2 different meters though and both tallied.
The squarewave will be half of the actual output if it's duty cycle is 50%. But one thing is, the internal battery is only a 3.7V lipo and an LED connected directly to the sig gen output will only partially light.
The same thing happens with a regular multimeter when on the diode measurement setting.
At 20V+ there would be a whole new lot of results and it would be more in keeping with what we see in Dr. Stffler's vids...that and a lot more tuning up.
Voltage question answered: 1.677V
100uF cap to smooth out the square wave.
I could use a 1 Ohm resistor and do I=V/R for the current. That might be the best way.
In any case, it's low and has to be, because the unit is battery powered :)
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.05.29, 19:38:08
Yep, no wires :)
It is indeed capacitive coupling, which in my opinion Dr. Stiffler has made an art form out of.
It boggles the mind to have a connection to magnets, through 2 layers of plastic and have a split wound coil behind that.
An AV plug I can get my head around, but this ? ???
I don't know if Stiffler has OU, but capacitive coupling sure is neat. :)
Sorry to get off-topic, but if you want a real mind-blower, you can get even simpler. No circuits, no mosfets or anything, just a function generator, an oscilloscope and a small coil.
* Attach scope probes to a small air-core coil.
* Crank your function gen to max and put the frequency above 1mhz, set to square waves. Take the non-grounded lead and place it on the coil. Leave the other lead disconnected.
* Tune around and see the output waveform of your seemingly isolated circuit. :D :D
For the second part
* Attach the function gen lead to some aluminum foil for better surface area and place it on the coil. Still open circuit.
* Attach LED's to your coil, then grab one lead. Your body will ground out the receive circuit and with luck, your LED's will light up. :o :o :o
As far as I know it's not OU by itself (the power in this case is coming from the function generator), but it is definitely interesting that you can transfer real power this way. O0 :o
IMHO the most useful/interesting thing about capacitive coupling is that
the dielectric propagation speed (according to Eric Dollard and others) is superluminal.
Many thanks for the thoughtful responses O0
It can be a little tricky measuring the square-wave "input power", but that's a great start.
It would be straightforward to measure the power delivered by the battery (at V): Pin = V*I (I from Vdrop across a 1-0hm resistor as you say).
Next we will want to measure the output power, Pout. This is simplified because we measure downstream from the FWBR, so we're dealing with DC again.... nice system!
Are you going to try Dr Stiffler's dual-L3 system?
Thanks again, Mark.
here is the latest Vid from Dr. Stiffler [sorry if it is not inline with the present discussion]
But he is stating some secret is revealed ?
he is showing what he calls the Stiffler Diode effect which he wishes to have as a legacy
I would hope generic capacitive coupling is not what he is referring to?
I am sure he is well aware of this .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhdfwmeWevs&t=7s
I can't imagine anyone who has had more scrutiny about his work over the years than Ron
he has always been told its local input... nothing special [capacative coupling]
he claims there is some coupling with more than electrosmog or...radio stations etc etc ?
he is a smart and sincere man..............and a Ham radio guy
hopefully this Stiffler diode effect and the new interest in his work will give more clarity.
I can't imagine a harder thing to measure and qualify ,unless it gets much more output
and steps outa the noise level .
could this shed some light on the Dovada device [Brad's Dad's self running thingamabob ??]
maybe it will turn a corner...
no stone left unturned
respectfully
Chet K
It's not very often i see things that surprise me anymore,but here is one of those very rare WTF moments.
Please know that this was shot with me not being prepared,as when it happened,i just grabbed the camera,and started shooting before the effect disappeared.
No power connected to the circuit--can you guess what might be happening here?
Thanks Chet
And here is the video i forgot to post with the post lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vHhgYW3GDI
Brad
Quote from: Chet K on 2018.05.30, 14:15:00
Will see if there is a circuit
Also to note Brad said he'll add the vid to his comment above in the AM (his time)
Video added now.
Quote from: ION on 2018.05.30, 14:09:07
Stiffler's circuit is easily explained by entry level RF or electronics guys, I'll take a crack at it since I've already simulated the circuit and see nothing special happening.
Ordinary rectifier diodes are not efficient at 15 megahertz so by detuning with two coils slightly off frequency a harmonic current is produced that can be efficiently rectified at 10kHz, the difference frequency. There is nothing exotic or secret about this.
There is no such thing as one wire at those frequencies, you always have a capacitive return to source. If someone can supply the complete circuit, I will add it to the simulation and post it.
Why Stiffler has such a following is beyond me, must be the Dr he puts in front of his name. That does not automatically give him credibility regardless of his flauting title and dazzling array of test equipment. Tools are only as good as the person that knows how to use them and properly interpret their results. I will never give extra reverence to those that expect it because of titles.
Regards
When the frequency or voltage is high enough,you need no wires to transmit power to a receiver.
Love those old foxhole radio's O0
Brad
Ah, but even if all of this is super silly simple to learned RF guys, the rest of the world is stuck with tiny distance Qi devices.
If it isn't a phone sat on a disk of plastic, it's a toothbrush sat in a holder and that is just about the total for wireless electricity.
The same engineers who scoff at what is to everyone else a bit of a difference and a lot more interesting, should be able to use that expertise to replicate Tesla's 'trivial' Patents with equal ease. Perhaps they may produce a simple low parts count circuit to allow a walk in the backyard and place a bulb anywhere in the ground to light it ? It's even practical commercially, saving people from getting electrocuted in the rain and needing no wires for people to trip over.
There is no need for a facepalm at the effects being witnessed, because, suppression or ignorance notwithstanding, noone else is showing resonant tuning to such degrees as the Doc.
Yes, he uses his Doctorate degree in his online experiments, but there's no fanboy following if he is the only one to have shown such dramatic differences to what is 'commonly known'. He shows things, they work.
Fanboys would cheer along stuff that doesn't work - as seen in politics.
Reiyuki has shown another different form above that most won't have been aware of...it's highly interesting as something to explore and perhaps further. Presumably that has also been well known about by RF guys since Adam was a lad !
And, if so, why has the rest of the planet not been made aware of such trivial matters for the past 100 years ?
Why are we stuck with Qi and stupid toothbrushes ?
I see this evolving into a two part "air Plug" [analogous to a plug and wall socket ] or mated set .
nothing happens [no RF burns or other issues ] unless the mated receiving end
is in place ,and only at the receiving end [nothing passing between would be effected]
transmitting power , real power..safely without wires :o
that would be something very special indeed. [copper costs money ...
and if it turns out there is a means to tickle the environment and harvest extra ??
and maybe it could be used to clean the electro smog from areas where it is not needed
if it could harvest this ??
-------------------------------------------------------
Stiffler is an old timer [80's ?] , probably chiseled galena from the quarries for his first radio,
he gets the whole issue here [unbelief in claim]
my mentioning he was a Ham [an old school Ham] was more inline with his good understanding of RF . I am not sure of his formal training [Dr.}
He makes a nice presentation ,and speaks quite well , his demeanor carries a familiar tone,
the tone of a man who really understands what he is talking about .
maybe we can get some good schematics and interaction from him at Stefan's
he surely understands the issue here and the challenges facing him [the facepalms] .
and yes.. one bell ringer for the problems with electro pollution has been Gary Vesperman, he has been telling us for quite some time about the hazards , and many other hazards in the environment
one of his links below [he is another old time OU guy]
http://padrak.com/vesperman/
well
I was going to add
If we harvest enuff from their wireless pollution
we might force them to give us our landline wires back
Gary has been pounding that warning out.
this health issue is huge ,and mostly being steamrolled over ...
I really feel like the tinfoil hat joke of years gone bye...
might actually be a product worthy of marketing
getting a microwave oven running on harvested ambient pollution ..
would turn a few heads ,and maybe educate some to the hazards .
would definitely help sell Tinfoil hats...
maybe they would be called shields ?
"Shieldware" for the Kids...
:o
could sell the heck outa that...and in the process educate the world to what is being hidden from us.
just peruse Gary's site ,and all the scientific Data he has collected.
link again
http://padrak.com/vesperman/
Dr.Stiffler may not be on to something that will revolutionize
"Free Energy" but his projects do stimulate thinking. It would
be very interesting to see what sorts of voltages and signals
appear at various points in his demonstration simplified
circuit in the video. Or to examine with a Spectrum Analyzer
what kind of modulation or inter-modulation may be occurring.
TinMan, your glowing neon is rather puzzling. Notice that
only one of the electrodes in the bulb is glowing. That
would indicate that it is being powered by DC, perhaps
pulses where as shown on your scope, the positive
portion of the wave is much stronger than the negative
portion. Where might that signal be coming from?
Quote from: muDped on 2018.05.30, 18:18:58
Dr.Stiffler may not be on to something that will revolutionize
"Free Energy" but his projects do stimulate thinking. It would
be very interesting to see what sorts of voltages and signals
appear at various points in his demonstration simplified
circuit in the video. Or to examine with a Spectrum Analyzer
what kind of modulation or inter-modulation may be occurring.
Well said. Stiffler is doing everything right, even if his conclusions end up being wrong.
He's building devices, sharing results, posting videos, answering questions, formulating and testing theories. Many experimenters will simply give a few vague hints and then disappear for months.
I'd take 1 Stiffler over 10 Pierre's ;D
I'll have to bench test a few of his setups sometime. They *look* like normal capacitive coupling, but maybe he's actually got something new?
ION - You know, I completely agree about the RF hazards. It is a damn good point.
Personally, I don't carry a cellphone around and won't use one except in an emergency for exactly those reasons.
My position is simply that we need to get to a point where the measurements of the biological effects have a need to be measured. However, if it were profitable to some big conglomerate or other, a study would result in an 'Inconclusive'.
TinMan - Yes the glowing neon. I've watched that video 3 or 4 times and have no clue whatsoever. Only that it was likely raining at the time you ran the experiment ! That seemed to be a theme for odd effects at your place at the time.
new vid discussing measurement issues
around the 2 min Mark a schematic appears with some discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTSMNB4h9U8&t=0s
Since Stiffler's resistance output is rectified, he should try adding an electrolytic capacitor alongside the load resistance and compare the two outputs.
Measuring DC resistance is MUCH more reliable than measuring dynamic waveforms.
He could also measure the power generated by the lights by calibrating their brightness against a bench power supply. x amount of lumens = x watts of power consumed.
I would also try load-testing the function generator across a low-impedance and measure the power output.
QuoteNote: actually the Wavetek is only spec'd at around 4.5 Watts into 50 ohms and maybe a little higher at full 26 volts into his coil. Still more than enough to light those high efficiency Cree LED's to reasonable brightness. The output stage of his Wavetek might possibly be able to swing the full internal supply rails of +/-22 Volts.
I think the 4.5w->50ohm is just the square-waveform spec performance into that impedance. I had an older function generator that would put out 5x its rated power at short-circuit, but the output was more distorted.
(related story)
Years ago I've had a few 'EUREKA!!!' moments on the bench that soon turned out to be measurement errors. One error was caused by excess energy supplied by the function generator, another by an internal resonance with the current meter on the DC source load. It was sure fun having a mirage of overunity for a few hours :P
Nowadays I would not hazard a COP calculation without measuring DC rectified and smoothed inputs and outputs.
I still like his videos though. It's fun to see someone learning the quirks and process hands-on. Builders are the only people that will ever succeed. O0
OK,couldnt help myself :D
The simple stiffler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyX9nRrym3Y
Brad
VERY nice, Brad - two different inductors and an LED bulb... driven by a Freq-generator. :o
Great comments, everyone - thanks. I liked this:
. " Builders are the only people that will ever succeed. O0 "
author=ION link=topic=3628.msg68078#msg68078 date=1527770534]
QuoteWhat happens if you remove the clip lead which is loading the one inductor/LED and just let the inductors and Led be supported by e,g, a nylon fishing line to the LED?
If i let the circuit just lay on my bench,i have to raise the frequency to get the LED to light. If i hold it up by hand via one of the exposed wires,i have to lower the frequency to get the LED to light.
As we know,we are simply decreasing or increasing the size of the capacitance value,where the lower value would be just having the wire of the circuit it self as 1 plate(the other being ground of course),which would require a higher frequency,or having the larger plate,which would be myself holding the device,which would increase capacitance value,thus lowering the resonant frequency.
QuoteBTW, I suspect by now you have solved the mystery of the lighting neon from your other video. Have you?
Well kind of,although im still trying to understand as to how it causes this effect.
I can reproduce the effect,but as yet,do not fully understand as to how it can be this way--i.e,how current can flow in the circuit the way it was hooked up ???
We'll come back to that one day,as it is quite interesting.
Bigger fish to fry ATM. O0
QuoteIf you salvage old CRT monitors or TV's for parts as I do, you will sometimes find on the small board on the neck of the CRT glass tubes that look exactly like a neon, but there is no neon gas in them, they are just spark gaps. Also things that look like small glass diodes will actually be tiny spark gaps. Typically though the protection is done with a plastic device with electrodes precisely spaced and a plastic cover over the body.
I use to salvage them all the time. The loops of copper wire around the monitor it self was ideal for the SSG pulse motors.
But they are getting harder to come across over here now.
QuoteThere is a wealth of interesting components to be had by salvaging old CRT monitors, TV's laser printers etc. I use a heat gun to remove parts from the PCB quickly.
Yep,that is how i use to do it as well O0
I now have a small blower nozzle that attaches to my soldering iron,driven from my compressor.
now i just get the solder to melting point,and hit the air nozzle trigger,and it blows the solder right out to a clean hole.
Brad
Nice Video, Tinman :) :)
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.05.31, 13:11:49
Well kind of,although im still trying to understand as to how it causes this effect.
I can reproduce the effect,but as yet,do not fully understand as to how it can be this way--i.e,how current can flow in the circuit the way it was hooked up ???
IMHO your setup is displaying two different properties.
* First I believe the LED's are being lit by a phase-offset caused by the inductors. Being in series, each inductor causes a current lag, leading to a voltage difference on the LED's. One inductor may cause a 5deg lag and the other 30deg.
You could confirm this by varying the frequency. The brightness on the LED's should vary almost directly proportional to the frequency applied (technically a cosine proportion). Find the peak brightness freq and go from there.
At 1/2 of the peak brightness freq, LED's will be half as bright. At 1.5x peak brightness, LED's will be half as bright. At 2x freq of peak brightness, the LED's will go out entirely. This would be because the phase offset reached 180deg and there is no longer a differential across the leads.
* Second, the neon might be lit due to to HV flyback from the inductors. The inductor flyback will briefly raise voltages to a high level from a ground-perspective, even though there is only a tiny differential between both inductors themselves.
There is probably capacitive coupling as well, and you can verify the proportionality by switching between square and sine waves. Dielectric coupling works best with impulses, so sine waves would drastically diminish the results at the same frequency.
You can also try holding a scope probe near (BUT NOT TOUCHING) the lead. Compare the scope readings between a lit and unlit neon.
With all these complex interactions, even the simplest circuits can be a complex puzzle to break down and fully understand.
QuoteI now have a small blower nozzle that attaches to my soldering iron,driven from my compressor.
now i just get the solder to melting point,and hit the air nozzle trigger,and it blows the solder right out to a clean hole.
Brilliant. O0
Ran a quick test of the Stiffler diode LED test using a cheap LED lamp purchased at the Dollar Tree. The circuit consisted of the LED array, 2-1N4148 diodes, a 330uH series inductor, Rigol DG4162 DDS generator, and Tek scope probes. The resonant frequency with all scope probes connected was 2.277Mhz.
Scope pix and test pix are attached below. CH1(yel) is the input voltage on the single wire from the generator, CH4(grn) is the current probe (that measured both the input current as well as the current thru the 1n4148 diodes on the output), CH3(pnk) and CH2(blu) are the differential probes to measure the voltage difference across the diode array, and the Math(red) channel shows the input and output power levels.
Regards,
Pm
'Lightbulb moment' literally...
Partzman, you've just reminded me of the stock of those bulbs we got a while back for the house. Here was me wondering about the Cree and something similar is sat in the kitchen drawer !
O0
I decided to have a go at Brad's method.
The inductors are regular wound types, 2 different values. It didn't work with the sig gen, but does work with a SWES (Simple Wireless Electricity System).
15 turns bifilar pancake, S9014, diode from battery negative to Emitter, 1.5V AAA
It's kind of neat how no trailing wire or clip lead is needed and it stands up on the coil.
Just simply a fun 5 minute build and i've learned something new from it already. Can't say fairer than that, cheers Brad.
Edit - Just reminded myself that it's similar to the method that Iluzyon1 showed a few years ago. He had just 1 inductor and the LED goes on top.
In my videos on the table, you might have seen a diorama in the background. That's "The Wireless Town", where anything can be placed anywhere and lights up, plus motors can turn and etc, a sort of flea circus thing for wireless power.
The street lamps are built to that single inductor method, housed in black painted thin straws.
Here's one sitting on the same SWES.
The necessary inductors can be _really_ small.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC55DPXSpr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1eMryiU1ro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KMLmpC7-Ls
Interesting - PM and Mark!
TK - there must be a Tesla coil or something outside of the view of the video cam in that first vid (the only one i looked at) - right?
PM: "...using a cheap LED lamp purchased at the Dollar Tree."
Hmmmm... could you be specific about this LED lamp? besides that it cost a dollar? ^-^
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.06.01, 14:00:56
Interesting - PM and Mark!
TK - there must be a Tesla coil or something outside of the view of the video cam in that first vid (the only one i looked at) - right?
PM: "...using a cheap LED lamp purchased at the Dollar Tree."
Hmmmm... could you be specific about this LED lamp? besides that it cost a dollar? ^-^
Yes, the box specs say 120v, 60W equivalent, 8W actual with 800 lumens. It is distributed by Greenbrier Intl and manufactured in China of course. There are 11 leds verses 10 in Dr. Stiffler's Cree and at 60vdc, the LED array draws ~20ma. It is hard to tell from the pix but the LED brightness is far from full intensity by a looong shot! I do have the instruments to measure luminance but the significance is questionable due to LED output variations between DC and pulsed or high frequency. This can be accounted for with the proper manufacturers specs but in this case we have none.
I might add that the output current measurement was taken at the minimum range of the TCP0020 current probe so I would guess the accuracy could be in the +/- 20% range or so.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.06.01, 14:00:56
Interesting - PM and Mark!
TK - there must be a Tesla coil or something outside of the view of the video cam in that first vid (the only one i looked at) - right?
PM: "...using a cheap LED lamp purchased at the Dollar Tree."
Hmmmm... could you be specific about this LED lamp? besides that it cost a dollar? ^-^
Please watch the other two videos. The astute observer will see the applicability to what Stiffler has been showing and claiming. RF oscillators, transmission lines, tuned circuits, filters, etc. along with some mad construction skills and theoretical knowledge that Stiffler will probably never have. Hint: Henry has actually surgically inserted tiny SMD inductors, caps and resistors into the 5mm LED packages themselves.
The Dollar Tree LED bulbs are 60 watt-equivalent, branded Sylvania or unbranded, warm white, non-dimmable, 800 Lumens. I have about a dozen of them.
Quote from: ION on 2018.06.01, 17:24:00
I ran these two sims while back, no need for me to post any more details as the operation has been quite well explained.
In the first case there is a 10kHz difference in resonance between self resonant tanks.
In the second, we have identical tanks but one is loaded with extra capacity to source.
So:
To light a LED lamp you will need:
An LED Lamp
An expensive HF signal generator or stand alone discrete oscillator design that can output several watts
A resonant coil or two
However, I have it from private information that Stiffler will probably be boiling his circuit down even further, eliminating all inductive components and oscillators. See the SFS, Stiffler Final Secret revealed here.
