OverUnity Research

As this subject has recently been broached in another thread I have decided to create its own thread.  As the name implies this is looking at the effect of magnetic propagation delay along a transformer core to see whether it offers any benefits for OU operation.  Some considerable amount of work has already been carried out but unfortunately that came to an abrupt end when the company funding the work changed course.  As both the theoretical work and the experimental work showed some promise the hope here is that it can be continued to arrive at a proper conclusion.

Here is the first paper, more to follow.

Smudge

It is very interesting read!
Where ever there is propagation delay, there are 2 points of different potential.

Do you have some more papers on this topic? Or info?

Quote from: WhatIsIt on 2019.09.23, 12:54:00
It is very interesting read!
Where ever there is propagation delay, there are 2 points of different potential.

Do you have some more papers on this topic? Or info?

I started another thread here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3742.msg73171#msg73171 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3742.msg73171#msg73171) for a magnetic motor using magnetic delay, but it didn't get anywhere.  But here on the MDT I am on more solid ground as I do have some actual measurement data.  More later.

Smudge

Here is the next installment.
Smudge

Now here are some results.  Graham Gunderson built an automatic test rig that stepped through the frequency range so these are not swept frequency measurements, but are spot frequency measurements.  Lots of them!!  For different values of load resistance and capacitance.  Originally we were looking for the real part of the input impedance going negative at a lowish fequency (few MHz but above the LC resonant frequency) as predicted by the theoretical model.  That did not occur for the higher load capacitor values but it did for the lowest value of 10pF (scope probe) at around 12MHz.  This was maybe a measurement artifact but the fact that is was predicted suggests the opposite.
Smudge

And here is another paper showing comparison between measurement and theory for other parameters at the 500pF 10K load condition.  We were still looking for that lowish frequency negative input resistance effect.  It was thought that the leakage flux (which forms an important part of the magnetic transmission line impedance) was introducing radiation losses that accounted for the fact that the effect did not show up in the measurements.  That led to a shielded version of the transformer also being measured.   More results are in the pdf posted here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3844.0;attach=33127 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3844.0;attach=33127)

Smudge

Just for completeness here is another viewpoint on the capacitive loading effect.
Smudge

Thank you,

I have to read all of this and then will come back.

Ignoring the 14MHz anomaly for the moment, the whole exercise was set up to look for the input resistance going negative at a point somewhat above the the LC resonance, as predicted by the theory.  Although the measurements did not show that, it is interesting to observe what the device did at that theoretical point.  The pdf below shows the LC resonance clearly on the plots of input resistance and input reactance, both measured and theory.  Also shown is the ratio of transformer output voltage to input voltage which peaks at exactly the frequency where theory predicts that input resistance going negative.  That looks like a resonance, but it is not the LC resonance.  This suggests to me that we were very nearly there.  Of course if the input resistance did pass through zero there the chart would show an infinite spike there.  So I am reasonably convinced that with a bit of tweaking we would have got there, but unfortunately the work was stopped.  Hopefully someone here will take up the challenge and continue this line of investigation.
Smudge

Here is another paper that I found on my computer.  I would have been better if I had presented this earlier as it tells more of the story, but my fling system is so chaotic that I only just found it.
Smudge

Here are some further considerations on the 14MHz anomalous behaviour.  Never did get resolved.
Smudge

An impressive amount of data in all these pdf's, but i miss some practical info for replicators like the used 3F4 toroid f.i.

Is this specific 3F4 type ferrite (u = 900) needed or can we use some other material?

I can only find a "T107/65/18-3F4" here: 
https://www.acalbfi.com/se/Magnetic-components/Cores/Ferrite/p/Ferrite-toroids---Ring-core/000000013F
but its not the one shown in the PDF.

What about how to drive the setup, is a FG used and if so, how is it set up?
How are these real and imaginary impedance values measured/calculated?

So to me there are much unknowns which prevent me to start a replication, so is there some more
practical info available on how these tests where done?