ION,
I'm sorry but your 3rd circuit showing Dr. Stiffler's final secret will never work! It is obvious to the most casual observer that the photons from the LED are directed away from the source V1 and therefore this circuit will only drain the battery over time. If you simply re-position the LED to direct those photons toward V1, the problem is solved. :D
Regards,
Pm
Edit: It should also be noticed that your LED only emits 2 photons so I recommend you change suppliers to Superior Optical Stuff (SOS) and acquire the latest in high photonic output devices.
Was the information gained from 3 sources familiar with the matter ?
That always works for the mainstream media :)
Was the cleaning lady in the movie ? :-\
Yes, just tried that complex circuit and it blew the main house fuse. Also set alight several cars 2 streets away and none right next door. A very strange phenomenon, like half of each car was burnt and not the other half...have seen that somewhere before. Oh and the local high rise office building simply fell down on itself.
Maybe that's why such circuits aren't allowed into society. I'd bet that if they are, they're surrounded in plastic to hide them.
If Stiffler had read Eric Dollard's 'Crystal Radio Initiative' he would probably have a better understanding about the circuits he is building. ;D
(Unless of course I'm completely misinterpreting the effects)
Well, reading this all gave me a hearty laugh - good fun.
All kidding aside - there may be some learning at the core here. O0
O0
Ah wait wait Reiyuki - my Ground outside now is a 7ft copper tube laying sideways about 3ft down. I built that rig that Eric was discussing and have 4x steel and copper rods in a 50ft square. The idea, is to use 2 of them at opposite sides as wireless energy Grounds. So yes, i'd say it's related
:)
Now speaking of learning, i'd like to know if something is right.
It's mathematics :-\
Overview is that the Doc is using approx 13.5MHz to drive his Cree board and noone seems to have a sig gen that goes that high. Nor do we have anything that can run the frequency at 20V.
So, using the old H2Grow crystal oscillator circuit, i've got a 13.4MHz crystal running - Pierce design.
That output will then feed a MOSFET Gate, which switches the power from a cheap Chinese voltage booster, to get the 20V.
Most MOSFETs top out at 10MHz and it's of course too slow.
Checking the specs of A49T N-channels which I have, they seem to be fast enough when looking at the datasheet: http://www.aosmd.com/pdfs/datasheet/AO3404.pdf
I'm looking at the Turn-ON Delay, Rise, Fall and equiv Turn-Off times. All of which totals approx 25ns.
Using this handy site for nanoseconds to MHz: https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-frequency-from-MHz-to-ns(p).html?val=13.4 I get 75ns as the frequency speed needed or bettered for 13.4Mhz.
So that says the A49T(also known as AO3404) should work ?
Gate Threshold appears to be around 1.8V, but am not sure if am reading it right.
Here's the scope shot of the less than stellar cleanliness, will that switch it anyway ?:
Hi Slider,
Your 13.4 Mhz oscillator waveform needs some 'cleaning' to get rid of the two peaks in the positive halfwaves that may trigger your proposed MOSFET switch twice during the positive halfwaves. To do the 'cleaning', just make the coil in the collector (if there is a coil there, lol, there should be) somehow tuneable if possible. But wait,
You could 'crank up' the oscillator amplitude for 'free' by using a tapped tank circuit whereby the collector would be connected to a coil tap so that only 25-30% of the full coil turns would be between the collector and the positive rail and a tuning capacitor would be connected across the full coil to tune it to 13.4 MHz. Of course you would need to tinker with the coil full inductance to bring it to resonate with say a 50 pF to 100 pF variable or trimmer cap or just with a 40 pF trimmer cap. To do this you would need about a 4 uH coil tapped around a quarter part of its full number of turns. (Maybe you have an L meter?)
This way you should have ample peak to peak sine wave voltage across the coil in the order of 10, 15 or 20 Vpp (depends on the Q of the tank and the supply voltage) and of course the capacitive loading nature of Dr Stiffler's circuit as a whole should not appear as a heavy load to the 'hot point' of the LC tank where the other end wire of the coil and the other end of the tuning cap is tied together and is otherwise left 'floating'. If the capacitive loading nature of the Stiffler circuit pulls the LC tank from the crystal resonance, then you can retune the tank by the variable or the trimmer capacitor, watching the waveform on the scope across the coil.
Gyula
Edit to add: if the Dr Stiffler circuit loads down the LC tank amplitude heavily or kills oscillations then you could use your proposed MOSFET amplifier, wiil try to help if needed.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.06.03, 17:27:36
Ah wait wait Reiyuki - my Ground outside now is a 7ft copper tube laying sideways about 3ft down. I built that rig that Eric was discussing and have 4x steel and copper rods in a 50ft square. The idea, is to use 2 of them at opposite sides as wireless energy Grounds. So yes, i'd say it's related :)
Using different metals as grounding materials, I'd say that has a lot of potential (pun intended) ^-^.
If you're going that route, I'd also consider using 'battery' matals from the galvanic series (we're trying to make an earth battery, right?). Nickel+Iron, Zinc+Copper, etc.
So many possible experiments, never enough time. :-\
Quote
Now speaking of learning, i'd like to know if something is right.
Overview is that the Doc is using approx 13.5MHz to drive his Cree board and noone seems to have a sig gen that goes that high. Nor do we have anything that can run the frequency at 20V.
So, using the old H2Grow crystal oscillator circuit, i've got a 13.4MHz crystal running - Pierce design.
That output will then feed a MOSFET Gate, which switches the power from a cheap Chinese voltage booster, to get the 20V.
Most MOSFETs top out at 10MHz and it's of course too slow.
Checking the specs of A49T N-channels which I have, they seem to be fast enough when looking at the datasheet: http://www.aosmd.com/pdfs/datasheet/AO3404.pdf
I'm looking at the Turn-ON Delay, Rise, Fall and equiv Turn-Off times. All of which totals approx 25ns.
Using this handy site for nanoseconds to MHz: https://www.unitjuggler.com/convert-frequency-from-MHz-to-ns(p).html?val=13.4 I get 75ns as the frequency speed needed or bettered for 13.4Mhz.
So that says the A49T(also known as AO3404) should work ?
Gate Threshold appears to be around 1.8V, but am not sure if am reading it right.
Here's the scope shot of the less than stellar cleanliness, will that switch it anyway ?:
Unfortunately I'm not the expert for MOSFETs (still learning the quirks of it myself). I do now know that using a driver helps IMMENSELY. FETs like to be fully on or fully off. Driving them manually is causes increased dissipation in the FET (same as driving them too fast). Mark Snoswell had some good advice here and on OU as to driver and FET selection:
https://overunity.com/3544/materials-parts-and-data/msg56820/#msg56820
https://overunity.com/2872/eldarion-and-bruces-build-of-bobs-energy-converter/msg58345/#msg58345
Best advice I can give is: use a good MOSFET driver at the highest voltage allowed by the FET and driver, and minimize wire length and inductance on the control circuitry. That should at least get you in the ballpark (roughly where I am).
I'm not sure the AO3404 is a good choice. At 30v a BEMF spike from even a mildly inductive load is going to smoke it fast. IRF820 seems to be the industry standard for a lot of people here.
Have fun Slider O0
--------------------------------------
As for Stiffler's latest videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On_ynVaUGHM
I wish he would vary the tuning on his function generator so we can start to isolate the components and action within his circuit.
* Switching between Square and Sine waves will diminish or amplify the capacitive coupling. If the LED's dim switching to sine waves, that would tell you dielectric coupling plays a large role in the effect.
* Dielectric coupling often shows up as tight bands in a circuit. Adjusting the frequency away a few percent would show 'ripples' if the effect is largely dielectric.
* Phase-angle offsets (caused by time-delay between two inductors like in Tinman's circuit) should decline an almost linear to the frequency applied. 1/2 frequency and the LED's should be 1/2 as bright (if the effect is largely inductive). This is because 90deg offset represents the peak phase difference, so 1/2 frequency should be roughly 1/2 brightness (a 45deg offset). 2x frequency should be a 180deg offset and the inductive effects should cancel (predominantly dielectric components would remain).
author=Slider2732 link=topic=3628.msg68118#msg68118 date=1528046856]
QuoteOverview is that the Doc is using approx 13.5MHz to drive his Cree board and noone seems to have a sig gen that goes that high. Nor do we have anything that can run the frequency at 20V.
I do.
20MHz @ 20VPP.
Just to busy with the other project ATM.
Brad
Yesterday, I set up an experiment following TinMan's basic circuit: a signal generator with just the signal wire connected to two small inductors (680uH and 820 uH = what I used) - see photo below. Then each of these were applied to a 120V LED bulb.
As I varied the frequency, I was a bit surprised to see the bulb light up (it is a red+blue LED bulb) at a very sharp frequency... right around 1.98MHz. It was necessary for me to hold the bulb as shown, so somehow I was part of the circuit (probably capacitative coupling).
Playing with this for just a few minutes, changing the wave form and the frequency (running at 20V), the poor sig-gen failed... sigh! The screen just flashes light, no data displayed anymore... But I could see that it worked, and I'm not giving up on this approach... Just need a more robust signal-generator, I think. (Any suggestions?)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.06.12, 13:27:12
Yesterday, I set up an experiment following TinMan's basic circuit: a signal generator with just the signal wire connected to two small inductors (680uH and 820 uH = what I used) - see photo below. Then each of these were applied to a 120V LED bulb.
As I varied the frequency, I was a bit surprised to see the bulb light up (it is a red+blue LED bulb) at a very sharp frequency... right around 1.98MHz. It was necessary for me to hold the bulb as shown, so somehow I was part of the circuit (probably capacitative coupling).
Playing with this for just a few minutes, changing the wave form and the frequency (running at 20V), the poor sig-gen failed... sigh! The screen just flashes light, no data displayed anymore... But I could see that it worked, and I'm not giving up on this approach... Just need a more robust signal-generator, I think. (Any suggestions?)
I would say that-along with those two inductors,and the inductive circuit inside the bulb,you sent high voltage inductive spikes back into your sig gen,and fried it.
The SG i have is quite robust,and was less that 300 AU dollars from ebay.
It will pump out 200mA at 20v.
Brad
I have that exact generator but have not had any problems with it........yet.
Maybe a good idea to buffer these experiments.
That's a really good thought ???
Would a simplified buffer for purely protection be a signal diode and an NPN transistor ?
A very kind subscriber on Youtube had a similar thought about signal generators and decided I should build a capable one..keeping the result. It's AD9850 based as the signal generator, that ties to an Arduino and a 1602 2 line display. They go as high as 70MHz for sine wave and are 10/14 bit resolution devices.
Total cost is about $35, but they do have to be built from the parts.
There is the large problem with such a solution of the output needing to be ramped up to 20V, otherwise it's something tiny like 2V.
Good progress with running the much more common 2 pin crystals.
I found a circuit by K5FOBS here:
http://jaunty-electronics.com/blog/2012/08/simple-oscillator-as-crystal-tester/
A very simple and effective circuit for driving practically any 2 pin crystal !!!
It works wonderfully.
Have tested loads of them and all work, with a clean wave output at the correct frequencies.
Video of it running and a crystal swap is shown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2omcrkrrhoc
(2 mins 14 secs)
Hey, I really like that circuit and video, Mark!
O0
It works really well. Have been desoldering and trying lots of different 2 pin crystals this evening. Even those tiny almost flat versions where the legs are underneath the body of them. All work, ranging from 1MHz to 30MHz, none need a retune of anything and all report their correct frequency.
Interestingly, my L3 coils seem to like 4.5MHz, showing best wireless range with crystals in that area...which means I need to retune them if wanting to run at ~13.5MHz !
As far as I understand the coil tuning, for higher resonance turns are taken off, to lower the resonance turns are added ?
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.06.13, 03:23:52
O0
It works really well. Have been desoldering and trying lots of different 2 pin crystals this evening. Even those tiny almost flat versions where the legs are underneath the body of them. All work, ranging from 1MHz to 30MHz, none need a retune of anything and all report their correct frequency.
Interestingly, my L3 coils seem to like 4.5MHz, showing best wireless range with crystals in that area...which means I need to retune them if wanting to run at ~13.5MHz !
As far as I understand the coil tuning, for higher resonance turns are taken off, to lower the resonance turns are added ?
Now with a stand alone circuit it should be easy to measure input power from e.g. a battery vs. light output and see what kind of overall efficiency you are getting.
I have tried severall aluminium backed led assemblies, from severall led bulbs, but non is able to give out
significant (what Dr. Stiffler shows) light when powered by a capacitivly coupled (copper foil to the back) FG.
Using 2x 1n4148 diodes as diode loop to the leds.
My Rigol DG4102 FG can supply a 20Vpp sine wave up to 20Mhz, but when using the red lead only to a series coil
(70 turns on a 16mm diameter former) to the copper (capactor) strip on the leds back, the voltage when tuning into
resonance (14Mhz in my case) drops to about 15Vpp pointing to a series resonance (low impedance) situation.
This 15vpp is only able to dimly light the leds, so any black box (solar cell inside) measurements is very
tricky (unstable) and yields only an equivalent DC input power of about 5mW or so.
Also adding a scope probe to the FG input will cause a deviation of the resonance frequency and light output as is when
adding the scope ground lead to the FG black lead etc.
Even clamping my current probe around the FG red lead causes frequency shifts etc.
Some rough measurements this way show about 100mW of input from the FG and the black box output shows only 5mW
of output, but even the slightest change around the setup will cause a strong deviation.
Using long wires between the 1n4148 diodes and the led asm. and between the coils and FG etc. is a must to get
some light, because when using an RF like setup (very short leads between components) will cause any light to
dissappear.
With other words, this setup is almost, if not completly, impossible to measure.
Itsu
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.06.13, 03:23:52
...
As far as I understand the coil tuning, for higher resonance turns are taken off, to lower the resonance turns are added ?
Hi Mark,
The answer is yes. 8)
See also my post at OU for you.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula :)
Thanks too for your time and measurements on this Itsu O0
Someone with a similar setup has always been a problem.
Your tests seem to be quite exhaustive of traditional techniques and so, a question must be, is that particular Cree bulb of Dr. Stifflers' something important to it all ?
All over the place there are different bulbs being taken apart, myself with the Dollar Tree, NickZ with his various types, Lidmotor with others and yourself with several...but none are doing what the Doc shows.
???
Can I ask, do you note anything different or strange about the 13.6MHz frequency ? It may answer a few more questions.
No, 13.6Mhz shows nothing special here, in fact the resonance frequency is greatly or possible completly depending
on the used coil.
I have used this 70 turn on 16mm diameter former coil around 14 to 17Mhz resonance (strongly depending on the length
of the coil leads and the diode leads), but i have also used a triple number of turns (210 or so) on a similar
16mm former coil at resonance around 7Mhz and even like Nick a tesla / kacher like secondary coil of 700 turns
in resonance around 1,5Mhz.
But all show only dimly lit leds, so yes, it seems to me that the used Cree leds bulb is where the magic is ;D
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.13, 19:42:12
I have tried severall aluminium backed led assemblies, from severall led bulbs, but non is able to give out
significant (what Dr. Stiffler shows) light when powered by a capacitivly coupled (copper foil to the back) FG.
Using 2x 1n4148 diodes as diode loop to the leds.
My Rigol DG4102 FG can supply a 20Vpp sine wave up to 20Mhz, but when using the red lead only to a series coil
(70 turns on a 16mm diameter former) to the copper (capactor) strip on the leds back, the voltage when tuning into
resonance (14Mhz in my case) drops to about 15Vpp pointing to a series resonance (low impedance) situation.
This 15vpp is only able to dimly light the leds, so any black box (solar cell inside) measurements is very
tricky (unstable) and yields only an equivalent DC input power of about 5mW or so.
Also adding a scope probe to the FG input will cause a deviation of the resonance frequency and light output as is when
adding the scope ground lead to the FG black lead etc.
Even clamping my current probe around the FG red lead causes frequency shifts etc.
Some rough measurements this way show about 100mW of input from the FG and the black box output shows only 5mW
of output, but even the slightest change around the setup will cause a strong deviation.
Using long wires between the 1n4148 diodes and the led asm. and between the coils and FG etc. is a must to get
some light, because when using an RF like setup (very short leads between components) will cause any light to
dissappear.
With other words, this setup is almost, if not completly, impossible to measure.
Itsu
Itsu,
Contrary to what most claim including Dr. Stiffler, frequencies in the MHz range are not needed for his effect to be seen with the surface mount LED array as I have successfully used frequencies in the 400-500kHz range. Try using a higher value inductor (air core) in the 300-1000uh range for example. I've attached a pix of my diode array with 1n4148s showing the short leads.
Also, you might try attaching 2 scope probes to the LED leads to measure the differential voltage. Your probes I think are 8pf and should also work to lower the required resonant frequency.
A sine wave is not really required so you can use a square wave generated from a mosfet driver or other means if you desire as the waveform at the LEDs will be sine due to the series inductor.
I am able to get reasonable light output with my Rigol generator set on sine using a 300uh inductor with a scope probe and current probe on the input.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.06.13, 20:03:07
Thanks Gyula :)
Thanks too for your time and measurements on this Itsu O0
Someone with a similar setup has always been a problem.
Your tests seem to be quite exhaustive of traditional techniques and so, a question must be, is that particular Cree bulb of Dr. Stifflers' something important to it all ?
All over the place there are different bulbs being taken apart, myself with the Dollar Tree, NickZ with his various types, Lidmotor with others and yourself with several...but none are doing what the Doc shows.
???
Can I ask, do you note anything different or strange about the 13.6MHz frequency ? It may answer a few more questions.
Who if I may ask, are you referring to and what is the problem?
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.13, 20:25:06
Itsu,
Contrary to what most claim including Dr. Stiffler, frequencies in the MHz range are not needed for his effect to be seen with the surface mount LED array as I have successfully used frequencies in the 400-500kHz range. Try using a higher value inductor (air core) in the 300-1000uh range for example. I've attached a pix of my diode array with 1n4148s showing the short leads.
Also, you might try attaching 2 scope probes to the LED leads to measure the differential voltage. Your probes I think are 8pf and should also work to lower the required resonant frequency.
A sine wave is not really required so you can use a square wave generated from a mosfet driver or other means if you desire as the waveform at the LEDs will be sine due to the series inductor.
I am able to get reasonable light output with my Rigol generator set on sine using a 300uh inductor with a scope probe and current probe on the input.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
yes, i have seen your setup, but wanted to stay in the 13Mhz range.
There all these RF like problems occure, and accurate measurements are difficult,
but there really is no need to stay that high in frequency.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Would like to ask if the Alu backed LED boards included additional circuit components which may have influenced the LEDs operation? I mean series resistors or full wave bridge or capacitors etc.
Or you were aware of these and either removed the series components or shorted them out etc so that only the LEDs were remained in a continuous series connection and only the two 1N4148 diodes closed their circuit?
One more question if I may: when you drive an air core coil via a single wire from the hot (red) output of the generator and you find the coil's self resonance frequency (say by indicating resonance by scope probe loosely placed at a distance to the coil), then the voltage at the generator output also drops to a lower value, right? (the other end of the coil is floating for this question, no connection to the Alu plate of the LED)
Thanks,
Gyula
Using an RF like setup (short leads etc.) the resonance frequency shifted up to 15.5Mhz or so and causes the leds
("Philips Luxeon Rebel Royal Blue LED LXML PR01 Lumileds", the one with 3 leds on the strip (3 leds in series))
to be on only very dimly.
The spectrum analyzer output (loosely coupled to the 70 turn coil) shows the frequency and its harmonics, and
also shows that moving my hand across the coil / setup does not really change the frequency, but the amplitude.