Thanks,   itsu

Itsu,
The measurements were done by Graham Gunderson, I think he was in Spokane USA and I am in the UK.  I did not get sight of his rig, I only got his results which were obtained on a multi channel digital scope.  I do have a note of his circuit, see below.  I used his data to calculate various things such as input impedance real and imaginary. etc.  He provided phase information presumably done by the scope.  All the data analysis was done by me.  Below you will find the 3F4 data and the toroidal core data.  Use whatever you can get hold of that comes close to this.
Smudge

Here is one of my earlier papers before the MDT program got started.  I modeled a  1 turn primary and a 10 turn secondary.  That could be the basis for a simple experiment.
Smudge.

Thanks Smudge,

so V2, V3 and V4 are the scopes probe outputs?

Here again the scope probe grounds tie the primary and secondary together.

Anyway, i will see what i can find.

Regards Itsu

I was able to obtain a T107/65/18-3F4 toroid which is on its way.

Looking at the connection diagram as proposed by Smudge (see below diagram 1), i was trying something with
another toroid, but seem to have problems to get the FG signal delivered to the primary (L5).
See diagram 2 for my LTspice setup from real life components (signal shown is from top L2).

It looks like that the RF signal (1MHz) is being choked big time and only mV are left over.
Its probably my component choice, but as they are from real life components here are the measured value's:

L1 / L2  toroid (green from PC PS) isolation transformer (9mH each)
L3 / L4  common mode choke 37uH each
L5 / L6  test toroid (T520-2) 6 turns each (24uH).
R2 / C1 = scope probe load (10MOhm / 8pF).

Using 1Mhz as frequency as the proposed 1Khz seems somewhat low to me.

Any suggestions on what i am doing wrong here?
I tried 8uH for L1 / L2 on LTspice to get a 50 Ohm impedance match with the FG (added a 50 ohm series R) on 1Mhz but this does not improve.

Thanks,  Itsu 

Hi Itsu,

Is the signal being lost through the common mode choke or balanced choke?  If so it may be how the choke is made.  I have used baluns in the past and they used a twisted pair of magnet wires wound onto a ring core.  It so happens that a twisted pair of enameled coated wire creates a transmission line of about 50 ohms impedance.  Thus when fed at one end from a 50 ohm source the signal travels along the twisted pair and is matched to the source.  If that input from the source is unbalanced (grounded), with that twisted pair wound onto the core the signal at the other end becomes balanced (off ground).  That creates a wide bandwidth balun.  I don't know whether Graham's balun was like this but I guess it must have been, and it is unfortunate that the circuit diagram shows it like a transformer.  I am not sure that the isolation transformer is absolutely necessary, but I don't see that creating much signal loss.

Smudge

Smudge,

the signal is already lost at the secondary (L2) of the isolation transformer.
The green signal in my simulator was taken at top of L2 (1Vpp in on L1, 1.7mV out at L2).

In my real life setup it showed the same.

So my isolation transformer is doing that, so i need a balun like setup there like you mention.
Will fiddle around with a balun tonight while waiting for the T107 toroid.

My common mode choke L3 / L4 (your balanced choke) should not influence the signal strength or
impedance much, only suppress some transients as i undestand.

Itsu

Itsu,

IMO, your coupling factors are too low on both transformers.  Realistically K=.9-.95 would be more in line but even at that, the iso transformer has way too much inductance for efficient transfer at 1MHz.

Also, I don't mean to throw cold water on your sim attempt, but in order to "see" any likeness to GG's bench results, the sim models will become quite complex.  The internal models for inductors do allow the various parameters to be added and there are two methods of creating non-linearity, but again IMO, these will not allow true replication of the device.

Regards,
Pm

Thanks PM,

i did play around with the coupling factors and tried both higher (0.9) and lower values, also as
mentioned above, i tried for 8uH for the both iso transformer legs (50 Ohm reactance @ 1Mhz) but this also
did not improve much.

I do realize that the sim used is very basic, but i use it to test my real life setup and they confirm
up till now what i see on my scope (very low output on the iso transformer secondary).

Hopefully the 1:1 balun will change that, i also can do without the iso transformer by using a
battery operated FG.