For what its worth, Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2018.06.13, 20:44:01
Hi Itsu,
Would like to ask if the Alu backed LED boards included additional circuit components which may have influenced the LEDs operation? I mean series resistors or full wave bridge or capacitors etc.
Or you were aware of these and either removed the series components or shorted them out etc so that only the LEDs were remained in a continuous series connection and only the two 1N4148 diodes closed their circuit?
One more question if I may: when you drive an air core coil via a single wire from the hot (red) output of the generator and you find the coil's self resonance frequency (say by indicating resonance by scope probe loosely placed at a distance to the coil), then the voltage at the generator output also drops to a lower value, right? (the other end of the coil is floating for this question, no connection to the Alu plate of the LED)
Thanks,
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
no, the alu backed LED boards i used did not have any additional components, just the leds (some with SMD) in a series / parallel configuration.
When using a scope probe laying ontop of the 70 turn coil without the leds connected, then at resonance the scope shows an increase in amplitude, so different
from when i connect that probe across the FG output leads and with the leds connected (higher frequency though, like 18Mhz)
Edited this post!!!
Itsu
editted above post, itsu
Okay Itsu, thanks.
Dr Stiffler just uploaded a short video, he excites capacitively one of the diodes in a series chain of 1N4148s and measures the loop current by a microamper meter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX56Ocniz_Y
Gyula
pm - just the original experimenters who were vocal on the boards, such as myself, Lidmotor, NickZ.
There didn't seem to be anyone with similar equipment to Dr. Stiffler, especially the 20V output and so we have had the whole crystals and accompanying circuits foray. Tinman had the gear, but has been busy with building another project.
This topic went quiet here and the other over at OU kept trundling along without such equipment being used.
Edit - have watched the new vid and I don't think he mentions the signal frequency. Would folks expect the result on the analog meter to change with different driving frequencies of the L3 coil...or....not.
If yes, then how does the diode pick up the sig gen output, through its wires ? and if that is true, then would 1 diode with super long wires also pick up 98uA ?
I am at a loss as to what it is that it trying to be shown here. ???
What exactly is so mystical about the Doc's circuit,or the way it performs ?.'
Brad
The following is one example of what I have experienced with Dr Stiffler's device under unique input conditions to the LED array back plane with no claims or statements, just observations to be made.
Basically, I'm driving the back plane of a Dollar Tree LED array with a toroidal ATL (asymmetrical transmission line) tuned to resonate at one wavelength which is determined by the inductance of a winding placed over a foil ground plane. The drive point for the LED is a center tap of the coil which is a high voltage, low current node in the transmission line. The reason for using this device is that can produce reasonably high voltage sine waves at the higher frequencies. This particular one is operating at 837kHz and is driven by an Ixys mosfet driver with a 20vdc supply. This is single wire however, the center tap of the 2-1N4148s is returned to one end of an open ended smaller coil wound over the first part of the transmission line inductor. This improves the efficiency and light efficacy.
The pix show the intensity of the array laying on the table surface. It is extremely bright and hurts to look at directly.
The first scope shot is the input measurements and has the follow trace ids: CH1(yel) is the input pulse to the ATL, CH2(blu) is the voltage on the - input to the LED array, CH3(pnk) is the voltage on the +input of the LED array, CH4 is the input current to the ATL, and the Math channel is the input mean power which is shown as 2.774w.
The second scope pix has the same probe ids but CH4 now shows the current into the LED back plane and the Math channel shows the output power of the array which is seen as 50.75mw mean. This measurement is taken from the differential measurement of the voltage across the LEDs times the instantaneous current integrated over time or (CH3-CH2)xCh4.
I used an AEMC light meter with probe that had a paper tube 3" long placed over the sensor element with the array attached. I have the proper metal fixtures to do absolute light measurements, but the presence of the fixtures disturbed the resonance so the measurements taken were only relative. So for reference, the dc levels required to obtain the same light output as the high frequency input to the array were 58.70v at 12.82ma resulting in a power of 0.753w.
Regards,
Pm
Very good and careful analysis PM, thanks for taking the time to do this. O0
Now, can anyone answer Brad's question posted earlier? Reply #62
regards
Just for reference, below is the diagram i used to do my measurements, but without the 1 Ohm csr's.
Its taken from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTSMNB4h9U8
PM,
i also can increase the light output of the leds by attaching my scope probes / ground probes on severall
places, but that also means you alter the original setup.
If i use the bare diagram without any probes attached, the light on the leds only glows, and is never as bright
as Dr. Stiffler shows in his video's.
How is your led output when nothing attached and using the components as shown on the diagram (using a 70 turn
½ inch former coil for L3)?
I have no idea what the fuss is all about, but i think it has something to do with the used frequency of
about 13Mhz which seems to have something mystical about it.
Both PM as i have shown that you can use any other frequency (coil) with the same results.
The mystery to me is why are Dr. Stifflers leds so bright (his below circuit) while others only can obtain
moderate light output using 20Vpp from a FG.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.14, 08:33:40
Just for reference, below is the diagram i used to do my measurements, but without the 1 Ohm csr's.
Its taken from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTSMNB4h9U8
PM,
i also can increase the light output of the leds by attaching my scope probes / ground probes on severall
places, but that also means you alter the original setup.
If i use the bare diagram without any probes attached, the light on the leds only glows, and is never as bright
as Dr. Stiffler shows in his video's.
How is your led output when nothing attached and using the components as shown on the diagram (using a 70 turn
½ inch former coil for L3)?
I have no idea what the fuss is all about, but i think it has something to do with the used frequency of
about 13Mhz which seems to have something mystical about it.
Both PM as i have shown that you can use any other frequency (coil) with the same results.
The mystery to me is why are Dr. Stifflers leds so bright (his below circuit) while others only can obtain
moderate light output using 20Vpp from a FG.
Itsu
Itsu
Could you draw out a proper schematic,as i cant make heads or tails of that chook scratching
Vrad
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.14, 08:33:40
Just for reference, below is the diagram i used to do my measurements, but without the 1 Ohm csr's.
Its taken from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTSMNB4h9U8
PM,
i also can increase the light output of the leds by attaching my scope probes / ground probes on severall
places, but that also means you alter the original setup.
If i use the bare diagram without any probes attached, the light on the leds only glows, and is never as bright
as Dr. Stiffler shows in his video's.
How is your led output when nothing attached and using the components as shown on the diagram (using a 70 turn
½ inch former coil for L3)?
I have no idea what the fuss is all about, but i think it has something to do with the used frequency of
about 13Mhz which seems to have something mystical about it.
Both PM as i have shown that you can use any other frequency (coil) with the same results.
The mystery to me is why are Dr. Stifflers leds so bright (his below circuit) while others only can obtain
moderate light output using 20Vpp from a FG.
Itsu
Itsu,
OK, I wound a 70T 25 awg coil on a 1/2" former and tested the circuit with only the current probe and scope probe connected to the input wire from the Rigol SG. The first pix below shows the light from the Dollar Tree array. The resonant frequency was 17.437MHz and the coil measured 17.44uH meaning the series resonant circuit capacitance was 4.77pf. The loaded sine wave from the SG was 13.1v p-p.
So, I added turns to the coil above until I had 31.4uH to resonate with the 4.77pf circuit capacitance and the resonant frequency ended up to be 13.137MHz. The loaded SG voltage was 12.17v p-p for this version.
The second pix shows the light from this test and I didn't have the camera angle consistent so the pix may appear slightly different but in fact they appeared to be the same intensity to these old eyes!
The brightness in Dr. Stifflers video could be the result of two factors. One, Cree makes really efficient Leds and you won't find them in DT for a buck! Two, the sensitivity of his camera image element could account for some light blooming. Notice in his video the reflection of the overhead fluorescent light in his scope screen for example. I'm sure if we used Cree arrays and had better regulated output on our SGs, we would have the same light intensity results neglecting camera differences.
As Dr. Stiffler admits, his measurements are way off because no consideration is given to phase angles and the added capacitance and inductance of his meter leads. However, I think his measurements have influenced some into thinking this device may produce OU and that is the lure IMO. The fact remains that it appears to be a single wire series resonant circuit coupled to any surrounding ground via the permittivity of air which is ~8.85pf/M. This is evidenced by the lowering of the resonant frequency along with an increase in light output if a lead or plate is attached to the junction of the 1N4148 diodes.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.06.14, 13:45:15
Itsu
Could you draw out a proper schematic,as i cant make heads or tails of that chook scratching
Vrad
Sure, something like this:
Itsu
So,is this all about how much power you can transmit with one wire?
If so,it seems you have a ways to go yet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz1-RIcj1HY.
Check out the distance between the driver,and the driven--hows that for capacitive coupling distance O0
Brad
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.14, 13:53:24
Itsu,
OK, I wound a 70T 25 awg coil on a 1/2" former and tested the circuit with only the current probe and scope probe connected to the input wire from the Rigol SG. The first pix below shows the light from the Dollar Tree array. The resonant frequency was 17.437MHz and the coil measured 17.44uH meaning the series resonant circuit capacitance was 4.77pf. The loaded sine wave from the SG was 13.1v p-p.
So, I added turns to the coil above until I had 31.4uH to resonate with the 4.77pf circuit capacitance and the resonant frequency ended up to be 13.137MHz. The loaded SG voltage was 12.17v p-p for this version.
The second pix shows the light from this test and I didn't have the camera angle consistent so the pix may appear slightly different but in fact they appeared to be the same intensity to these old eyes!
The brightness in Dr. Stifflers video could be the result of two factors. One, Cree makes really efficient Leds and you won't find them in DT for a buck! Two, the sensitivity of his camera image element could account for some light blooming. Notice in his video the reflection of the overhead fluorescent light in his scope screen for example. I'm sure if we used Cree arrays and had better regulated output on our SGs, we would have the same light intensity results neglecting camera differences.
As Dr. Stiffler admits, his measurements are way off because no consideration is given to phase angles and the added capacitance and inductance of his meter leads. However, I think his measurements have influenced some into thinking this device may produce OU and that is the lure IMO. The fact remains that it appears to be a single wire series resonant circuit coupled to any surrounding ground via the permittivity of air which is ~8.85pf/M. This is evidenced by the lowering of the resonant frequency along with an increase in light output if a lead or plate is attached to the junction of the 1N4148 diodes.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM, much appreciated, it shows similar led output as i have (dimly, i can count the 3 individual
led points within my leds), so confirms my findings.
Even the resonance frequency is similar (15 - 18Mhz range depending on the used wire lengths).
So yes, the Cree leds used are imho the main cause of the brighter lights shown in his video, but the used
camera could also be adding to that.
I never had the impression that there was any OU involved, so like you i consider this nothing unusual, untill
Dr. Stiffler leads us further with this all.
Regards Itsu
Found the below diagram on energeticforum.com in the Dr. Stiffler thread:
http://www.energeticforum.com/309901-post309.html
I notice that the FG return line (black) is inbetween the 2 1n4148 diodes, something that is not visible in the video's from the Dr.
FWIW, itsu
itsu
is this the same Schem from post number 37
here
https://overunity.com/17249/dr-ronald-stiffler-sec-technology/30/
EDIT
now I see its the same reference number
Yes Chet, looks like it, did not know it was there too.
itsu
I made a video about what i am doing with this Dr. Stiffler stuff, i think it will be much clearer for everybody.
It shows the used led strips and the coil used together with some input measurements and Spectrum Analyzer output
which is much less cleaner as shown earlier with the RF like setup (short leads).
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp0ws2xe6VE
Picture is a zoomed in spectrum from the spectrum analyzer, left peak is the operating frequency peak 14.8Mhz,
to the right we see harmonics and noise up till 595Mhz.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.14, 21:29:09
I made a video about what i am doing with this Dr. Stiffler stuff, i think it will be much clearer for everybody.
It shows the used led strips and the coil used together with some input measurements and Spectrum Analyzer output
which is much less cleaner as shown earlier with the RF like setup (short leads).
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp0ws2xe6VE
Picture is a zoomed in spectrum from the spectrum analyzer, left peak is the operating frequency peak 14.8Mhz,
to the right we see harmonics and noise up till 595Mhz.
Itsu
Itsu,
I find it most interesting in your video at the 3:24 mark where you have lowered the frequency to 14.34 MHz, the Math channel indicates an input power of -112mw although the 3rd digit is hard to make out. I wonder if this is due to your spectrum analyzer sniffer or is it normal for the circuit otherwise. Interesting!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.15, 15:06:27
Itsu,
I find it most interesting in your video at the 3:24 mark where you have lowered the frequency to 14.34 MHz, the Math channel indicates an input power of -112mw although the 3rd digit is hard to make out. I wonder if this is due to your spectrum analyzer sniffer or is it normal for the circuit otherwise. Interesting!
Regards,
Pm
Indeed.
Itsu is sweeping the frequency,and hits a few values during that 1 second between 3:24 and 3:25.
Going frame by frame,you can see the P/in value go negative,on both the math trace it self,and the math value as soon as he hits 14.34MHz. Either side of that shows a positive value.
Brad
The Schumann frequency is normally 7.83Hz, but last year it went up to 36+Hz and moving around!
And today:-
https://www.disclosurenews.it/en/schumann-resonance-today-update/
Not many people know this, also where this frequency originates and was stable for 1000's years as far as we know (INCA time).
Now the frequency today is possibly 35.85Hz, that is a 400,000 sub harmonic of 14.34MHz :D
Just thinking aloud
Regards
Mike 8)
Itsu,
I've attempted to replicate your measurements with my Dollar Tree LED array by trimming the series inductor and I matched fairly closely with your peak light output frequency of 14.8MHz but the maximum negative input power I could achieve was -32mw at 14.00 MHz as you can see in the scope pix below. I also have SA sniffer coil on the output lead and found that it lowered the resonant frequency slightly.
Regards,
Pm
Ok guys, i had a long day helping my son moving to another house, so i don't think i can check it out further today.
What does it mean?
Does it mean that power is being returned to the FG, so generated by the L3 coil/leds combo?
Lower in frequency means more on the capacitive side of the resonance point (current leading).
On another thought, the shown current value/direction depends on how you clamp the current probe around the wire, it can be done on 2 ways (180°), so
it could be that at resonance i have negative values and outside resonance its positive.
Will check it again tomorrow.
Itsu
I did a quick check with freshly started equipment (not warmed up), and can see that all calculated power values
are positive above resonance, and negative below resonance.
Not using the SA sniffer coil now.
So i think this is due to the strange open circuit we are using.
However, when extending the FG black lead and scope groundlead to the junction of the 2 diodes (like shown in
Dr. stiffler drawn diagram above), i have the same behavior more or less (resonance point much lower).
Anyway, will check it out tomorrow again.
Itsu
By the way, i was in Email contact with the Dr. about his 18-1 kit and also asked him about the used CREE leds board
This is his answer:
Q) I guess i do not have the correct CREE board and not many (nobody actually) has one as there seem to be NO 13W equivalent to 60W @ 120V CREE bulbs available, only 9.5W.
A) The boards I have were purchased from 'Aldi' for a low cost of $4.95 for four bulbs and the are of the 60W equivalent size. One round bulb I have used in the videos is a 100W equivalent purchased at Home Depot
Q) Can you show a picture or layout of the used bulb (is it a bulb or more a spotlight (due to the flat surface of the leds) or any other specification?
A) In one of the last three videos you can see a close up, its hex shaped with no on board electronics.
The second answer does not answer my question (bulb or spotlight like model), so i asked about that again.
The shown CREE boards are indeed hex shaped, but flat, so i don't think they can be in a bulb like lamp as it
shines only in one direction, while a bub needs to shine 360° around.
Anyway, perhaps he still answers.
Itsu
Itsu,
I ran a another test of the same setup minus the SA sniffer but with a non-inductive 100 ohm resistor is series with the input lead. I then took input power measurements and compared the probe measurement to the current produced by the differential voltage across the 100 ohm resistor and used the results to produce the mean power. CH1(yel) is the output from the SG and input to the 100 ohm resistor, CH2(blu) is the output of the 100 ohm resistor, CH4(grn) is the probe current, and Math(red) is the power in mean watts.
The results are shown in the scope pix below. The first is the power input based on the current as measured with the current probe and is -6mw. Keep in mind the resistor is in place for both tests.
The second pix is with the 100 ohm current measurement and shows to be 48.8mw which I believe to be the most accurate measurement. The proof is in the fact that the p-p output voltage of the resistor shown on CH2 is less than the input voltage shown on CH1. If we were really pumping energy back into the power supply, the output voltage would be higher than the input.
So, unless I'm missing something here, we are victims of the current probe's inability to accurately measure at these frequencies.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
good check with a csr, which i normally also do, and will do today.
As my current probe should be able to handle up to 60Mhz, the frequency should not be a problem, unless the shown
400-600 Mhz signals on the SA are messing with the probe.
In your screenshots i also notice the phase difference between the csr signal and the current probe signal, which
also could account for the negative power calculations (your blue signal is even on the trailing side of the voltage,
meaning an inductive load).
More test to come, thanks, itsu
Itsu,
Here is another test using a 1 ohm csr with the same probe connections as before. The results certainly came out different.
The first shot is using the current probe for the current measurement and the second is using the csr. Both are still in the negative input power region. The csr measurement is shown in mvv but is actually mw.
I've also included a pix of the harmonics of the setup at resonance using my Rigol SA with a sniffer laying close to the inductor. These odd harmonics are not present when the LED are not conducting. I also had a 10cm length of wire connected to the junction of the 1N4148s which adds capacitance and lowers the resonance frequency. This wire was not attached for the scope pix.
I'm curious as to what your results will show.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Corrected scope pix for csr
Thanks PM,
but my scope is not so sophisticated that it can use double math functions, like in your case using the
math result of the CH1 - Ch2 (voltage across the csr) and then multiply that result by the CH1 voltage.
But using a 1 Ohm induction free resistor as csr in the red lead (yellow: FG red lead, blue: csr output
both compared to the FG black lead) and using CH1 - CH2 for math function i get screenhot 1.
The green trace is the current probe at the red lead (before the csr) and shows similar wave form as the math,
but different values.
Added my SA peak table
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.16, 15:35:00
Thanks PM,
but my scope is not so sophisticated that it can use double math functions, like in your case using the
math result of the CH1 - Ch2 (voltage across the csr) and then multiply that result by the CH1 voltage.
But using a 1 Ohm induction free resistor as csr in the red lead (yellow: FG red lead, blue: csr output
both compared to the FG black lead) and using CH1 - CH2 for math function i get screenhot 1.
The green trace is the current probe at the red lead (before the csr) and shows similar wave form as the math,
but different values.
Itsu
Itsu,
What you can do with your TDS scope is capture the differential waveforms, then use the Math channel to calculate CH1-CH2 and save the result in Ref1. Then use the Math channel to calculate Ref1 times CH1 and the result is the input power. You can skip dividing Ref1 by the csr because it is 1 and I could have done the same. All the Math measurements should be done using the "mean" values.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.16, 15:35:00
Added my SA peak table
Itsu
OK, thanks. There are some differences in the harmonics. Going shopping today to see if I can find any 60w Cree lamps.
As a side note, I've tried lower frequencies with larger inductors and from 1-2MHz I can not see any negative input. So, I have an idea to build an ATL (asymmetrical transmission line) to operate in the 13MHz range and see what happens with higher power levels.
Regards,
Pm
I followed your REF solution, but find a problem with the CH1 and CH2 values.