Itsu

I was playing with the twisted magnet wire on a toroid as iso xformer as suggested by Smudge and
that seems to work out ok.

It does not matter how to connect the FG to this iso xformer (series or parallel sort off), so i
decided to do it parallel so we then have a galvanic isolation of the FG ground wire, see picture.

The screenshot shows the signals and it now shows that the problem is the common mode choke.

White is the FG signal when measured stand alone (so no other probes attached), so 1Vpp @ 1MHz
Yellow is the iso xformer secondary, so nearly the same at 1Vpp @ 1MHz
Blue is the output from the common mode choke, so here we now loose the RF.
Purple is the test toroid output and load (10MOhm @ 8pF).

Itsu

Hi Itsu,

I think it would be informative to terminate the output of the common choke by a 50 Ohm resistor (remove the test toroid coil) and see the waveform across the 50 Ohm first.
If there is already an issue, then the ferrite core material of the choke "produces the issue", it could be lossy at 1 MHz and together with the inductive load from the test toroid coil it 'misbehaves'.  :D

Another test could be to terminate the output of the test toroid coil also by a 50 Ohm in the present setup you showed in the picture and see the waveform (now the output is practically open due to the scope probe).

Gyula

Itsu,

Yes, one coil or side of the CMC needs to have it's connections reversed.  The purpose of the CMC is to reject any common mode signal while having the ability to pass the differential signals.  The connections shown will pass the common mode and attempt to reject the differential.

Regards,
Pm

Thanks Guys,

PM, i tried to reverse one side of the CMC (bottom side in above picture), but still no signal (or similar as before) out of it.

So i tried Gyula his suggestion and put a 50 Ohm resistor at the load of the test toroid, but still no
signal there or at the output of the CMC.

So i used a 50 Ohm resistor at the output of the CMC which showed some better signal now, but still
tens of mV's only.

Using some different CMC i have one now (green PC PS CMC) which gives about 160mVpp out with 1Vpp in,
see screenshot.
Reversing one side of the CMC (bottom again), decreases the output to 137mVpp.

Guess its the CMC makeup that causes this loss.

Itsu

Itsu,
Are you measuring the output from the CMC using two probes and taking the difference?  If not the ground connection to the probe could be putting a short via ground onto the CMC.  The output from the CMC should be a twin wire balanced line that cannot sustain a ground connection on one wire.
Smudge

Hi Smudge,

QuoteAre you measuring the output from the CMC using two probes and taking the difference?

No i did not as can be seen in the pictures.
But doing so does not change much.
In the last setup (50 Ohm termination of the CMC), the differential output still shows about 160mVpp.

Going back to the complete setup with the test toroid attached it also makes no difference, output on
the CMC 100mVpp and no output on the test toroid load (10Mohm / 8pF).

Itsu

Got my T107/65/18-3F4 Ferrite Toroid today.

Will start with the setup as described by Smudge in the below PDF..............


Itsu

Itsu,
Looking back at an earlier post I see you said

QuoteI was playing with the twisted magnet wire on a toroid as iso xformer as suggested by Smudge and that seems to work out ok.

The twisted wire thingy is for the CMC which I regard as a balun, not the iso transformer.  I should have picked this up from your image which clearly shows the twisted wire toroid as the iso transformer.  That is not what I meant for you to do.  May I suggest you use the twisted wire idea for the CMC instead of classical coils.   I think you will then solve the problem as the signal now travels along the twisted wire transmission line.  At least you now have a good iso tranformer which was your earlier problem. 
Smudge

Edit.  I might add that the signal flows down the twisted pair in the same manner that broadband internet signals travel down the twisted pair telephone cables.  So there should be very little loss in the CMC.

Just to clarify here are images of a wide bandwidth balun, unbalanced to balanced transformer or CMC (with thanks to Itsu for use of his image).
Smudge

Thanks for the clarification Smudge, sorry for the confusion.

So i keep the ISO Xformer (galvanic isolation) and build a new balun/choke (T106-2, twisted wire,
straight through), see picture below.


I followed the mentioned PDF and have my T107 toroid with 1 turns / 10 turns, a 10 Ohm series resistor
and a variable air capacitor (45 - 345pF).

Please check this is what you meant to do.

FG set to 1MHz sine wave 1Vpp
Cap tuned to resonance (157pF)
Input voltage (red) done via differential (2 probes) measurement show still some loss/loading (806Vpp).  Input measured at 1 turn prim. of the T107.
Output voltage (purple) at resonance 9.22Vpp at almost no phase shift (1 - 2 °)   Voltage measured across variable cap C1, see diagram below.

Inductance measured:
Primary 1 turn 1.93uH @ 100KHz
Secondary 10 turn 139.2uH @ 100KHz

Regards Itsu

  Thanks for the updates!   O0

Here the diagram from my last setup above with value's:


Itsu

Hi Itsu,

I would refer you to my "MDT paper" in post #9 of this thread where the story is somewhat clearer.  You will see that the capacitor and load are not in series, they are in parallel as this is looking for an effect where the secondary is loaded by a capacitor.  And you will see that the effect occurs above resonance.  We are looking for the real component of the input impedance going negative, i.e. a negative resistance.  If that occurs then the system feeds energy back to the source and the COP is infinite.  It is predicted by transmission line theory.  Below is figure 4 from that paper where the zero crossing is circled in red.  Graham's measurements did not obtain that zero crossing, but interestingly the ratio of Vout/Vin which you would expect to peak at resonance did not do so, the peak occurred at just that point where theory predicted the zero crossing, so the magnetic delay plus capacitive loading did produce an effect.  This tells me it may be possible to succeed perhaps if the magnetic delay could somehow be artificially increased.  That I think is the exercise.  So if I were doing the work I would measure the ratio of Vout/Vin to see if it peaks above the resonant frequency.  Try using the highest frequency you can where the time delay has greatest effect.  You might also measure the input resistance to see whether this gets to its lowest value at that point where Vout/Vin is maximum.  This all points towards the system nearly getting to a zero crossing.   If you have some success there I would then be inclined to try to increase the magnetic delay, but more on that later.

Not sure where the one turn primary came from, Graham used I think six or ten turns for both.  The load resistance across the capacitor is somewhat arbitrary for now, I would be inclined to not have one and just use the capacitor.

Smudge   

Here is an old paper where I show an experiment I did using a small toroidal core with input and output coils diametrically opposite.   Putting a series of additional coils each shunted by a capacitor produces a measurable delay as shown.  This could be something worth trying.
Smudge

Smudge,  you see, the info you put into this thread is enormous, so i find it hard to get a clear
understanding on what the correct schematic to follow is.

I understood from your post #13:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3847.msg78101#msg78101

QuoteHere is one of my earlier papers before the MDT program got started.  I modeled a  1 turn primary and a 10 turn secondary.  That could be the basis for a simple experiment.
Smudge.
------------------------
* Magnetic Delay Effects.pdf (28.61 kB - downloaded 17 times.)

you pointed there to an easy start, but i now see its just a "modeling", not a real circuit.


Looking at your post #9 i see the schematic, but no real data on used components.

So for starters, putting 1 + 1 together, i need to change to 2 x 6 turns on the T107, get my load resistor
parallel to the secondary LC of the T107.


What about the value of this parallel resistor, does it matter or is the 10 Ohm OK?


Itsu

QuoteWhat about the value of this parallel resistor, does it matter or is the 10 Ohm OK?

I think I would use a high value like 1M Ohm.  Not bother with output power which would be small, but look for the input characteristics I mentioned.  That does mean taking measurements over a frequency range.  I might mention that Graham built a rig that did things automatically so he could just leave it running and gather vast amounts of data, that I then analyzed.  I don't expect you to do that  :).
Smudge

I changed my setup to have 2x 6 turns on the T107 and to have a 1MOhm resistor parallel to the secondary
LC of the T107, see diagram / picture


Went up to 2.5Mhz to have my 45-345pF variable cap somewhere midway (~260pF).

I have set the FG to have 1Vpp to the primary of the T107.

Resistor measures 1.020MOhm
Both T107 coils measure 49.2uH @ 100Khz.