Your CH1 (yellow) signal (1 Ohm csr screenshot above) shows less amplitude (20.42V) compared to your CH2 (blue)
signal (20.56V), while mine show the other way around (CH1 yellow = 16.64V, CH2 blue = 16.47V), see my 1 Ohm csr screenshot
The result CH1 - CH2 = negative (-35.39mV mean).
When continueing (using CH1 x REF), the final result is shown in the screenshot and shows a input power of 279mW (mVV).
(the green trace is the current probe)
Why is your CH1 amplitude smaller then CH2?
Are you sure the first math should also be in mean? (instead of rms).
Good luck with the shopping, perhaps your local ALDI still has some.
Thanks, itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.16, 19:35:11
I followed your REF solution, but find a problem with the CH1 and CH2 values.
Your CH1 (yellow) signal (1 Ohm csr screenshot above) shows less amplitude (20.42V) compared to your CH2 (blue)
signal (20.56V), while mine show the other way around (CH1 yellow = 16.64V, CH2 blue = 16.47V), see my 1 Ohm csr screenshot
The result CH1 - CH2 = negative (-35.39mV mean).
When continueing (using CH1 x REF), the final result is shown in the screenshot and shows a input power of 279mW (mVV).
(the green trace is the current probe)
Why is your CH1 amplitude smaller then CH2?
Are you sure the first math should also be in mean? (instead of rms).
Good luck with the shopping, perhaps your local ALDI still has some.
Thanks, itsu
Itsu,
That is a good question and I was going to test for this but went shopping. We went to Aldi's and about a half dozen other stores and found no Cree lamps but I see they are available on Amazon.
Anyway, the difference is in the channel gain variations. I've attached scope pix taken one after the other to show what I mean. The first scope screen is the same as previous where CH1 is the SG side of the csr and CH2 is the output side of the csr. The second shot is with the probe connections reversed along with the Math. The reason CH2 is larger in voltage than CH1 in my previous post could be due to one or both of the following reasons. First, the gain of CH2 is slightly greater than CH1 and second, the input truly is negative raising the output side of the csr above the input side. In this case, it is a combination of both.
Viewing the first scope shot of the CH1-CH2 input, we see the p-p of CH1 at 20.45v and the p-p of CH2 at 20.64 for a difference of .19v p-p. Viewing the second scope shot with the probes reversed or CH2-CH1, we see the p-p voltages are equal. From this we have determined that CH2 has a slightly larger gain than CH1. To determine what the voltage differential is, we can apply dv = (d(CH1-CH2)-d(CH2-CH1))/2 = (.19-0)/2 = .095v p-p.
Now, we can use dv to recal our CH2 while assuming CH1 is accurate. So, with CH1-CH2 we now have CH1 = 20.45 and CH2 = 20.64-.095 = 20.545 all p-p. Likewise with CH2-CH1 we have 20.26-.095 = 20.165 and CH1 = 20.26 again all p-p. Now we can compare the rms differentials in these voltages to see how they would be used in the final power calcs.
Therefore, CH1rms-CH2rms = (20.45*0.5*0.707)-(20.545*0.5*0.707) = 7.23-7.263 = -0.033v rms and CH2rms-CH1rms = (20.165*0.5*0.707)-(20.26*0.5*0.707) = 7.128-7.162 = -0.034 rms. The slight difference is from rounding but is sufficiently accurate. So, we see that now we have a higher output rms voltage on the csr than input which means we truly are receiving energy somehow from the LED array and the input energy is negative.
I think it would also be correct to say that we could average the negative input powers from the scope measurements to arrive at a corrected input power. So Pin' = (0.4046+0.05055)/2 = -0.228w corrected mean input power.
Anyone is welcome to correct my figures or logic above so we all can learn.
Regards,
Pm
Does anyone know if Aldi stock items based on location availability, or is it more centralised like Walmart ?
We have one in our town and I could look in there. No Home Depot though, just Lowes.
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.16, 21:18:40
Itsu,
That is a good question and I was going to test for this but went shopping. We went to Aldi's and about a half dozen other stores and found no Cree lamps but I see they are available on Amazon.
Anyway, the difference is in the channel gain variations. I've attached scope pix taken one after the other to show what I mean. The first scope screen is the same as previous where CH1 is the SG side of the csr and CH2 is the output side of the csr. The second shot is with the probe connections reversed along with the Math. The reason CH2 is larger in voltage than CH1 in my previous post could be due to one or both of the following reasons. First, the gain of CH2 is slightly greater than CH1 and second, the input truly is negative raising the output side of the csr above the input side. In this case, it is a combination of both.
Viewing the first scope shot of the CH1-CH2 input, we see the p-p of CH1 at 20.45v and the p-p of CH2 at 20.64 for a difference of .19v p-p. Viewing the second scope shot with the probes reversed or CH2-CH1, we see the p-p voltages are equal. From this we have determined that CH2 has a slightly larger gain than CH1. To determine what the voltage differential is, we can apply dv = (d(CH1-CH2)-d(CH2-CH1))/2 = (.19-0)/2 = .095v p-p.
Now, we can use dv to recal our CH2 while assuming CH1 is accurate. So, with CH1-CH2 we now have CH1 = 20.45 and CH2 = 20.64-.095 = 20.545 all p-p. Likewise with CH2-CH1 we have 20.26-.095 = 20.165 and CH1 = 20.26 again all p-p. Now we can compare the rms differentials in these voltages to see how they would be used in the final power calcs.
Therefore, CH1rms-CH2rms = (20.45*0.5*0.707)-(20.545*0.5*0.707) = 7.23-7.263 = -0.033v rms and CH2rms-CH1rms = (20.165*0.5*0.707)-(20.26*0.5*0.707) = 7.128-7.162 = -0.034 rms. The slight difference is from rounding but is sufficiently accurate. So, we see that now we have a higher output rms voltage on the csr than input which means we truly are receiving energy somehow from the LED array and the input energy is negative.
I think it would also be correct to say that we could average the negative input powers from the scope measurements to arrive at a corrected input power. So Pin' = (0.4046+0.05055)/2 = -0.228w corrected mean input power.
Anyone is welcome to correct my figures or logic above so we all can learn.
Regards,
Pm
Pm
I think if you place a DMM set at DCV across your LED array in the same ambient light as you carried out your test in,you will find the source of your slight extra power gain,as LEDs do act like solar panels.
I wonder what the scope would show if the same test was carried out in darkness ?.
Brad
PM,
thanks for the calculations, they look OK to me, i will check my channels after a fresh calibration to see
how they deviate (using the same measuring point at the same time for both probes should show the same value)
But this means we are on the borderline of what reasonable accurate equipment can measure, which makes it tricky.
Slider,
Here in The Netherlands the ALDI's could have different stocks depending on how "in demand" some stuff was.
What is already long gone (sold out) in one could be still plenty available in another.
Brad,
good point about the leds acting as photocells, but i think the measurements PM makes (i certainly do) are
with the leds emitting light (dimly), so i don't think they can/will act like photocells then.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.17, 09:22:55
Brad,
good point about the leds acting as photocells, but i think the measurements PM makes (i certainly do) are
with the leds emitting light (dimly), so i don't think they can/will act like photocells then.
Itsu
Ok,i must have missed something,as i thought the LEDs were being pulsed.
If the LEDs are being pulsed,then the extra energy from the ambient light could enter the system via the LEDs,while the LEDs are off.
Some scientists some time back,showed LEDs producing more light energy than the electrical power being supplied to them could have produced.
I believe it was the ambient heat that was the provider of the rest of the needed energy to produce that volume of light.
Brad
OK, here is an up-to-date test after a considerable equipment warm up time followed by a scope re-calibrate. The gain differential between CH1 and CH2 was several mv worst case.
The first scope pix is measured with the same csr setup as before and with the LED array uncovered on the bench so it is being hit by ambient room light. BTW, on my current setup, there is no light output coming from the array during this test so I've included a check for Tinman's concern of the LED array acting as light generator and being the source of the negative energy which is a good point.
The second pix shows the measurements taken with a complete cover over the array and with the lights over the bench turned off. There is a slight difference but the majority of negative input still remains. Also the level of negative energy input seems to agree reasonably well with the previous averaged input after correction of the channel gains.
Itsu, I agree that we are really pushing the limits of these scopes and I would like to add that I have increased the sensitivity of channel CH1 and Ch2 to get the maximum accuracy. I don't remember if the TDS series will allow this or not.
Edit: I have to amend my comment about there being no output for the array when it produces negative energy. The condition ranges from no light to a small amount of light output during the the measurement of negative input power.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM,
had very little time again today, will do some further tests tomorrow.
I did use my black box with solar cell inside calibrated to the used led strip on DC input voltage.
It shows a very poor input / output relationship, like 12mW output at 200mW input.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVcKd1tApDM
Itsu
Connect a supercapacitor in parallel with the power supply, and set up the condition that produces the "negative input power" on the scope. Now disconnect the power supply so that the circuit is only running on the stored energy in the supercap.
Does the supercap run down, or not? Negative input power means power flowing back to the source is greater than the power being dissipated in the circuit, yes? So the supercap should not run down.
But I have a feeling that it will, no matter how "negative" the scope says the input power is.
Itsu,
I can't seem to get any audio on your video.
Also, NOTE: I have discovered that when I ask the Math channel to take the mean calculation of (CH1-CH2), the result is calculated from the differential of the mean volts of each channel which is not what we want. Even after a re-cal there is some mean offset differential voltage between channels so I'm trying to figure out how to resolve this problem. IOW, I don't think the negative input results are accurate or possibly even exist at this time. More later-
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.06.18, 00:13:01
Connect a supercapacitor in parallel with the power supply, and set up the condition that produces the "negative input power" on the scope. Now disconnect the power supply so that the circuit is only running on the stored energy in the supercap.
Does the supercap run down, or not? Negative input power means power flowing back to the source is greater than the power being dissipated in the circuit, yes? So the supercap should not run down.
But I have a feeling that it will, no matter how "negative" the scope says the input power is.
TK,
We are driving the LED arrays directly with our Rigol sig gens so we can't try your suggestion above. We really are pushing the accuracy of our scopes at these frequencies with stray pickup, etc, so the possibility of measurement error is pretty high.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.18, 00:56:26
TK,
We are driving the LED arrays directly with our Rigol sig gens so we can't try your suggestion above. We really are pushing the accuracy of our scopes at these frequencies with stray pickup, etc, so the possibility of measurement error is pretty high.
Regards,
Pm
Oh, I thought several people had already progressed to stand-alone oscillators at the desired frequencies. I thought I saw that Lidmotor, Slider, and others reporting on OU forum seem to have dispensed with the need for the signal generator. Do these people have negative input power results? If so they should be able to do the suggested supercap test.
Itsu,
I have concluded at this point in time (in my mind anyway) that the differential probe measurements on the csr are beyond our scopes capability of giving accurate consistent results. So, the attached test was taken with my TCP0020 current probe that I set the deskew on manually. I used a 50 ohm non-inductive resistor with short leads at 15MHz to get a zero voltage/current phase angle and this was done following a scope recal. I believe this is the most accurate measurement I can muster on this device at this point in time.
TK- Yes, I believe those fellows have built various drivers but I'm not sure if they have attempted accurate input measurements.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
Using severall browsers (Chrome, FireFox, IE, Edge), they all give audio on my latest video.
I will do the same calibration with a 50 Ohm resistor on my scope.
Looking at your screenshot i see you still have a negative value for input power (-40.02mW).
But is this with the leds full (as full as possible) on, so in resonance or somewhere inbetween (chasing
the negative value so to speak)?
Itsu
I've stated earlier that the stand alone low power oscillator unit should reveal the truth quickly by enabling easy test of input power at DC. (post #48)
I agree with TK and the proposed stand alone unit and supercap test, with one change: I would not use a supercap as you probably don't need anywhere near that level of storage capacity to see negative power, and may get in trouble with things like dielectric absorption fooling you.
If you don't have accurate DC power measuring devices on hand (couple of DMM's and a CSR) or don't trust your computations or DMMs, I think a good quality lower value, low dielectric absorption cap should reveal the truth and quickly by noting the charge decay over a short time period as the circuit is tuned for alleged negative power. Use a push switch to power supply or battery to replenish while tuning. Note the decay during each discharge cycle. You've hit paydirt when you no longer need to recharge the cap and the circuit is still running.
Regards
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.18, 08:04:30
PM,
Using severall browsers (Chrome, FireFox, IE, Edge), they all give audio on my latest video.
I will do the same calibration with a 50 Ohm resistor on my scope.
Looking at your screenshot i see you still have a negative value for input power (-40.02mW).
But is this with the leds full (as full as possible) on, so in resonance or somewhere inbetween (chasing
the negative value so to speak)?
Itsu
Itsu,
My audio problem disappeared with a computer re-boot. I have also run some light tests but I was not using the SG for the input source. In those tests, I seemed to get equal power levels or close to it comparing DC to high frequency.
The negative input I manage to get is at a lower frequency than the resonance frequency that gives the most light from the led array. There is generally no light output from the array and the frequency is sensitive to adjust for the maximum negative input. With the leds full on at resonance, the input power is around 130mw or so.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.18, 12:57:40
Itsu,
My audio problem disappeared with a computer re-boot. I have also run some light tests but I was not using the SG for the input source. In those tests, I seemed to get equal power levels or close to it comparing DC to high frequency.
The negative input I manage to get is at a lower frequency than the resonance frequency that gives the most light from the led array. There is generally no light output from the array and the frequency is sensitive to adjust for the maximum negative input. With the leds full on at resonance, the input power is around 130mw or so.
Regards,
Pm
Pm
While you have the DUT in the negative value range,could you try a small test--turn all your lights off,and see if that changes your P/in value on the scope.
Brad.
Itsu,
This is the result when using a square wave to drive the circuit. I know Dr. Stiffler recommends sine wave only but really, with a series resonant circuit as it is, the only difference would be increased output with the sq wave IMO. But I may be somehow missing the 'magic'. :-\
The change in the normally flat top and bottom of the sq wave is revealing. One can see that as the current reverses thru zero, the sq wave voltage increases in the positive or negative direction depending on the polarity. This is evidence of power being returned to the signal source. This is neat because it gives us a way to utilize this negative energy due to the fact that a pulsed sq wave source is far easier to build to recover the negative energy verses a sine source.
I'm curious to see what results you get with your led array driven with a sq wave.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.06.18, 13:22:50
Pm
While you have the DUT in the negative value range,could you try a small test--turn all your lights off,and see if that changes your P/in value on the scope.
Brad.
Brad,
OK, I just did as you suggested and I see no change in the negative input value. I might add that my lab gets quite dark with no lights on.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.18, 12:57:40
Itsu,
My audio problem disappeared with a computer re-boot. I have also run some light tests but I was not using the SG for the input source. In those tests, I seemed to get equal power levels or close to it comparing DC to high frequency.
The negative input I manage to get is at a lower frequency than the resonance frequency that gives the most light from the led array. There is generally no light output from the array and the frequency is sensitive to adjust for the maximum negative input. With the leds full on at resonance, the input power is around 130mw or so.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
in also calibrated my current probe with an inductionfree 50 Ohm resistor at 15Mhz to have a phase difference of 0° (or very near) between voltage and current.
I had to add 6ns deskew to the current probe channel.
Then measured again the leds scanning for most negative input, which seems to be near your -40mW as its -45.32mW at 11.2Mhz (below resonance).
phase difference current -> voltage is 130°, see schreenshot.
The leds where not on, and covering them with something did no change the value.
What equipment would be needed to accuratly measure the input power? Would it be something like a Vector Network Analyzer (HP 8753D or so)?
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.18, 13:35:34
Itsu,
This is the result when using a square wave to drive the circuit. I know Dr. Stiffler recommends sine wave only but really, with a series resonant circuit as it is, the only difference would be increased output with the sq wave IMO. But I may be somehow missing the 'magic'. :-\
The change in the normally flat top and bottom of the sq wave is revealing. One can see that as the current reverses thru zero, the sq wave voltage increases in the positive or negative direction depending on the polarity. This is evidence of power being returned to the signal source. This is neat because it gives us a way to utilize this negative energy due to the fact that a pulsed sq wave source is far easier to build to recover the negative energy verses a sine source.
I'm curious to see what results you get with your led array driven with a sq wave.
Regards,
Pm
OK, here with the setting as earlier (below resonance etc.), just changed from sine wave to square wave:
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.18, 14:14:03
OK, here with the setting as earlier (below resonance etc.), just changed from sine wave to square wave:
Itsu
Itsu,
OK, we are in reasonably close agreement with our measurements even though we are using different led arrays. O0
Maybe someone who has used the HP VNA could answer your question on measurement accuracy but I have no experience with those so I'm no help.
In the meantime, I ran a test using the same frequency with an Ixys mosfet driver which does not like to run at 15MHz with negative energy being fed back to it. I mean it only runs for a few seconds before overheating and I have it heat sinked! Anyway I finally captured the scope shot below and with the supply at 25vdc, the p-p drive is higher than can be achieved with the Rigol SG.
Maybe the next step would be to raise the series inductance to lowering the operating frequencies and see if the effect goes away.
I also have ripped apart a 60w/9w led flood lamp that has 15 leds in series and if I can get the array off the heat sink I'll give it a try.
Regards,
Pm
Hmmm, the IXDD609 is a very sturdy driver (9A source/sink), so i am amazed it gets that hot that fast.
So now you should add the pulled power from the driver into the mix to get an accurate input calculation.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.18, 14:59:28
Hmmm, the IXDD609 is a very sturdy driver (9A source/sink), so i am amazed it gets that hot that fast.
So now you should add the pulled power from the driver into the mix to get an accurate input calculation.
Itsu
It's the frequency that's the killer. In the data sheet it shows a typical rise and fall time of 22ns and 15ns respectively but with the the period of 15MHz being 67ns, there will be considerable power generated in the device especially if the rise and fall times are slower.
I have found that the 609 is not that efficient even at several MHz so, the power drawn from the supply at 15MHZ will be enormous. I'm only considering the power from the waveform feeding the device with the idea of engineering an efficient driver later on.
Pm
OK I have been thinking about this and what I have come up with is:_
A diode has a significant capacitance and can be deemed as a capacitor in certain circumstances. The LED's form a loop, an energy consuming loop as it is made up of light emitters. The loop is completed by two HF diodes in series, we now have a HF current loop.
Yes for some I have talked about this before.
Now how is this loop driven, well it is a capacitive drive on the back plate of the loop from a HF source, in this case the coil with either a square or sine wave. As PM say's it can be square wave as the coil will generate the sine wave from the square wave.
So what do we have? We have a HF magnetic loop which does not need a ground plane as they use the natural Earth as the ground plane (it is a magnetic and not an electric near field). The field is radiated directly into the LED's which form the loop. The two or more diodes are the tuning capacitance of the loop, I think if you know the series capacitance of the two looping diodes and replaced them with a capacitor of the same value, the LED's will light.
Regards
Mike 8)
I said radiated in my above post, it is not radiated, it is probably a standing wave lighting the diodes and when you tune and they don't light the current goes back to source, hence your negative input.
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.18, 15:23:52
It's the frequency that's the killer. In the data sheet it shows a typical rise and fall time of 22ns and 15ns respectively but with the the period of 15MHz being 67ns, there will be considerable power generated in the device especially if the rise and fall times are slower.
I have found that the 609 is not that efficient even at several MHz so, the power drawn from the supply at 15MHZ will be enormous. I'm only considering the power from the waveform feeding the device with the idea of engineering an efficient driver later on.
Pm
I tried an IXRFD630 RF MOSFET driver (30A up till 40Mhz), but it also does not like this setup.
Its pulling 2A (@ 24V) and heats up rapidly using 5Vpp square wave as input so i stopped using it.