Please check the diagram for errors/misunderstandings.


Using the FG in sweep mode, i sweep the setup between 1KHz and 5Mhz, see screenshot 1.
Purple is the signal across the 1MOhm resistor when in resonance (2.5Mhz)
Red is the differential signal across the T107 primary (set at 1Vpp).

We see that the resonance output voltage peak does not coincides with the input dip.

Screenshot 2 is from the signals non sweeped at 2.5Mhz.


Itsu

Below screenshot is an input power sweep (white) compared to an output power sweep (red).

I used a 1 Ohm 1% inductionfree CSR for these power (current) measurements.

Again the sweep is from 1KHz to 5Mhz.

I first did the input measurement / calculations in White (across the T107 primary) then the output measurement / calculation (across T107 secondary)
as my scope only can do 1 math function at a time.

Not sure how to interpret these power sweeps, but i hope to be able to pinpoint an area of interest.

(using max. voltage (20Vpp) from FG)

Itsu

Hmmm,   when i swap the FG leads (red / black), then the input power measurement/calc (white) at the T107 primary gets more symmetrical; guess thats more according to how it should be.


Itsu

Hi Itsu,

The Area of Interest (AOI) is just above resonance where the input power dips.  I think you will find that the COP there is a maximum, and will be greater than the COP at resonance.  In fact just doing a quick look on that last screen shot, assuming both scope traces are at the same settings and measuring the powers with a ruler I get the COP (output power/input power) to be about 0.92 at resonance and about 4.3 at the AOI.  With a COP of 4.3 that is certainly an area of interest  O0.

Smudge

I made an update yesterday evening, but somehow it did not went through.


My problem is that the measurements are not consistent.
Even at resonance i get sometimes a COP = 2 then lateron 0.5 or so.

So i still think the problem is in the scope leads ground probes, especially
when measuring the input at the primary of the T107.
Then i have to "ground" the primary of the T107 bringing it to the same potential as the FG black lead.
so effectively shorting out the Iso / balun.

I can try to use a battery operated (simple) FG and skip the ISO / balun combo and/or try to use my
current probe for current readings and differential probing for voltage, but with my scope it will
take some manipulations.


Itsu

    itsu:
    Can your scope read the voltages, if the scope's ground lead is left disconnected?
    Have you found a frequency where the input power drops?
    That is what I've had to do on some of these tests on my device, not to use the negative scope probe.
    In any case, consistency of the reading needs to be found.
    Hoping that your tests on this device will show some gains.
       NickZ

Hi Nick,

my scope can read voltages with its probes ground leads disconnected, but it would fluctuate and i
would not trust these readings much.

As you can see in the picture below from Smudge, the "Area Of Interest" line would be the frequency
around 2.8MHz (while keeping the circuit tuned to 2.5MHz resonance) where the input takes a dive while
the output still remains significant and thus hopefully above COP=1.

Checking around 2.8Mhz up till now shows fluctuating values mostly on the input (phase difference
involved) and thus no consistent readings.

Regards itsu

Hi Itsu,

I am not sure how important the ISO transformer or the balum/choke are.  If you get consistent readings without using them I would concentrate on that.  You use the math channel to calculate power, what formula do you use?

Smudge

Smudge,

i will try tonight to use the battery operated FG directly to drive the T107 primary and see what readings i get.

The TDS3054B scope uses its internal math function to calculate the power (mean) from the instantaneous
values given by the 2 probes used, in this case 1 measuring voltage and an other to measure current.

As these 2 probes used need a ground reference there lies the problem i think.


Itsu

If you have your CSR in the grounded end of the winding giving voltage V1  and the other end V2 then use math V1 x (V2-V1) does that solve the problem?
Smudge

Also, how do you ensure that the math channel averages over whole cycles?  Do you set cursers to do this?
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.10, 17:00:52
If you have your CSR in the grounded end of the winding giving voltage V1  and the other end V2 then use math V1 x (V2-V1) does that solve the problem?
Smudge

The problem is in the ground lead connections of the probes.
See the diagram below, no matter where i measure, i need to put a groundlead at any of those red circled points and thus grounding there where no grounding was/is.