I think it needs a solid return line, and not the floating return through the air/capacitance.
Itsu
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.06.18, 17:00:45
OK I have been thinking about this and what I have come up with is:_
A diode has a significant capacitance and can be deemed as a capacitor in certain circumstances. The LED's form a loop, an energy consuming loop as it is made up of light emitters. The loop is completed by two HF diodes in series, we now have a HF current loop.
Yes for some I have talked about this before.
Now how is this loop driven, well it is a capacitive drive on the back plate of the loop from a HF source, in this case the coil with either a square or sine wave. As PM say's it can be square wave as the coil will generate the sine wave from the square wave.
So what do we have? We have a HF magnetic loop which does not need a ground plane as they use the natural Earth as the ground plane (it is a magnetic and not an electric near field). The field is radiated directly into the LED's which form the loop. The two or more diodes are the tuning capacitance of the loop, I think if you know the series capacitance of the two looping diodes and replaced them with a capacitor of the same value, the LED's will light.
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
nice theory, so i have replaced the 2 diodes (1n4148) with a capacitor, but i cannot light the leds that way.
According to the data sheet, the 1n4148 has a capacitance of 4pF, so 2 in series makes 2pF
I replaced them by 3 x 10pF caps in series, so 3.3pF, but as said, no leds turn on.
The signals look similar as with the diodes, including the resonance frequency around 15Mhz (voltage dips) and
the negative power value below resonance.
Regards Itsu
Mike and Itsu,
I also had no light at resonance with a 5pf mica cap but the negative input was nearly the same level as with the 2-1N4148s. I also seem to have over double the negative input when being driven from the SG this afternoon as we have a heavy cloud cover with slight rain!
I have also tried lower frequencies but don't see any appreciable negative input thus far.
Pm
Out of curiosity, I decided to connect just a foil to the inductor instead of the led array. The scope pix below shows the results.
The frequency is 13.1MHz and the series inductor is 20.51uH. The resonance calculation results in an equivalent C of 7.2pf. The foil is 13mm x 25mm x 0.2mm thick (w/paper backing).
There is no light however! C.C
Pm
So this measured/calculated negative input power has nothing to do with the leds and/or the diodes.
Replacing the coil with something else would probably show that its coming from there, but what could
be an equivalent to a coil?
Could the air humidity influence the capacitive return to ground, my first guess says no, but need to
check on that.
Anyway, it seems that input power measurements with this setup are almost impossible.
I could go the route mentioned by TK and ION as i have a cheap chinese dual CH FG up till 8MHz which is powered
by 5V via a 12V battery.
Using a bigger coil to resonate around 7MHz or so and measure the DC input when in resonance etc.
The problem i have is that its only capable of about 10Vpp.
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.18, 21:17:31
There is no light however! C.C
Pm
I nearly fell off my seat and choke on my first coffee this morning.
Now a question, does the forward current and the reverse current add up to more than the front end input current?
It can be calculated that it does on paper, so why is main stream shying away from OU?
I'm going to hopefully show this with a little help from my friends :)
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.19, 08:45:29
So this measured/calculated negative input power has nothing to do with the leds and/or the diodes.
Replacing the coil with something else would probably show that its coming from there, but what could
be an equivalent to a coil?
Could the air humidity influence the capacitive return to ground, my first guess says no, but need to
check on that.
Anyway, it seems that input power measurements with this setup are almost impossible.
I could go the route mentioned by TK and ION as i have a cheap chinese dual CH FG up till 8MHz which is powered
by 5V via a 12V battery.
Using a bigger coil to resonate around 7MHz or so and measure the DC input when in resonance etc.
The problem i have is that its only capable of about 10Vpp.
Itsu
Would this little circuit be of any use Itsu?
4.5 - 13.7 MHz
http://www.vk2zay.net/article/93
Brad
Quote from: partzman on 2018.06.18, 21:17:31
Out of curiosity, I decided to connect just a foil to the inductor instead of the led array. The scope pix below shows the results.
The frequency is 13.1MHz and the series inductor is 20.51uH. The resonance calculation results in an equivalent C of 7.2pf. The foil is 13mm x 25mm x 0.2mm thick (w/paper backing).
There is no light however! C.C
Pm
Looks like the same sort of track my wife takes around the shopping center,when we go grocery shopping :D
Brad
Quote from: Itsu on 2018.06.19, 08:45:29
So this measured/calculated negative input power has nothing to do with the leds and/or the diodes.
It would appear so. However, try a test with the 2-1N4148 diodes removed from the led array. It will still produce negative input with some lower frequency adjustment but is weaker than with the 2 diodes in place.
Quote
Replacing the coil with something else would probably show that its coming from there, but what could
be an equivalent to a coil?
Could the air humidity influence the capacitive return to ground, my first guess says no, but need to
check on that.
Anyway, it seems that input power measurements with this setup are almost impossible.
Yes and can be appreciated if one makes the attempt. I understand that we are capacitively coupling back to ground thru anything in proximity of the test, but why the current phase which is apparently producing the negative input. Perhaps we are coupling back to our current probes. Maybe a better calibration would be to do the 50 ohm deskew cal with the inductor connected without the led array. Hmmm, will have to try that.
Quote
I could go the route mentioned by TK and ION as i have a cheap chinese dual CH FG up till 8MHz which is powered
by 5V via a 12V battery.
Yes, that is a good idea to account for the input energy but, I think that until the power level is raised to a point of overcoming the generator (whatever means) losses, the results will be disappointing.
Pm
Quote
Using a bigger coil to resonate around 7MHz or so and measure the DC input when in resonance etc.
The problem i have is that its only capable of about 10Vpp.
Itsu
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.06.19, 11:32:20
I nearly fell off my seat and choke on my first coffee this morning.
Now a question, does the forward current and the reverse current add up to more than the front end input current?
If I understand correctly, the input current at the point of measurement with the probe will or should average to zero over complete cycles. Portions of this current will at times be supplied by the generator and for the remainder of time will be returned to the generator. Are you meaning to measure the magnitudes of these two current conditions and compare to see which is greater?
Edit-
Pm
Quote
It can be calculated that it does on paper, so why is main stream shying away from OU?
I'm going to hopefully show this with a little help from my friends :)
Regards
Mike 8)
Hi PM
Quote:
Are you meaning to measure the magnitudes of these two current conditions and compare to see which is greater?
I did not explain myself very well, sorry for that, I think it is because I speak Spanish most of the time these days.
The answer to your question is yes, but, if tuned correctly we will get constructive interference and not destructive interference, we will result with a wave bigger than the two.
Standing waves, either current or voltage (CSWR or VSWR) can have a phase where they are destructive or constructive, now my idea with STEAP is creating two waves which constructively interfere with one another to do just that in the magnetic realm of the current loop, and then with wound coils on that loop extract power back to the front end. This will be a slow build up of loop to front end, meanwhile we extract the higher voltage and draw through current from the output like a boost circuit. :)
All good stuff, and I think we are learning and confirming things.
Regards
Mike 8)
This will help for those who don't quite understand, I'm talking about constructive standing waves.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/waves/u10l3c.cfm
Regards
Mike 8)
And the gem of wave field OU
Regards
Mike 8)
More strangeness. The following is the same setup as before that is driven with a square wave from the SG with one addition, a 17cm long clip lead is connected to the tap of the 2-1N4148 diodes as seen in the pix. The input power appears to be -17mw while producing the light seen in the pix.
Mike- For this example, the area of the current included during the time the Math(red) power is above the zero reference line is 181.9pA/s and the current area when the Math is below the zero reference is 260.3pA/s. So, we have more area in the current waveform below zero than above.
One additional thing. I wound a coil on a 17cm diameter form that measured ~ 23uH which is very close in inductance to the small diameter coil I've been using. The experiment was to see if a coil with a large diameter to winding length ratio would produce different results. Well, it did! My Rigol SG will output 20v p-p up to 20MHz and from there on up it switches to 10v p-p. I could not find resonance that would light the led array up to 20MHz. At 28.49MHz I found resonance but the voltage level was not enough to light the array. Many harmonics were present in the current waveform in the 13-14MHz frequency range where the leds would produce light with the smaller coil. My only thought is that perhaps the self capacitance of the larger coil produces higher harmonics at the lower frequency which do not contain enough power to produce the resonant voltage needed to excite the led array.
Edit: IOW, the SRF of the two coils varies considerably.
Pm
Just to be clear on the capacitors replacing diodes theory...would a 4pF cap replacing the connections of each diode work ?
I always thought that it was half of a FWBR and that was all. The capacitance though has to be included, considering most of this is about such couplings with the Doc's work.
The AD9850 that blew up the Arduino yesterday should be being replaced, the seller is skirting around it though.
There is a nice circuit, found by a chap called iQuest that seems to look great for increasing the voltage output of signal generators:
http://www.k8iqy.com/miscellaneous/18dblt1253ddsamplifier/lt1253ddsamp.htm
It's based on an LT1253
I like that 555 based circuit Brad, will look at that further. I would have thought copper clads would be a PIA for high frequencies, as he has his constructed. But, then again they may be the perfect thing.
I threw together the simple crystal oscillator mentioned earlier. It works pretty well. I haven't tried driving anything with it yet. I'll probably put a Schmitt trigger inverter on the output to act as a buffer/line driver. Maybe. I may also build the 555 sweep oscillator at some point just for grins.
I have a bunch of xtals, I pull them whenever I see them even though I don't really have a specific use for them. Here I tested the lowest (3.579545 MHz) and the highest (18.432000 MHz) in one bag of them I dug up.
The Philips counter is an old instrument but has the temperature-controlled oven master reference oscillator option and I trust it.
Itsu,
I checked the effect that the inductor might have on the current probe deskew and it does slightly affect the calibration when using the 50 ohm resistor. It is slight but it is there. This circuit has this measurement recal.
For more weirdness, the following modification to the Stiffler circuit is presented. In this example, the tap of the 2-1N4148 diodes is returned to the input line of the 20.51uH series inductor. The signal is a pulse from the SG at a 65% duty cycle. For clarity the schematic is seen below.
Also attached is a pix of the light output plus a scope shot of the measurements. Nice output for -78mw input!
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Corrected schematic.
TK - good to see another of those circuits up and running. They're great 2 pin testers if nothing else, off into the future.
I have had no luck for resonance with the 3.579MHz TV crystals, but likewise nothing into the 20's either. Mostly, the 4MHz, 4.1MHz and up to 6MHz. But there again, my coils are wound with the wrong amounts of turns for frequencies outside of that area. It always makes me wonder about the 13.6MHz...surely any 'L3' should be of around 60 turns, a few lower than the regular. It would make that frequency more understandable if things were that simple.
DadHav used to use a very similar frequency meter to the one that you have.
Pm - that's a great output for a negative input :)
I also think it's a great point that you mentioned 65% duty cycle. I know i've presumed that Dr. Stiffler has been using 50%.
Guys
If you think there is an energy gain with this small low powered unit,then why not scale it up,so as you are not trying to measure flea fart power differences.
The one i would be looking at,is TKs wireless power transfer circuit.
Brad
Added a 74C14 Schmitt trigger inverter, ran the output of the basic xtalosc through 3 inverter stages, which cleaned up the signal nicely. A bit of bulk capacitance at power entry got rid of some ringing on the flat tops of the inverter output pulses. Plenty of drive there now to drive a mosfet or bipolar transistor.
Yellow: Raw AC coupled xtalosc output
Blue: After 3 inverter stages
Itsu and all,
I have concluded that the apparent negative energies that I have at experienced at least, are the result of cross coupling between scope probes and circuit wiring. My previous post that displayed light output with negative energy at 14.4MHz is an example of this very thing. With the probe positions unchanged, I could achieve even larger negative power levels with nearly any inductance value at 14.4MHz. By re-arranging the probes, all goes away. :(
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM,
yes changing values when re-arranging the probes is certainly an indication of some form of cross-coupling.
I guess that the FG going defective on Steve (PhysicsProf) here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3628.msg68254#msg68254 was just a coincidence allthough he was using a slightly different circuit (2 inductors).
Anyway, guess we can ignore those negative input values in this kind of circuits.
Itsu
I changed over from my 70 turn (14MHz) coil to a bigger one resonating around 7.2MHz.
I do this so i can use my cheap chinese dual CH FG which runs on 5V and which i power from
a 12V battery via a voltage regulator (max. frequency 8MHz)
I can now monitor this 5V input to the FG to see if there is any point that it will supply less
power into the circuit under test (our Dr. Stiffler circuit) as it normally does unloaded.
This cheap FG only outputs 10Vpp max, so the leds are very faintly lit, but this is not really
needed for our test.
The unloaded FG draws 780mW when CH1 is set to 7.2MHz sine wave.
When connecting the circuit, we are in resonance as we see some leds come on faintly and the
input power rises to 850mW (so the circuit is pulling about 70mW).
Lowering the frequency shows the input to the FG never goes below the unloaded 780mW value,
so this means to me that no extra power is coming in from the circuit under test.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nEuR2WTpJc&feature=youtu.be
Itsu
The 74C04 was too slow for >10Mhz so I changed it to a 74AC04 which is plenty fast.
When I short out the "AV Plug" diodes the LED goes out and the current draw goes down to about 5.1 mA. Does this mean lighting the LED only takes 1.4 mA?
I got this when trying to view your pic:
ÿØÿà
Edit: pic opened fine when trying again
I see that OU forum is down for maintenance, so depending on how long that goes on for, this thread might well see more posts from several folks.
Have been doing a lot of tests with coils on the WTF Exciter shown in a video yesterday.
It stands for What's The Frequency ? a play on the obvious meaning, but I must have said the other 3 words plenty of times when it started to oscillate with no crystal !
Turns out that with the coil in the vid, it runs at 6.7MHz. It's tunable to a point for frequency with a ferrite rod, but drops out below 2.4Mhz. Other coils can see it run up to 12MHz, but all is just shy of 13.6MHz yet.
Changing the L1 axial inductor to 150uH saw no real difference.
Best output has been at around the 4MHz figure....i'd like to tweak it to run higher.
Vid link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE4uvw1JBb0
Here's the circuit:
A little gain, a little feedback with phase shift, and badabing badaboom you've got an oscillator.
It's a common thing in an experimental lab: Amplifiers that oscillate, and oscillators that amplify.
By the way... I see that Stiffler is specifying that 13.5 MHz is the "magic" frequency. Unfortunately... or maybe fortunately... this is also very close to a very common RFID frequency.
Coincidence? Wanna buy a nice art deco bridge in Brooklyn? You can have it cheap.
These things are quite good RF transmitters. If you have a shortwave radio you can see this for yourself. Now I'm wondering if I may have blown out my dogs with this transmitter. (They both are chipped.)
The dogs likely come up as cats when scanned now.
So, if the frequency is used by RFID, it seems to make sense that one of their circuits should do some interesting things. I've seen them on Ebay at silly low prices.
For example: https://www.ebay.com/itm/3X-RFID-IC-Key-Tags-Keyfobs-Token-NFC-TAG-Keychain-13-56MHz-Arduino-Chic-PL/222992301209?hash=item33eb607c99:g:j4QAAOSwlV9WTsWk
At least the receiving coil will be tuned and sort of appeals for salvage.
They are cheap because they are small and tiny and very little.
Why not make your own? These are 22 mm diameter.
(http://www.rfid-animaltags.com/test/rfid-animaltags.com/photo/pl16071883-remark.jpg)
Well this sort of thing really appeals:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/MFRC-522-RC522-RFID-Module-IC-Card-Induction-Sensor-free-S50-card-key-chain-LW/182050283595?epid=1750668752&hash=item2a630ae04b:g:ROoAAOSwAuNW4b7u
It could get quite fancy, for running loads with a tuned 13.56Mhz exciter that recognises them.
Not only could it power a device, but notify via WiFi (ESP8266) that the load is switched on. Very handy for door or window alarms. One scenario being that lighting for a door exterior could be wireless and therefore no need for usual waterproofing or batteries and then the entry point is also protected by the RFID system.
Just something wireless and practical from that frequency.
I read concerns for the ham radio guys and unwanted noise,
legitimate concerns of course .
How strong could an attraction be made ?
Could this tuning be kept within a boundary or "domain" so as to be guaranteed to not go elsewhere ----- unwanted ?
A coupling or perimeter virtual/actual fence ?
might even be useful for power measurements over a bigger "ambient" area to qualify excess energy claims ?
an energy audit , all accounted for and "returned to sender"
if such a method were made to work safely
powering things within a domain [or property] would be most interesting indeed.
Not sure I am explaining this very well.
But the FE community always has this "thing" with transmitted signals and the transmitter [certain transmitters] not "feeling" them ?
Maybe a small well built test bed as presented here By Stifflers work could
test such a claim ?
With "beyond perimeter checking sensors"[sniffers] outside the "domain" or virtual fences to see if Noise escapes to unwanted areas... and a mechanism or "energy audit method " to qualify that ?
perhaps a fanciful musing or ??
maybe a method to test the claim empirically ?
I see this has moved into class E crystal transmitters.
Regards
Mike 8)
The worst thing would be unchecked gigawatts of RF power pouring out all over the place. I'd imagine it would soon change from Class E to Class Action.
While it may not matter to the discussion, i'm in a very good boat in terms of polluting neighbours airwaves. We live on a corner lot. Noone lives in the house behind ours to the West, the house across the road to the South was abandoned years ago, the house across from us to the East is owned by a guy who owns another down the road and they seem to live in that one. Kitty corner (as they say here) across the other side of the road junction has also been empty for years and, a couple of weeks ago the other neighbour to our North side moved out !
I have checked my deodorant and everything !
The wife had a thought, crank up the hifi, there's noone around to complain >:-)
It's a good thing in one way, mains pollution of the backyard can only be from our house and I do intend to use that fact when testing various ideas this summer.
A method to see about pollution would be to tune a radio to a multiple of the frequency and see how far away it gets affected. A 27MHz R/C transmitter will be heard on 108MHz FM band. Just spin the radio up to the top of the dial.
Therefore, 13.6MHz should be heard at 95.2MHz and perhaps 108.8MHz if the radio isn't digital.
Progress - and new vids from Lidmotor and Dr Stiffler O0
Lidmotor replication: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdWBj8Lyb1g
Dr Stiffler charging a cap to over 100 volts, quickly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgKetMbQMGY&feature=push-u-sub&attr_tag=sRM_ous8Bm8NfCcH-6
Lidmotor replies to my queries - thanks!
Lidmotor27 minutes ago
This is a sine wave at 20v peak to peak. The frequency here was at about 11Mhz but that can vary all over the place depending on the coil used, the 'clip lead', and the diode ring. I saw this resonant 'event' show up from 8MHz all the to 16Mhz. depending on the parts used. The less the voltage the dimmer the light output. Please read Dr. Stiffler's explanation below about what is going on. Fascinating stuff. Yes this works great with my crystal oscillator . It is using a 13.56MHz crystal but by tuning it with a ferrite rod in the L3 coil it will go into resonance somehow.
Dr Stiffler shows his device charging a capacitor, giving the voltage rise on a meter. From this, we can calculate the output energy Eout and the output power Pout:
Eout = 1/2 C V^2, from comments we find that C = 440 uF,
so
Eout = 220 *V^2 and we can divide this by the time interval T (from V=0 when he discharged the cap) to find Pout = Eout/T.
Looking at the video which I posted above, we find:
V = 0 at 1m37s and V= 66V at 1m57s, so 20 seconds later.
Plugging in these data in the equations above yields:
Eout = 220uF*66^2 = 0.96J in 20 seconds, so
Pout = 48 mW.