I can see on the scope that there is an influence.


Itsu

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.10, 18:03:29
Also, how do you ensure that the math channel averages over whole cycles?  Do you set cursers to do this?
Smudge

My scope has 3 options,  across the full record, screen size or between 2 vertical cursors, see screenshot.
Normally i use the "full record" and put up many cycles to get a good average.

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.10, 18:52:26
The problem is in the ground lead connections of the probes.
See the diagram below, no matter where i measure, i need to put a groundlead at any of those red circled points and thus grounding there where no grounding was/is.
I can see on the scope that there is an influence.
Itsu

OK I see your problem.  Graham had the benefit of an expensive multi channel scope so he had all scope probes permanently connected, he didn't have to swap ground connections about.  Also he could use differential measurements using two probes so that ground loops were not a problem.

In your case in order to keep things the same for both input and output power measurements the ISO and balun/choke are redundant and you may as well just connect the FG directly to the device.  Also I can't see how you can use two ground points at opposite ends of the CSR, surely those two scope ground connections are shorting out the CSR.  You need a different set up with just one ground point.  For the output power you don't need a CSR.  My two images below show a permanent ground connection between primary and secondary, with the scope probes grounded there.  For the input power you need the math shown on the image there, CH2-CH1 of course gives you the voltage across the primary to be multiplied by the current.  For the output power the math channel uses the load resistance.  (If you are worried about the inductance of the load resistance then use the CSR and connect in the same manner as for the input power).  I show dummy probes which are simply a resistor and capacitor in parallel (e.g. 10M and 20pF or whatever your probes are) to simulate the presence of the absent probes.  All this ensures that to the best of your ability the system is identical for both measurements.

I see your power measurements are noisy.  Maybe this is because you are using a 1M load which will not consume much power.  I think that 1M is OK when you are exploring input impedance, but maybe a lower value would be better for power measurements.

Hope this helps.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.11, 11:16:53
OK I see your problem.  Graham had the benefit of an expensive multi channel scope so he had all scope probes permanently connected, he didn't have to swap ground connections about.  Also he could use differential measurements using two probes so that ground loops were not a problem.

In your case in order to keep things the same for both input and output power measurements the ISO and balun/choke are redundant and you may as well just connect the FG directly to the device.  Also I can't see how you can use two ground points at opposite ends of the CSR, surely those two scope ground connections are shorting out the CSR.  You need a different set up with just one ground point.  For the output power you don't need a CSR.  My two images below show a permanent ground connection between primary and secondary, with the scope probes grounded there.  For the input power you need the math shown on the image there, CH2-CH1 of course gives you the voltage across the primary to be multiplied by the current.  For the output power the math channel uses the load resistance.  (If you are worried about the inductance of the load resistance then use the CSR and connect in the same manner as for the input power).  I show dummy probes which are simply a resistor and capacitor in parallel (e.g. 10M and 20pF or whatever your probes are) to simulate the presence of the absent probes.  All this ensures that to the best of your ability the system is identical for both measurements.

I see your power measurements are noisy.  Maybe this is because you are using a 1M load which will not consume much power.  I think that 1M is OK when you are exploring input impedance, but maybe a lower value would be better for power measurements.

Hope this helps.

Smudge

Smudge,

thanks for the resonse, but i think we are miscommunicating somehow, probably i am not expressing myself clear enough in English.

I will never use 2 two ground points at opposite ends of the csr, i meant to show the 2 possibilities i have on each csr to put a ground lead, but not 2 at both ends.

I tried your both input and output schemes, but the thing i want to avoid is the groundlink between the 2 coils L5 / L6, i think they will cause measurement errors (it shows up on my scope), so therefor i measure input OR output, not both at the same time.
If Graham does so, i have my doubts about the results.


Anyway, the 1MOhm resistor indeed causes very low current, almost unmeasurable (300uA) for my current probe so i will try some lower values.