Later, we find:
V= 94V at 2m19s, so 42 seconds after shorting out the cap.
Plugging in these data in the equations above yields:
Eout = 220uF*94^2 = 1.94J in 42 seconds, so
Pout = 46 mW, in reasonable agreement.
The next step would be to measure Pin... I'd rather do that with a simple DC source driving a crystal oscillator, rather than using a signal generator for the input.
I have run several tests of Dr. Stiffler's 14 diode loop using one of his inductors (25.2uH) that I had received years ago in one of his devices and one of my own of 374uH. The capacitor used was a 209uf (measured) 160v electrolytic with 14 1N4148 diodes. The voltage across the cap was measured with a Fluke 87 DMM and the Rigol generator had a 10v p-p output.
Test #1) Using the 25.2uH inductor with a flying clip lead surrounding the diode loop, the resonant frequency was 11.96MHz which gave the maximum rate of voltage rise across the 209uf capacitor. Over a 10 second period, the cap voltage reached 54vdc and the average input power taken with Tek scope math using a 50MHz current probe was ~195mw. Therefore, the output energy was (54^2)*209e-6/2 = .305J while the input energy was .195*10 = 1.95J for a COP = .305/1.95 = .156 .
Test #2) Using the same setup with the 374uH inductor, the resonant frequency was 2.69MHz for the maximum rate of voltage rise across the 209uf capacitor. Over a 10 second period, the cap voltage reached 50.2vdc and the average input power taken with Tek scope math using a 50MHz current probe was ~118mw. Therefore, the output energy was (50.2^2)*209e-6/2 = .263J while the input energy was .118*10 = 1.18J for a COP = .263/1.18 = .222 .
As Dr. Stiffler stated, these tests are subject to lead and meter placement, etc, so these results are not conclusive. In general, he COPs did appear to slightly increase with increased duration and decrease with reduced duration.
Regards,
Pm
Very good thank you for posting results and Analysis, p.m.
At the moment the V and I are out of phase, I have a feeling Ron is going to place another full diode loop on top of the other and feed from another L3 using the same input from the SG
Regards
Mike
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.08.02, 11:30:25
At the moment the V and I are out of phase, I have a feeling Ron is going to place another full diode loop on top of the other and feed from another L3 using the same input from the SG
Regards
Mike
Mike,
Actually at resonance where the rate of voltage rise on the cap is the greatest, the V and I are in phase. Setting the generator frequency so the V and I phase either leads or lags, lower COPs are seen.
Interestingly, if only two diodes are used with one placed on the positive lead and the other on the negative lead of the cap and then using a length of wire to complete the loop, slightly higher COPs are seen. Using just one diode in the wire loop does not work at all!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.02, 14:09:44
Mike,
Actually at resonance where the rate of voltage rise on the cap is the greatest, the V and I are in phase. Setting the generator frequency so the V and I phase either leads or lags, lower COPs are seen.
Interestingly, if only two diodes are used with one placed on the positive lead and the other on the negative lead of the cap and then using a length of wire to complete the loop, slightly higher COPs are seen. Using just one diode in the wire loop does not work at all!
Regards,
Pm
PM
OK,
I was looking at what Itsu was showing where it was 180º out of phase on OU.com, not the cap charge. With Ron you never know what he is thinking, it was a big problem in the past and why things sort of break up.
He is an expert at creating high voltage at unusual junctions or "apparent" single electrodes, his
burning water was one, not the diode HV electrolysis, that is another thing but still revolves around his interest.
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike, you will like the following experimental test.
The measurements taken on the setup as pictured below are interesting and warrant further investigation IMO.
The loop is iron wire (baling wire) with 48 turns of 22ga insulated copper wire wound as shown. The inductance of the overwind is 0.56uH. Two 1N4148 diodes are connected to the 209uf cap and the main inductor is 330uh.
The generator frequency is set off-resonance to the high side (inductive side) or IOW, the voltage leads the current. In general, the COPs are now quite high in the order of 0.9 to 1+ owing to the higher coupling IMO. One caveat is that the signal levels are low and so measurements are difficult but interesting anyway!
This simple circuit appears to be non-linear as the overall inductance capacitance decreases as the capacitor charges thus the current increases and tends to approach in-phase resonance over an increase in time. This also makes measurement more difficult.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Correction
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.02, 15:15:12
Mike, you will like the following experimental test.
The measurements taken on the setup as pictured below are interesting and warrant further investigation IMO.
The loop is iron wire (baling wire) with 48 turns of 22ga insulated copper wire wound as shown. The inductance of the overwind is 0.56uH. Two 1N4148 diodes are connected to the 209uf cap and the main inductor is 330uh.
The generator frequency is set off-resonance to the high side (inductive side) or IOW, the voltage leads the current. In general, the COPs are now quite high in the order of 0.9 to 1+ owing to the higher coupling IMO. One caveat is that the signal levels are low and so measurements are difficult but interesting anyway!
This simple circuit appears to be non-linear as the overall inductance decreases as the capacitor charges thus the current increases and tends to approach in-phase resonance over an increase in time. This also makes measurement more difficult.
Regards,
Pm
[/quote
Now your talking my language 8)
I'm just about to send you an update, replace the fist with this ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
partzman, I like the 1+ for COP statement !
So, could the cap be dumped periodically, reusing that dumped energy as well ?
Such that it never does reach that state of increasing the current demand.
A Zener to a heavy inductive load perhaps?
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.08.02, 19:06:52
partzman, I like the 1+ for COP statement !
So, could the cap be dumped periodically, reusing that dumped energy as well ?
Such that it never does reach that state of increasing the current demand.
A Zener to a heavy inductive load perhaps?
Yes, if the 1+ COP is real! Math power measurements on my Tek MDO3034 are proving to be inconsistent over a long sweep periods such as 10 seconds so I'm working on what I'm missing or perhaps the scope is not capable.
Regards,
Pm
After more investigation of Dr. Stiffler's loop and his variations, I'm convinced that the circuitry reduces to an Avramenko plug equivalent with no ability for COP >1 IMO. In my previous measurement attempts I used manual counting, averaging of power input, and measurement of the output capacitor voltage. All of this yielded questionable results.
So, I managed to use my scope pushed to it's limits by changing the output capacitance to 3.94uf while still using 330uH inductor at 2MHz allowing a resonable level of energy to be reached in the output cap. Therefore, the time period measured is 100ms with the scope sweep set at 10ms/div with the horizontal resolution set to the max of 100M samples/s. This sweep time and resolution allows the scope's internal math to give accurate results on any computation. Any longer sweep begins to reduce the input power calculation and will give incorrect COP>1 results. The output voltage across the cap is measured differentially using CH2(blu) and CH3(pnk).
For the test documented below, I used Dr. Stiffler's latest configuration as seen in his video here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VRqf8E8VIM&t=0s
He claims to be using diode connections that provide full wave power to the load rather than half wave as previously shown. However, I would ask that you study his schematic carefully and notice that if his C1 and C2 have a relatively low reactance at the frequency used, then the diode arrays are in parallel. In fact, they are in parallel even if his C1 and C2 have appreciable reactance but this would decrease the overall circuit capacitance and by divider action thus reducing the efficiency. If one simplifies the circuit by removing all the diodes except four to create an apparent full wave bridge, the circuit would appear as in the attached schematic below.
This schematic was used to create the two scope shots below except with wires replacing C2 and C3.
The first scope pix shows the measured input of 23.62mw resulting in an energy of 23.62e-3 * 100e-3 = 2.362mJ. The second pix shows the output voltage across C1 to be 33.26v for an energy of (33.26^2) *3.94e-6/2 = 2.18mJ. The resulting COP = 2.18/2.362 = .923. This is the highest accurately documented COP I was able to achieve of any circuit configuration I have tested over the past few days. I might add that these measurements were taken in the hi-res mode which in this case should have 12-16 bit vertical resolution.
Regards,
Pm
Hi PM,
Thanks for your kind and devoted analysis on these circuits. In his latest video the Doc spoke about where the current comes from that makes any of the LEDs light: it is the 'potential' and LED current is driven not from the loop current but from the inter-LED capacity (probably charged up by the potential from the near field) if I understand him correctly (from video time 3:45). While this is not a 100% clear for me yet, if I suppose this is correct, than a circuit simulator cannot simulate this correctly, right?
I understand you concluded the circuit reduces to an AV plug equivalent but if you attempt to consider his reasoning, then the simplification may not hold. Could you comment this.
Thanks,
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2018.08.03, 21:54:13
Hi PM,
Thanks for your kind and devoted analysis on these circuits. In his latest video the Doc spoke about where the current comes from that makes any of the LEDs light: it is the 'potential' and LED current is driven not from the loop current but from the inter-LED capacity (probably charged up by the potential from the near field) if I understand him correctly (from video time 3:45). While this is not a 100% clear for me yet, if I suppose this is correct, than a circuit simulator cannot simulate this correctly, right?
I understand you concluded the circuit reduces to an AV plug equivalent but if you attempt to consider his reasoning, then the simplification may not hold. Could you comment this.
Thanks,
Gyula
Gyula,
I did try to understand his reasoning as you describe above but I really don't get it at this point. If the led "energy" is coming from the near field, this should be eliminated by the use of shielding I would think. If the energy is coming from some other field than the input, then where is all the resonant energy at the input going? No, I don't think this would simulate.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.02, 15:15:12
Mike, you will like the following experimental test.
The measurements taken on the setup as pictured below are interesting and warrant further investigation IMO.
The loop is iron wire (baling wire) with 48 turns of 22ga insulated copper wire wound as shown. The inductance of the overwind is 0.56uH. Two 1N4148 diodes are connected to the 209uf cap and the main inductor is 330uh.
The generator frequency is set off-resonance to the high side (inductive side) or IOW, the voltage leads the current. In general, the COPs are now quite high in the order of 0.9 to 1+ owing to the higher coupling IMO. One caveat is that the signal levels are low and so measurements are difficult but interesting anyway!
This simple circuit appears to be non-linear as the overall inductance capacitance decreases as the capacitor charges thus the current increases and tends to approach in-phase resonance over an increase in time. This also makes measurement more difficult.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Correction
PM
If you remove the diodes and use a non electrolytic cap and place a second coil around the iron loop like the first one, but connect the diodes and cap to this second coil, I think it will work the same but without the capacitance interference as it will be an AC in the iron loop.
The problem will be how you place the second coil around the loop so as to be as inphase as possible to gain max power on the output.
If the end of the loop coil was connected to the iron you basicly have a gamma match with capacitance to floating ground via the coil. Moving that coil end connection around the loop will tune it to resonance.
Placing another exact coil setup on top of the other and connected to a second channel of SG, just might prove interesting.
I think it is the iron that would be interesting as it acts as both current loop and transformer core ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.08.04, 11:15:35
PM
If you remove the diodes and use a non electrolytic cap and place a second coil around the iron loop like the first one, but connect the diodes and cap to this second coil, I think it will work the same but without the capacitance interference as it will be an AC in the iron loop.
The problem will be how you place the second coil around the loop so as to be as inphase as possible to gain max power on the output.
If the end of the loop coil was connected to the iron you basicly have a gamma match with capacitance to floating ground via the coil. Moving that coil end connection around the loop will tune it to resonance.
Placing another exact coil setup on top of the other and connected to a second channel of SG, just might prove interesting.
I think it is the iron that would be interesting as it acts as both current loop and transformer core ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
I will give your suggested circuitry above a try but you might be interested in my previous un-posted results that led me to believe this all reduces to an Avramenko plug or equivalent.
The schematic below is the circuit using the iron wire loop with the over wound coil. Assuming there was an AC circular current in the wire, I attached a jumper across the input terminals of the two diodes to effectively short out any circular current to the input diodes. Surprisingly, the circuit operated identically with or without this jumper which is depicted by S1 in the schematic. IOW, there is no differential loop current but only common mode current via the capacitive coupling between the over wound winding and the iron loop.
My analysis may be incorrect but this is how I view it at this point in time.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.08.04, 11:15:35
PM
If you remove the diodes and use a non electrolytic cap and place a second coil around the iron loop like the first one, but connect the diodes and cap to this second coil, I think it will work the same but without the capacitance interference as it will be an AC in the iron loop.
The problem will be how you place the second coil around the loop so as to be as inphase as possible to gain max power on the output.
If the end of the loop coil was connected to the iron you basicly have a gamma match with capacitance to floating ground via the coil. Moving that coil end connection around the loop will tune it to resonance.
Placing another exact coil setup on top of the other and connected to a second channel of SG, just might prove interesting.
I think it is the iron that would be interesting as it acts as both current loop and transformer core ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
I tried the first part of your circuit above and the fact is, there is very little to no circulatory current developed in the shorted iron wire loop/core with a single connection to an over winding at resonance or at any frequency as far as I can tell. Therefore, there is no differential voltage developed in a secondary connected thru diodes to a capacitor.
So it appears this is not a direction that will be productive with your theories.
Regards,
Pm
PM
Did you connect the end of the coil to the Iron loop? This should work as a gamma match, you will need to move that connection to tune it. In antenna theory this works 100%
Regards
Mike
OK now on my computer
A gamma match is the following
A sort of folded dipole, performing an impedance step-up
A parallel shorted transmission line stub, adding shunt inductance
A series capacitance
Below is the equivalent electrical circuit.
Magnetic loops which is what part of my theory is based on, can be powered with a gamma match or another small loop or a coil wound on a ferrite core and the loop passing through the middle. There are also other ways such as using three capacitors were the two outer capacitors supply the impedance and the center cap is the LC resonator (the later you simulated for me and shows a large current in the loop).
I hope soon to have some new equipment and will be building again, not easy with no equipment.
The gamma match is more difficult to tune, it has a very narrow band width and will go out of tune easily.
What I suggested above is a bit of a hybrid because it has capacitance to earth ground plane via the coil wound around the loop, which in turn finds it's way to your SG ground I would expect which is sitting on the bench un connected.
If you had a magnetic loop antenna connected to a transmitter, and you put a single shorted loop of wire around the loop wire, the current in that wire would probably blow it if thin enough, or it would glow hot. The loop in this case could be COPPER and not iron, my dual theory on paper holds as a current loop and inductive core if it is iron. I have done tests on this and it holds correct.
More needs to be done in this area, don't give up on the theory (antenna theory is also correct in practice, and more so).
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.08.04, 16:24:29
OK now on my computer
A gamma match is the following
A sort of folded dipole, performing an impedance step-up
A parallel shorted transmission line stub, adding shunt inductance
A series capacitance
Below is the equivalent electrical circuit.
Magnetic loops which is what part of my theory is based on, can be powered with a gamma match or another small loop or a coil wound on a ferrite core and the loop passing through the middle. There are also other ways such as using three capacitors were the two outer capacitors supply the impedance and the center cap is the LC resonator (the later you simulated for me and shows a large current in the loop).
I hope soon to have some new equipment and will be building again, not easy with no equipment.
The gamma match is more difficult to tune, it has a very narrow band width and will go out of tune easily.
What I suggested above is a bit of a hybrid because it has capacitance to earth ground plane via the coil wound around the loop, which in turn finds it's way to your SG ground I would expect which is sitting on the bench un connected.
If you had a magnetic loop antenna connected to a transmitter, and you put a single shorted loop of wire around the loop wire, the current in that wire would probably blow it if thin enough, or it would glow hot. The loop in this case could be COPPER and not iron, my dual theory on paper holds as a current loop and inductive core if it is iron. I have done tests on this and it holds correct.
More needs to be done in this area, don't give up on the theory (antenna theory is also correct in practice, and more so).
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
After trying various combinations of gamma connections with the iron loop and the two over windings, there is now loop current but the best COPs are in the .55-.65 range. The variations were the result of moving the windings on the loop and various frequencies and connections but no attempts were made to match impedances, etc.
Unfortunately I have to stay in the =< 2MHz frequency range or the sweep time will have to shorten to maintain any measurement accuracy. Any other ideas are welcome.
Regards,
Pm
I was about to give up on the good Dr. Stiffler's circuit but then I had an idea. Years ago I realized that the simple capacitor charge formula delta E= I*dt/C really didn't care about the starting voltage across the cap as you would always see a given delta voltage change for a given current over a given time period. IOW, it should be possible to achieve OU by simply charging a biased cap from a source and therein lies the problem. The source normally needs to be at a voltage level higher than the bias in order to accomplish this and therefore the results were always conservative in the tests I made.
However, the Avramenko/Stiffler device offers the potential (pun intended) of accomplishing this due to the capacitive coupling of the single wire circuit as the following tests reveal.
The schematic below shows the addition of a bias source V2 which is 30v dc. This places a 30v bias on C1 prior to the circuit being energized via the conduction path thru D2, L1, and V1.
The first scope pix shows the input of 5.911mw over the period of 60ms from the start of the input signal from the generator. This equates to an input energy of 5.911e-3 * 60e-3 = 355uJ .
The second scope pix shows a differential voltage of 40.74v across C1 with the vertical cursor B at the 60ms time mark. Considering the 30v starting bias on C1, the net energy on C1 is (40.74^2-30^2) * 3.94e-6/2 = 1497uJ . Therefore the apparent COP = 1497/355 = 4.22 .
The third scope pix shows an expanded view of the event at the sig gen startup. My Rigol DG4162 has protection circuitry that shuts down the output under fault conditions and that is why there is a dead time after the start. In this case, the parasitic and diode capacitances are charged previous to the start and discharge on the first positive portion of the sinewave actually supplying -132.1mw to the signal generator over the first 1.5ms for an energy of 198uJ as can be seen. This energy is ignored in the final COP calculation because in reality it would cancel itself when considering that the same amount of energy prior to the start would be required to charge these parasitic capacitances plus some small losses.
This is most interesting and I believe worth examining more closely.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: I would add that energy taken from V2 during the conduction of D2 is returned to V2 via D1 on the alternate half cycle. This is not correct so the COP above is incorrect but there is a work around that I will post tomorrow.
Pm
Think of how the boost circuit works! The output cap is biased by the input before you start the switching, the stored coil current and voltage adds to this already in the cap and so increases the output (voltage not current of course).
Add a little current from somewhere else (with phase adjustments of course) and hepresto we have it.
Regards
Mike
Mike and all,
After spending a full day on the bench carefully measuring various circuit combinations of the biased Stiffler circuit, I have concluded that the actual COP <1 when all energies are accounted for.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.05, 23:04:38
Mike and all,
After spending a full day on the bench carefully measuring various circuit combinations of the biased Stiffler circuit, I have concluded that the actual COP <1 when all energies are accounted for.
Regards,
Pm
Does that include a second or third separate "circuit" that is also immersed in the field?
Not doubting you, just wondering.
Itzon
Quote from: itzon on 2018.08.05, 23:54:49
Does that include a second or third separate "circuit" that is also immersed in the field?
Not doubting you, just wondering.
Itzon
Itzon,
These recent tests were run as described with the sole purpose of hopefully finding a source of OU using a static charge in a capacitor aided by an additional charge from a single wire transmission and did not include multiple led loads or diode circuits within the "field" that Dr. Stiffler alludes to.
I would like to see others attempt to produce measurements of Dr. Stiffler's various circuits but like I say, my goal may be different from other experimenters in this area.
Regards,
Pm
Still not quite ready to give up on this at the moment so here is another test of the biased Stiffler circuit but with a different twist. The difference is that the biased cap is now the input buffer C2 and not the output C1 as in the previous tests.
In reference to the schematic below, a DC buffer cap C2 was added that basically charges to the supply voltage from V2. To guarantee this, C1 is shorted prior to each scope trigger. This insures that when the signal generator starts, it starts at zero volts so no fault is initiated in the sg. Also, a 1K precision non-inductive resistor R1 is added and used as a load in the final output calculations. The circuit operation is not as simple as it might appear so I'll try to explain it the best I can.
The first scope pix shows the input power of 7.129mw supplied by the signal generator which equals an input energy level of 7.129e-3 * 100e-3 = 712.9uJ . This is a product of the input voltage times the input current over time.
The second scope pix shows the start and finish voltages of 1.823 and 15.86 respectively across C1 which is an output. The energy is then (15.86^2-1.823^2) * 3.94e-6/2 = 488.9uJ .
The third pix shows the voltage across R1 is both -85.5mv mean and 1.46v rms on the Math channel over the 100ms time period. The rms output energy across R1 is (1.46^2/1e-3)*.1 = 213.2uJ . The negative mean voltage across R1 actually indicates energy is fed back to the 20v power supply V2. This negative energy is (-0.0855/1000) * 20 *.1 = -171uJ . A test was run but not documented here that used a charged capacitor C3 to replace the V2 power supply and indeed the finish voltage on C3 was higher than the start voltage confirming that energy was being fed back to the dc supply.
A not so obvious function is that energy is drawn from C2 during operation and the fourth scope pix measures this. The start voltage across C2 is 19.17v and the finish voltage is 12.92v. Therefore the energy consumed in C2 is (19.17^2-12.92^2) * 0.22e-6/2 = 22.1uJ . This energy is considered as an input to the circuit function.
The energy totals are as follows: Input = 712.9uJ + 22.1uJ +(-171uJ) = 564uJ and output = 488.9uJ + 213.2uJ = 702.1uJ . The apparent COP = 702.1/488.9 = 1.24 . If one considers the negative energy as an output, then the COP = 488.9 + 213.2uJ +171uJ/712.9uJ + 22.1uJ = 873.1/735 = 1.19 .
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.06, 19:41:46
Still not quite ready to give up on this at the moment so here is another test of the biased Stiffler circuit but with a different twist. The difference is that the biased cap is now the input buffer C2 and not the output C1 as in the previous tests.
In reference to the schematic below, a DC buffer cap C2 was added that basically charges to the supply voltage from V2. To guarantee this, C1 is shorted prior to each scope trigger. This insures that when the signal generator starts, it starts at zero volts so no fault is initiated in the sg. Also, a 1K precision non-inductive resistor R1 is added and used as a load in the final output calculations. The circuit operation is not as simple as it might appear so I'll try to explain it the best I can.
The first scope pix shows the input power of 7.129mw supplied by the signal generator which equals an input energy level of 7.129e-3 * 100e-3 = 712.9uJ . This is a product of the input voltage times the input current over time.
The second scope pix shows the start and finish voltages of 1.823 and 15.86 respectively across C1 which is an output. The energy is then (15.86^2-1.823^2) * 3.94e-6/2 = 488.9uJ .
The third pix shows the voltage across R1 is both -85.5mv mean and 1.46v rms on the Math channel over the 100ms time period. The rms output energy across R1 is (1.46^2/1e-3)*.1 = 213.2uJ . The negative mean voltage across R1 actually indicates energy is fed back to the 20v power supply V2. This negative energy is (-0.0855/1000) * 20 *.1 = -171uJ . A test was run but not documented here that used a charged capacitor C3 to replace the V2 power supply and indeed the finish voltage on C3 was higher than the start voltage confirming that energy was being fed back to the dc supply.
A not so obvious function is that energy is drawn from C2 during operation and the fourth scope pix measures this. The start voltage across C2 is 19.17v and the finish voltage is 12.92v. Therefore the energy consumed in C2 is (19.17^2-12.92^2) * 0.22e-6/2 = 22.1uJ . This energy is considered as an input to the circuit function.
The energy totals are as follows: Input = 712.9uJ + 22.1uJ +(-171uJ) = 564uJ and output = 488.9uJ + 213.2uJ = 702.1uJ . The apparent COP = 702.1/488.9 = 1.24 . If one considers the negative energy as an output, then the COP = 488.9 + 213.2uJ +171uJ/712.9uJ + 22.1uJ = 873.1/735 = 1.19 .
Regards,
Pm
Pm
I am lost as to how L1 in your circuit has 330uF of capacitance.
Im guessing that should read uH ?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.07, 14:17:33
Pm
I am lost as to how L1 in your circuit has 330uF of capacitance.
Im guessing that should read uH ?.
Brad
Brad,
LOL, yes you are correct. Thanks for pointing that out and I will make the change.
Regards,
Pm
Slider will probably update here too
another Vid from Stiffler ,and apparently Ground is on the Menu [rather have a cheeseburger :'}
Mark
Quote from Stefan's forum
The latest video has piqued interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66KTJGlbKmM
Dr. Stiffler is using a 12V SLA, a SEC circuit, a couple of L3's, a 100ohm resistor, the diode loop and the Cree board.
What I like is the description underneath:
Quote
stiffler quote
Doing final check on the parts to be used in the loop distance test. There will be no single wire, test will be through the earth only.
Outdoors through the earth...exactly what many have been stuck on, including myself most frustratingly for years.
On the other hand, we used to harvest earthworms for fish bait, by sticking the electrodes of an old army surplus telephone dynamo into the soil and cranking away. The earthworms come to the surface, for yards around.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/German-Army-60V-20Hz-Hand-crank-Kurbelinduktor-Field-Phone-Generator-N-I-B-/362370750825
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/M~QAAOSwnVhaJ-mG/s-l1600.jpg)
TK O0
A proper belly laugh on seeing that and yet it's completely what should be investigated. A high voltage localised source, doing the job very effectively.
Such a thing makes a bunch of sense for literal field tests with receiving circuits or lamps. No batteries, no earthing worries from a mains feed. Walk anywhere with it and simply hand crank.
It's the Trevor Bayliss wireless energy machine !
I don't want to derail this thread but honestly, I'm not sure where Dr. Stiffler is leading this parade so I'm focused on the potential ability of a so-called single wire device to produce OU. I will continue to do so and unless someone has a problem and speaks up, I will continue on.
Here is a variation of the Stiffler/Avramenko device as seen in the schematic below. The open wire connected to D3 and D4 is 61cm in length and hangs off the edge of the bench. The length of this wire is critical to obtaining a COP>1 along with the operating frequency and component layout. Diodes D1-D4 form a bridge from the input to space that allows the charging of C1. The measurements are relatively straight forward as there is no bias, etc.
I've included a spreadsheet that gives the COPs for sweep periods from 10ms -70ms in 10ms steps. For those not able to read Excel, the max COP =1.173 at 10ms and the min is .991 at 70ms but doesn't vary linearly.
The two scope pix show the sampled input wattage and the output voltage across C1 measurement profiles at 40ms. Prior to any measurement cycle, C1 is fully discharged and the current probe is zeroed.
I've also included a pix of the layout.
Regards,
Pm
All the previous test were made using a sine wave from a signal generator. This test uses an Ixys IXDD609P1 mosfet driver operating at 25vdc supplying a ground referenced square wave to L1. The only other change is the operating frequency used was 2.37MHz.
The following is taken from the spreadsheet for this test and I hope the formatting holds.
Sweep Period (ms) Input Power (mW) Input Energy (uJ) C1 Voltage Output Energy (uJ) COP
20 2.368 4.74E-05 10.01 1.97E-04 4.17
30 5.4 1.62E-04 14.84 4.34E-04 2.68
40 9.066 3.63E-04 19.25 7.30E-04 2.01
50 12.51 6.26E-04 22.93 1.04E-03 1.66
60 15.88 9.53E-04 27.31 1.47E-03 1.54
70 19.00 1.33E-03 30.92 1.88E-03 1.42
80 21.81 1.74E-03 33.71 2.24E-03 1.28
90 24.16 2.17E-03 36.2 2.58E-03 1.19
100 26.31 2.63E-03 38.03 2.85E-03 1.08
The scope pix shows a 50k expanded 2us period of a measurement cycle so one can see the resolution is reasonably accurate at 100M samples/second on the horizontal sweep.
It appears that this device shows promise using square wave drive which is far easier to implement compared to sine wave IMO.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: I see the formatting is messed up so I've attached the spreadsheet.
Good work PM
Have you thought that the diodes are forming a varactor where the capacitance is being varied by the voltage in the output cap? Just a thought!
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.08.09, 09:53:39
Good work PM
Have you thought that the diodes are forming a varactor where the capacitance is being varied by the voltage in the output cap? Just a thought!
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
I hadn't thought of that but yes I believe it is possible. I'm presently using 1N4148s for the diodes and haven't really tried anything else at this point but I will.
I also plan to do some spectrum analysis while changing the length of the "antenna" to see if I can see anything relative as I suspect the possibility of the antenna wire forming a transmission line with the permittivity of space resulting in a slowing of velocity. This would explain the "tuning" results with such a short length of wire. I'm also going to try to sweep the signal generator at a rate equal to the decrease in capacitance of the circuit in an attempt to maintain a constant transfer function.
The question remains that if the results are truly OU, then what is the source? IMO the device is "open" and connected to the aether so this would be my best guess at this point.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: BTW, I do have some varactor diodes around here someplace!
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.09, 14:11:48
Mike,
I hadn't thought of that but yes I believe it is possible. I'm presently using 1N4148s for the diodes and haven't really tried anything else at this point but I will.
I also plan to do some spectrum analysis while changing the length of the "antenna" to see if I can see anything relative as I suspect the possibility of the antenna wire forming a transmission line with the permittivity of space resulting in a slowing of velocity. This would explain the "tuning" results with such a short length of wire. I'm also going to try to sweep the signal generator at a rate equal to the decrease in capacitance of the circuit in an attempt to maintain a constant transfer function.
The question remains that if the results are truly OU, then what is the source? IMO the device is "open" and connected to the aether so this would be my best guess at this point.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: BTW, I do have some varactor diodes around here someplace!
PM
The diodes cathode to cathode as are, with the output cap changing voltage to the combined dielectric of the 4148's (-//-) supplying the bias, is what is happening I think.
In the past I have used two diodes like this for making a VCO, works really well ^-^
Regards
Mike 8)
A sort of auto tune with the aether maybe, moving according to what is in that local area :-\
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.08.09, 15:13:31
PM
The diodes cathode to cathode as are, with the output cap changing voltage to the combined dielectric of the 4148's (-//-) supplying the bias, is what is happening I think.
In the past I have used two diodes like this for making a VCO, works really well ^-^
Regards
Mike 8)
A sort of auto tune with the aether maybe, moving according to what is in that local area :-\
Mike,
Interesting! I was involved in some experimentation years ago on parametric devices using varactors and found that mosfets with the gate connected to the source made better non-linear sources than varactors or other diodes by a magnitude or more. Another test variation to add.
In the meantime, here is another test result from the same circuitry but with a slight frequency adjustment. The apparent gain at 20ms is infinite with the other readings being higher than the previous.
Regards,
Pm
Edit: Correction
These test variations use three paralleled diodes for each bridge element to raise the capacitance of each leg and C1 is changed to 1.98uf as seen in the schematic below. The tests were run at 2.2MHz and 2.3 MHz for comparison. The test protocol has also changed in that eight samples are averaged with C1 discharged between each sample as this seems to yield more consistent measurement results.
Input and output scope pix measurements at 50ms are attached for examples plus the data tables for each frequency.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.11, 19:54:09
These test variations use three paralleled diodes for each bridge element to raise the capacitance of each leg and C1 is changed to 1.98uf as seen in the schematic below. The tests were run at 2.2MHz and 2.3 MHz for comparison. The test protocol has also changed in that eight samples are averaged with C1 discharged between each sample as this seems to yield more consistent measurement results.
Input and output scope pix measurements at 50ms are attached for examples plus the data tables for each frequency.
Regards,
Pm
Wow = intriguing results, PM? COP's of around 4 and 5...??
All I can say is, keep plugging!
I had about given up on Stiffler, but your "variation" is looking promising --
with actual measurements of Pout and Pin which is VERY good progress.
I now have a new FeelTech FY3200S signal generator... 2 MHz easily and tunable of course, 20V p-p... Do you think this would
work with your circuit?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.08.12, 03:36:38
Wow = intriguing results, PM? COP's of around 4 and 5...??
All I can say is, keep plugging!
I had about given up on Stiffler, but your "variation" is looking promising --
with actual measurements of Pout and Pin which is VERY good progress.
I now have a new FeelTech FY3200S signal generator... 2 MHz easily and tunable of course, 20V p-p... Do you think this would
work with your circuit?
I'm not really familiar with that generator but it sounds like it would work. You could lower the circuits optimum frequency if needed by increasing L1 but I would try to keep the frequency as high as reasonable with your measurement tools. I plan to increase L1 and drop the frequency until no OU is seen and if the kHz range can be reached, the measurements would be greatly simplified and more accurate. Interestingly, a spectrum analysis shows that the 4th and 6th harmonics IIRC are stronger than the fundamental with the pulse drive!?
The problem is in the scope used for the measurements. I'm hoping to figure out a protocol and circuit that will allow lower performance scopes to be used so others can replicate if they desire.
Since the OU appears to be greater at the start of the cycle and diminishes as the cycle continues, my next step is to try sweeping the applied frequency to maintain the voltage/current phase relationship thru the entire cycle for a more constant apparent OU as the capacitance of the circuit decreases.
Pm
Going one step further, with a COP>5 it should be simple to loop this device. The oscillator circuit (SE or PP) can be driven directly off the capacitor and HF transformer coupled back to the input for reasonably high conversion efficiency and best impedance matching.
Quote from: ion on 2018.08.12, 15:31:34
Going one step further, with a COP>5 it should be simple to loop this device. The oscillator circuit (SE or PP) can be driven directly off the capacitor and HF transformer coupled back to the input for reasonably high conversion efficiency and best impedance matching.
That's a good idea ION as the C1 voltage at 2.2MHz reaches ~15v but the energy is low at 223uJ and if cycled every 10ms would yield a potential power of only 22mw. That is if the OU is real! However, with that amount of gain, the supply voltage should continually increase producing increasing potential power levels. Sound familiar?
Pm
Quote from: ion on 2018.08.12, 15:31:34
Going one step further, with a COP>5 it should be simple to loop this device. The oscillator circuit (SE or PP) can be driven directly off the capacitor and HF transformer coupled back to the input for reasonably high conversion efficiency and best impedance matching.
Coupling off the cap I think would change the system totally, I have tried that many times, it just does not work, whatever the cop is. As far as I am concerned, the ou power input has to be from within the circuit and part of it, output to input just detunes every time.
Regards
Mike
As an addition to my above post, any electronic circuit, especially in the RF area, will never be able to be looped directly from output to input without detuning the +cop created in the first place.
Now if you look to the return currents and voltages within the system (standing waves etc), then I think there is a chance, no, I think it can be done. The + cop has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere has to be from what is around us or a physical or chemical change due to what the circuit is doing.
If anyone knows of something else, let me know.
Regards
Mike 8)
I was finally able to get a gated sweep to drive the Ixys driver to the Rev7 circuitry and after some optimization this is the result. With these parameters I couldn't believe the results so I ran the test several times and took the worst case data to post here. The sweep frequency used was from 2.3MHz to 2.7MHz and again the reason for this was to attempt to maintain a constant voltage/current phase relationship that was giving the high COPs in the starting charge periods as the circuit capacitance decreased over time. The circuit used is the Rev7 as previously posted with the only change being the sweep.
The data table is shown below along with the sample scope shots showing the 50ms measurements.
I think I will now attempt to lower the operating frequency to see the effect on the COPs to find a bottom limit.
Pm
Nice results PM O0
Seems that some kind of auto frequency (tracking) is needed in relation to the capacitance change/ voltage rise of C1.
Is the floating ground still the short wire hanging off your bench?
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.08.12, 18:57:02
Nice results PM O0
Seems that some kind of auto frequency (tracking) is needed in relation to the capacitance change/ voltage rise of C1.
Is the floating ground still the short wire hanging off your bench?
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
Thanks. Frequency tracking is definitely in order and I failed to mention that the sweep was linear but will try log. Yes, still the same 56cm wire hanging off the bench. I'm now curious to see how using mosfets for the diode with the large non-linear drain to source capacitance will work but need to lower the frequency first.
Regards,
Pm
Parzman, at 40 ms sweep, you record a cop of 20.8 which is awesome O0
My question regards the data at 10, 20 and 30 ms sweep - which show negative Pin (and Uin). What is the meaning of this negative input??
I'm also very curious to see what happens as you lower the frequency. Thanks again!
Quote from: Centraflow on 2018.08.12, 17:14:12
Coupling off the cap I think would change the system totally, I have tried that many times, it just does not work, whatever the cop is. As far as I am concerned, the ou power input has to be from within the circuit and part of it, output to input just detunes every time.
Regards
Mike
Dear Mike
Your observation is correct for a basic tank circuit, however the capacitor in this case is a progressive peak charging accumulator that is not directly involved in the tank resonance, but is inserted into it. In that respect, the accumulator capacitor is not really a factor in the overall resonance of the circuit, this resonance being a function of the self resonance of the coil and the tank formed by the coil, external capacitor and diode capacitance.
The only direct involvement I can think of is the charging voltage on the capacitor back biasing the diodes, thus altering their capacitance, this would be the parametric element, but I could be wrong about this, as back bias may be far less effective than forward bias in changing capacitance.
If the circuit is redrawn with the stray capacitance of the dangling clip lead returned to the ground of the sig gen, we have a series resonant circuit formed by the stray capacitance of the clip lead and the coil, and the variable capacitance of the diodes, this in addition to the coil self resonance due to it's own parasitic capacitance. The peak detector is inserted in this loop and it's capacitor does not directly contribute to the resonance of the circuit, it's value is too low for the frequencies involved.
What suggestions do you have for looping the circuit, as I thought the idea I suggested had some merit based on the topology.
Maybe if I post a schematic what I had in mind would be clearer.
regards
P.S. when performing these experiments it is a good idea to elevate the coil with some porcelain standoffs, silk thread or nylon line for consistency of capacitance to the air, as lying on a bench can lead to variabilities in capacitance. I would for consistency also suggest using a tunable "gimmick capacitor" back to the gen ground instead of flying cliplead. A sturdy breadboard with fixed positions for all components should produce greater consistency in measurement.
Quote from: ion on 2018.08.13, 14:42:08
Dear Mike
Your observation is correct for a basic tank circuit, however the capacitor in this case is a progressive peak charging accumulator that is not directly involved in the tank resonance, but is inserted into it. In that respect, the accumulator capacitor is not really a factor in the overall resonance of the circuit, this resonance being a function of the self resonance of the coil and the tank formed by the external capacitor and diode capacitance.
If the circuit is redrawn with the stray capacitance of the dangling cliplead returned to the ground of the sig gen, we have a series resonant circuit formed by the stray capacitance of the cliplead and the coil, and the variable capacitance of the diodes. The peak detector is inserted in this loop and it's capacitor does not contribute to the resonance of the circuit, it's value is too low for the frequencies involved.
What suggestions do you have for looping the circuit, as I thought the idea I suggested had merit based on the topology.
Maybe if I post a schematic what I had in mind would be clearer.
regards
A schematic would be good ION. :)
PM stated that the sweep is linear, looking at the change as the C1 charges and applies bias to the diodes, I think any change is going to disrupt things IMO :-\
I have more work to do on this but, I found that if any "natural" return charge is available without taking from the final output, things don't detune and show no OU.