Here a video i made yesterday omitting the ISO xformer / balun and taking some power measurements.
Some things puzzle me, like why does the input power turns negative at 2.8 / 2.9Mhz, and why do i not see a 0° phase at the output signal (V and I)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o6JZluTAjM

I will try a lower resistor, like 100K to see if it improves.

By the way, when using your output calc CH1²/R for the value in the video, i get 11² (rms) /1.022M = 121uA

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.11, 12:57:20
Smudge,

thanks for the resonse, but i think we are miscommunicating somehow, probably i am not expressing myself clear enough in English.

I will never use 2 two ground points at opposite ends of the csr, i meant to show the 2 possibilities i have on each csr to put a ground lead, but not 2 at both ends.

OK, sorry for the misconception.  I now see you have a hall sensor current probe so you don't need the CSR, but maybe your probe can't handle the high frequency so you need the CSR for accurate measurements.

QuoteI tried your both input and output schemes, but the thing i want to avoid is the groundlink between the 2 coils L5 / L6, i think they will cause measurement errors (it shows up on my scope), so therefor i measure input OR output, not both at the same time.

Yes I know that.  And to keep things more or less exactly the same for both measurements I suggested using the dummy probe.

QuoteHere a video i made yesterday omitting the ISO xformer / balun and taking some power measurements.
Some things puzzle me, like why does the input power turns negative at 2.8 / 2.9Mhz,

Well that is exactly the effect we are looking for.  If the input resistance (real part of the input impedance) goes negative then that is what happens, the unit feeds back power instead of consuming it.  So I am glad you have found this, even if it is a false reading.  I suggested the 1M load because I had the feeling that the negative input resistance would show up better without a serious load on the secondary.  Maybe we should concentrate on that and use that power feedback somehow, and forget about taking power from the secondary.

Quoteand why do i not see a 0° phase at the output signal (V and I)?

Well looking at the video I see generally a 180 degree phase which simply means you have your current probe the wrong way round.

QuoteBy the way, when using your output calc CH1²/R for the value in the video, i get 11² (rms) /1.022M = 121uA

You mean 121uW, but yes that's about right.  With such low output power the input is really just feeding losses (or maybe not if that negative power is real).  If your other output power measurement (average of V*i) is giving a much larger answer look for a math error (like using 1K instead of 1M).  But I think I would concentrate on that negative input power, maximise that to see (a) whether we can get self oscillation and (b) whether we can get usable power out somewhere (maybe from the secondary) when it is oscillating.

Smudge

Itsu,
If your negative input power is real, then your thingy is feeding power into the internal 50 ohm impedance of the FG.  You are measuring V*i as power, could you try the math channel measuring V/i as resistance?  Then is there a frequency where that negative R is a maximum?  If so then you could try disconnecting the FG, putting a resistor near that value across the primary, then giving the circuit a kick from the FG to get it started and see what happens.  You may be closer to getting self oscillation than you realize.

Smudge

I did use 1 Ohm CSR's when using the ISO xformer / balun setup, but switched over to the
current probe (DC to 50MHz capable) using the battery operated FG (to minimize ground leads).

The output signals (V and I) look more to have 90° or so phase shift, not 180° which is strange to
me when being in parallel resonance.

Indeed, i mean 121uW for output power.

Anyway, i will redo the input measurements and use V/I (resistance) to check for maximum negative R tonight.

Looking at the video of the input measurments, it looks like the I signal is shifting from leading to
lagging the V signal pointing to shifting from a capacitive reactance to inductive reactance when going
from 2.5Mhz to 2.8Mhz.

More later,  Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.11, 15:02:24
Looking at the video of the input measurments, it looks like the I signal is shifting from leading to
lagging the V signal pointing to shifting from a capacitive reactance to inductive reactance when going
from 2.5Mhz to 2.8Mhz.

Were it just a reactance change the math power would not become negative.  No, I think there is more to it than that, and I am excited that this is showing what I have predicted all along.  There will be a frequency where that negative power is a maximum and IMO that will coincide with the frequency where the input resistance is maximum negative.

With regard to the output waveforms you are right, the current is at 90 degrees to the voltage (I got confused and looked at the math trace).  Maybe this has something to do with your current probe being so close to your variable capacitor.  There will be displacement currents flowing from plate to plate and if some flow through the current probe this will give a false reading.