This is the biggest stumbling block >:(
Soon back on the bench, though it is bloody hot here, 37ºc and storms at night, very Caribbean, even the sea temp is 30ºc which is warmer than my pool, 28ºc :D
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2018.08.13, 13:25:56
Parzman, at 40 ms sweep, you record a cop of 20.8 which is awesome O0
My question regards the data at 10, 20 and 30 ms sweep - which show negative Pin (and Uin). What is the meaning of this negative input??
I'm also very curious to see what happens as you lower the frequency. Thanks again!
Assuming that the measurements are accurate (which is always a question), the negative input IMO means that the excited circuit is receiving energy from some outside source that exceeds the circuit's basic energy requirement. IOW, if the input energy is a positive value and less than the output energy, the COP is a positive value >1. If the input energy measures as a negative value, then we have a negative COP which would be infinite.
My initial tests at a lower frequency of 400-600kHz look promising but a more complete analysis is in order to be able to optimize the results.
Pm
Quote from: ion on 2018.08.13, 14:42:08
Dear Mike
Your observation is correct for a basic tank circuit, however the capacitor in this case is a progressive peak charging accumulator that is not directly involved in the tank resonance, but is inserted into it. In that respect, the accumulator capacitor is not really a factor in the overall resonance of the circuit, this resonance being a function of the self resonance of the coil and the tank formed by the coil, external capacitor and diode capacitance.
Ion, actually the accumulator capacitor (nice description) does factor in the resonance of the circuit in the following manner. As the voltage builds in the accumulator cap, the reversed biased bridge diodes that are non-conducting are exposed to the increasing voltage across said cap and therefore the capacitance of those diodes decrease. These alternately reversed biased diodes are in series with the capacitance of the "wire" due to the permittivity of space and along with L1 account for the circuit resonant frequency.
Quote
The only direct involvement I can think of is the charging voltage on the capacitor back biasing the diodes, thus altering their capacitance, this would be the parametric element, but I could be wrong about this, as back bias may be far less effective than forward bias in changing capacitance.
IMO, it is the reverse bias creating the parametric capacitance change in the circuit because the circuit operation requires we see a capacitance decrease which would follow an increase in voltage across the reversed bias junction. A forward biased junction will exhibit an increase in capacitance.
Quote
If the circuit is redrawn with the stray capacitance of the dangling clip lead returned to the ground of the sig gen, we have a series resonant circuit formed by the stray capacitance of the clip lead and the coil, and the variable capacitance of the diodes, this in addition to the coil self resonance due to it's own parasitic capacitance. The peak detector is inserted in this loop and it's capacitor does not directly contribute to the resonance of the circuit, it's value is too low for the frequencies involved.
I agree. As I begin to try lower frequencies, it becomes apparent that a larger area collector (dangling wire) and a larger parametric capacitance (mosfet) would be advantageous. My question is the apparent excess energy due to parametric means, aether means, or both? Right now I'm still trying to clean up the gating of the sweep waveform. All the generators I have supply an asynchronous gate signal for the sweep trigger and continuously output the start frequency!?! In order to do averaging on the waveforms, synchronous gating is required for accuracy.
Pm
Quote
What suggestions do you have for looping the circuit, as I thought the idea I suggested had some merit based on the topology.
Maybe if I post a schematic what I had in mind would be clearer.
regards
P.S. when performing these experiments it is a good idea to elevate the coil with some porcelain standoffs, silk thread or nylon line for consistency of capacitance to the air, as lying on a bench can lead to variabilities in capacitance. I would for consistency also suggest using a tunable "gimmick capacitor" back to the gen ground instead of flying cliplead. A sturdy breadboard with fixed positions for all components should produce greater consistency in measurement.
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.13, 15:08:26
Assuming that the measurements are accurate (which is always a question), the negative input IMO means that the excited circuit is receiving energy from some outside source that exceeds the circuit's basic energy requirement. IOW, if the input energy is a positive value and less than the output energy, the COP is a positive value >1. If the input energy measures as a negative value, then we have a negative COP which would be infinite.
My initial tests at a lower frequency of 400-600kHz look promising but a more complete analysis is in order to be able to optimize the results.
Pm
Keep at it PM O0
Regards
Mike 8)
+1
I've never seen this direction explored and certainly nothing similar being investigated so thoroughly O0
Pm
Any chance this apparent COP+1 is energy drawn in from local radio broardcast.
I just keep thinking-foxhole radio,where enough energy is drawn in to power a small speaker.
Is the extra energy you are seeing around the same as what a foxhole radio might pull in ?
Also,can this be scaled up ?
Brad
Mike,
Thanks!
Slider,
Thanks as well!
Brad,
I had considered the effect of some local station or other RF source but a spectrum analysis shows no such activity at least at my bench. I think the device will be scalable but we shall see with more research.
Regards,
Pm
Curious to know if this device was really tapping into energy from the aether, I ran a test with a fixed mica capacitor that was connected to ground which was equivalent to the capacitance of the hanging wire or 6pf. The test results were surprising and seem to indicate that if the measurements are accurate, there is no energy being extracted from the aether at least thru the hanging wire. The excess energy appears to be generated in the circuit via resonant, parametric capacitance change IMO at this time.
This test was run with a log frequency sweep from 2.3 to 3.0MHz as indicated in the attached schematic. The data table below was produced by averaging the readings from seven separate tests and the spreadsheet is attached below if one wants to see each individual test result.
This places this device in a completely different class IMO as it can no longer be called a single wire circuit aka Avramenko/Stiffler. If it is truly functioning as a parametric device creating excess energy, it could theoretically operate at any frequency and would be scalable.
It also may not be appropriate for this thread any longer so Professor, you need to comment on this please.
Also Chet, perhaps it would be best not to cross post this info quite yet.
Regards,
Pm
on Hold until you say so.
Indeed exciting results, PM!
This thread is probably NOT the place to continue this discussion as you say, as I'm not sure who all can see "the Buzz".
You may wish to go to a more private venue IMO...
Kindly include me in the new thread, if you would. I'm very supportive of your initiative, PM!
I have been carrying out some of my own single wire power transfer tests of my own in the last week,and have something odd going on with my setup-seems i cannot find a ground-or 0 volt region anywhere on the circuit. Even the battery negative is +100 volts from earth ground.
Please count me in on the new thread-if there is to be one.
Brad
All,
The real question is (as always), are the measurements accurate and real? IMO, this is the next step in that some means must be taken to confirm the measurements. It is really difficult to measure and integrate two high frequency waveforms (voltage and current) at say 3MHz over 100ms. With 100M sample points per second, this is only 33.3 points/cycle or16.6/half cycle. Is this good enough for high accuracy? Shortening the measurement cycle to 20ms with 500M samples per second seems to indicate that perhaps not when comparing the numbers at that point in time between the two sample rates.
So, I'm going to spend time to work on this problem before posting any more info until I have some reasonable answers. I would certainly welcome any ideas.
I'm also not certain about open (single wire) verses closed based on the above!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.15, 04:10:12
I have been carrying out some of my own single wire power transfer tests of my own in the last week,and have something odd going on with my setup-seems i cannot find a ground-or 0 volt region anywhere on the circuit. Even the battery negative is +100 volts from earth ground.
Please count me in on the new thread-if there is to be one.
Brad
Not so odd. You've now seen what "floating" really means. A point on a floating circuit isn't necessarily going to be at ground potential, unless you make it so with a galvanic connection. After all... how is a circuit supposed to have a "virtual", that is capacitive, coupling to ground unless there is an actual voltage differential? Make the connection "real" with a wire and now you're not floating any more.
Sort of like a forum... If a forum has an invitation-only membership policy and has secret hidden threads that aren't even available to the whole member list, much less to the public... should we really claim it's an open source forum any more?
author=TinselKoala link=topic=3628.msg69216#msg69216 date=1534342162]
QuoteMake the connection "real" with a wire and now you're not floating any more.
My point is--that connection cant be made,as no matter from where i connect the circuit to ground,the current draw from the circuit go's sky high-even from the negative of the battery to ground.
The device is near 1 meter off the ground on a timber dry timber bench,and built on another dry bit of MDF,so capacitive coupling to the ground is unlikely,as i can only just get a neon to light no more than 100mm away from it,as it is very low powered.
Now,if we look at say a 3kVA gasoline generator,they are also a floating unit. But in this case,you can connect either the neutral or active to ground,and no load is placed on the generator,because both are floating as far as earth ground is concerned.
QuoteSort of like a forum... If a forum has an invitation-only membership policy and has secret hidden threads that aren't even available to the whole member list, much less to the public... should we really claim it's an open source forum any more?
It's more a case of removing the unwanted,unrelated comments and arguments we see on open thread's,where the inventor would just like to concentrate on the DUT,and have a handful of those willing to help involved.
Once everything is in order,then it is bought to the open source venue.
Things happen so much faster in controlled environments,without the unwanted distractions.
Brad
Hmmm
Tinsel
I guess it boils down to respect [in Peter's house its open source or nothing]
I was reminded not that long ago about a comment you had made [which I remembered when it was quoted back]
about Yourself and an OU breakthru.....
and how we would never see hide nor hair of you again.... if you made a discovery ??
??
anyhoo
it is however true ,that a group dedicated to open source really should not be concerned with
the concept of sharing or disappearing acts........[above]
and since you have the opinion that all the problems we have had among the members here with
a fore mentioned interuptive activities globally is fantasy ??
I can see your apparent indifference .[you think its a story or lies apparently]
so yes from Your seat it makes no sense .
EDIT
and I see your comments below ,
working together with Men of like mind [open source]
is a checks and balances mechanism all its own....
going back to work over here....
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.15, 14:58:38
author=TinselKoala link=topic=3628.msg69216#msg69216 date=1534342162]
My point is--that connection cant be made,as no matter from where i connect the circuit to ground,the current draw from the circuit go's sky high-even from the negative of the battery to ground.
Well, that might suggest that you could put a useful load in between the circuit and ground, at this point. If you can get your _receivers_ to act that way (I can) you're golden.
Quote
The device is near 1 meter off the ground on a timber dry timber bench,and built on another dry bit of MDF,so capacitive coupling to the ground is unlikely,as i can only just get a neon to light no more than 100mm away from it,as it is very low powered.
Pretty much everything between sea level and the ionosphere is capacitively coupled to the Earth and to free space. The neon isn't telling you about the coupling, it's telling you about the strength of the electric field gradient, which may be low but the field itself may have a large volume, hence a large (or at least non-negligible) capacitance to ground.
Quote
Now,if we look at say a 3kVA gasoline generator,they are also a floating unit. But in this case,you can connect either the neutral or active to ground,and no load is placed on the generator,because both are floating as far as earth ground is concerned.
The capacitance to ground is also like a high-pass filter. High frequencies are passed with little impedance, low frequencies or DC are blocked altogether.
Quote
It's more a case of removing the unwanted,unrelated comments and arguments we see on open thread's,where the inventor would just like to concentrate on the DUT,and have a handful of those willing to help involved.
Once everything is in order,then it is bought to the open source venue.
Things happen so much faster in controlled environments,without the unwanted distractions.
Brad
Well, I sure hope it works out that way. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but if I feel like secrets are being withheld from me, I tend to want to go off and just work by myself. And I think others might also share this opinion.
Quote from: Chet K on 2018.08.15, 15:52:29
Hmmm
Tinsel
I guess it boils down to respect [in Peter's house its open source or nothing]
I was reminded not that long ago about a comment you had made [which I remembered when it was quoted back]
about Yourself and an OU breakthru.....
and how we would never see hide nor hair of you again.... if you made a discovery ??
??
anyhoo
it is however true ,that a group dedicated to open source really should not be concerned with
the concept of sharing or disappearing acts........[above]
and since you have the opinion that all the problems we have had among the members here with
a fore mentioned interuptive activities globally is fantasy ??
I can see your apparent indifference to their concerns and personal safety.[you think its a story or lies apparently]
so yes from Your seat it makes no sense .
What makes no sense is this: IF these "interuptive activities globally" are NOT fantasy (or misinterpretations of innocent events)... why is everybody on this forum continuing on doing what they do, without further interference? Did they forget where Brad lives? You now have an immune cellphone? They've been looking for me to send me my paychecks (for my contributions to suppression actions of course) but can't find me for some reason?
Either the work we do is threatening to the powers that be, and they are actively suppressing it.... in which case we are all in trouble and had better lawyer up, as well as going underground with the work ...
OR....
Nobody important really cares very much what we do, and the "interuptive activities" have nothing to do with Free Energy or Overunity itself, but maybe have to do with unwanted RF emissions interfering with secret government radars or radio astronomy. Or something like that. Or maybe just coincidences.
I once had a flat tire, and ran out of gas while I was getting ready to change the tire. Coincidence? Or suppression.... I was carrying a (never mind) device in the van....
The point is, we are not _acting_ like people whose research is in any way being actively suppressed or "interupted" by anyone or anything, other than physical reality. This tends to make me believe that reports of suppression or interruption are... well... perhaps as accurate as some free energy success claims have been, and for the same reasons.
And as far as comments and quotes from far back... I remember a few of those myself, promises made, long ago.... but never mind.
There is nothing quite like experience to add perspective
I suppose you lack the experiences [personally]
and it makes it VERY hard for you to imagine how people could stay at it after such experiences ....
and this fact puts it even more into the realm of unbelievable to you..
don't know what to say about that
but it does pain me to have this discussion here ,for many reasons]
but you seem to be pissed and pushing buttons , and this is not good for my "head"
and I get distracted during my work ,and that can be very dangerous for me.
the machines are heavy and I don't see so well anymore .
have a better day...
Well, if you tease someone with incomplete information, you shouldn't be surprised if they draw the wrong conclusion (or at least not the one you want them to draw.)
If I tell you "I saw Jesus this morning, walking down the street wearing nothing but a string bikini"... you'd think I was hallucinating, lying, joking or simply mistaken.
But you'd be wrong, because I haven't told you the whole story. Where I live, in the Hispanic community "Jesus" is a common boy's name, pronounced Hey-Soos. And there's a Gay Rights parade going on today. Now you have enough information to draw the _correct_ conclusion, or at least a plausible one that doesn't include branding me a liar or a psychotic.
OK, enough. Don't drop something on your foot while you're working -- but if you do please don't blame me.
I have to add this one bit
this forum is paid lock stock and barrel by Peter,the most fervent purveyor of open source I have ever met, and to work in his house and use open source resources for any other purpose...that would be a kick in the groin [and then some]
Using the word "secret" implies negative connotations here .... non disclosure or no open source, to imply this in Peter's forum is a direct reflection on him and how he runs this forum.
NOT GOOD
I Love what Peter gives us here and cherish the privilege to be a part of that.
and the men who come here and elsewhere to give tirelessly of their own time and personal resources, I cannot begin to write the gratitude I have for these men....
simply amazing .
and I must add TinselKoala
I have gratitude for you too
as many here do, your lifes experience is most definitely a benefit to this forum.
I know it can be frustrating at times, I also believe you mean no insult to Peter ...
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.08.15, 16:07:39
What makes no sense is this: IF these "interuptive activities globally" are NOT fantasy (or misinterpretations of innocent events)... why is everybody on this forum continuing on doing what they do, without further interference? Did they forget where Brad lives? You now have an immune cellphone? They've been looking for me to send me my paychecks (for my contributions to suppression actions of course) but can't find me for some reason?
Either the work we do is threatening to the powers that be, and they are actively suppressing it.... in which case we are all in trouble and had better lawyer up, as well as going underground with the work ...
OR....
Nobody important really cares very much what we do, and the "interuptive activities" have nothing to do with Free Energy or Overunity itself, but maybe have to do with unwanted RF emissions interfering with secret government radars or radio astronomy. Or something like that. Or maybe just coincidences.
I once had a flat tire, and ran out of gas while I was getting ready to change the tire. Coincidence? Or suppression.... I was carrying a (never mind) device in the van....
The point is, we are not _acting_ like people whose research is in any way being actively suppressed or "interupted" by anyone or anything, other than physical reality. This tends to make me believe that reports of suppression or interruption are... well... perhaps as accurate as some free energy success claims have been, and for the same reasons.
snip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TK, free energy suppression is not the mainstay of the cartel, rather merely one facet.
A bi-product if you will.
Quote: "Secrecy and anonymity is integral to the operations of the Elite as is absolute ruthlessness, deep deception and the most sordid spying and blackmail. The Elite pitches nations against each other, and aims at the destruction of religion and other traditional values, creates chaos, deliberately spreads poverty and misery, and then usurps power placing its stooges in place. These families "buy while the blood is still flowing in the streets" (Rothschild dictum). Wars, "revolutions" and assassinations are part of their tactics to destroy traditional civilisation and traditional religions (as in Soviet Russia), amass wealth and power, eliminate opponents, and proceed relentlessly towards their avowed goal, generation after generation. They operate through covert and overt societies and organisations."
https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-really-controls-the-world/5445239 (https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-really-controls-the-world/5445239)
There are thousands of articles, thousands of books if you really wanted to research this prison planet and have some comprehension of who rules this place. "It is a big club... and you ain't in it", as George Carlin would say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhZyAOuyhE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhZyAOuyhE)
(first 3 minutes then it repeats)
Or if humour doesn't cut it for you...
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_tavistock05.htm (https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_tavistock05.htm)
Ron
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.15, 14:03:17
All,
The real question is (as always), are the measurements accurate and real? IMO, this is the next step in that some means must be taken to confirm the measurements. It is really difficult to measure and integrate two high frequency waveforms (voltage and current) at say 3MHz over 100ms. With 100M sample points per second, this is only 33.3 points/cycle or16.6/half cycle. Is this good enough for high accuracy? Shortening the measurement cycle to 20ms with 500M samples per second seems to indicate that perhaps not when comparing the numbers at that point in time between the two sample rates.
So, I'm going to spend time to work on this problem before posting any more info until I have some reasonable answers. I would certainly welcome any ideas.
I'm also not certain about open (single wire) verses closed based on the above!
Regards,
Pm
Could you provide a scaled up form of this circuit,where we are talking in 100's of mW of power,which would be easier to measure-loop.
To many errors in flea fart power devices.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.16, 13:08:08
Could you provide a scaled up form of this circuit,where we are talking in 100's of mW of power,which would be easier to measure-loop.
To many errors in flea fart power devices.
Brad
Brad,
One way to scale the circuit to higher power levels would be to change the diodes to mosfets that have considerably higher non-linear capacitance between their drain and shorted gate to source and another would be to raise the input voltages to higher levels. It would also be nice to see at least several watts in power level at lower frequencies to help out with the measurements. I'm currently working on all the above so we'll see how it all comes out!
Also, the jury is still out on whether the circuit is interacting with the aether or not.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.08.16, 13:25:42
Brad,
One way to scale the circuit to higher power levels would be to change the diodes to mosfets that have considerably higher non-linear capacitance between their drain and shorted gate to source and another would be to raise the input voltages to higher levels. It would also be nice to see at least several watts in power level at lower frequencies to help out with the measurements. I'm currently working on all the above so we'll see how it all comes out!
Also, the jury is still out on whether the circuit is interacting with the aether or not.
Regards,
Pm
Proof that this aether exists at all would be a good starting point,or is it now a scientific fact that the aether dose exist?.
Perhaps transistors will do the job also,using there junction capacitance.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.08.16, 14:13:23
Proof that this aether exists at all would be a good starting point,or is it now a scientific fact that the aether dose exist?.
Perhaps transistors will do the job also,using there junction capacitance.
Brad
I'm not sure about the aether at this point. After running more tests, it looks more like the device simply works by resonance of non-linear capacitance and inductance. I can replace the "collector" or hanging wire, foil strip, or whatever with an equal fixed capacitor to ground, and get the same results. I don't think there is any aether magic involved at least at the frequencies I'm working with ATM.
Pm