Edit.  I might add that because of the time delay along the magnetic path, what seems to be resonance at the primary may not be resonance as seen at the secondary.

Smudge 

I used the same setup again, only increased the frequency to 3MHz to have my variable cap
variable plate in the middle at resonance.

I went up to 3.7Mhz showing the negative wattage using the math calculating V*I as before, see screenshot 1
I then changed the calculation over to V/I (resistance) and got the signals as shown in screenshot 2

Decreasing the vertical scale on the Math trace still does not put it into screen limits, so not sure
how to interpret this signal.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9vRq1r6P3U

Does the fact that all the way up to 5MHz the wattage and resistance stay negative says something?
I mean its not just a small area where this happens.

Concerning the output V and I not being in phase, i tried a longer loop on the 1MOhm resistor putting
the current probe about 10cm above the var cap, but still the V and I stays at 90° when in resonance.

Itsu

  Those are strange results, all right.  How can you have negative resistance and negative wattage?

They are not strange to me, negative R and negative power are predicted using classical transmission line theory if the line has a reactive Z and is terminated by a capacitance.  It was silly of me to ask for the math channel to compute V/i as that produces infinities when the current goes through zero.
Smudge

I have been doing some calculations using data from Itsu's first video where the negative power was near maximum.  The numbers were:-
Power W = minus 10.55 milliwatts
Voltage V = 1.667 volts rms
Current I_tot = 37.7 milliamps rms
The ratio of W/V gives me the real component of current which calculates at I_real = minus 6.329 mA.
Then V/I_real gives us the negative input resistance which is R = minus 163.4 ohms.
We can calculate the angle between I_real and I_tot as theta = cos^-1(I_real/I_tot) giving theta as 80.336 degrees.  And Pythagorus gives us the imaginary (reactive) component of current as I_imag = 37.165mA.
These vectors are shown in the image below.  It is seen that the voltage leads the current by 99.66 degrees, i.e in excess of 90 degrees.  It is that angle exceeding 90 degrees that accounts for the negative input resistance and the negative power.  Negative input power simply means that the device is feeding back energy to the source, and not consuming energy.  Of course there is also that reactive current where energy sloshes back and forth but the average power transfer there is zero.

We can use the ratio of voltage to reactive current to get the input reactance which calculates at X = 44.854 ohms.  Since the voltage leads the current this is an inductive reactance omega*L, so we can calculate the input inductance as L = X/omega giving an input inductance of 2.462 microhenries at the 2.9 MHz frequency.  The image below shows the input as seen by the FG as that 2.462 uH in parallel with the negative R of minus 263.4 ohms.

If we wish to make this system self oscillate (which we do) we must use something that will supply that reactive but wattless current I_imag.  We can't use the FG because that has an internal resistance that dissipates power.  But we can use a capacitor, and of course if that C is resonant with the input L then it provides this current automatically.  That value of C calculates to be 1.224 nanofarads.  The input circuit then looks like that shown below and that should self oscillate provided that the ESR of the capacitor doesn't swamp the negative R.  Transferring the shunt R to a series r in a resonant circuit is done by r = L/(C*R) and this gives an equivalent negative series r as minus 7.63 ohms.  So if the ESR of the 1.224nF capacitor is less that 7.73 ohms we could win this battle.

Smudge

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.11, 20:32:14
I used the same setup again, only increased the frequency to 3MHz to have my variable cap
variable plate in the middle at resonance.

I went up to 3.7Mhz showing the negative wattage using the math calculating V*I as before, see screenshot 1
I then changed the calculation over to V/I (resistance) and got the signals as shown in screenshot 2

Decreasing the vertical scale on the Math trace still does not put it into screen limits, so not sure
how to interpret this signal.

You won't get it within screen limits as it goes to plus and minus infinity! Sorry I asked you to do it.  If the math doesn't get some sort of saturation then the average showing negative R might be useful.  But we can calculate another way as in my previous post.

QuoteDoes the fact that all the way up to 5MHz the wattage and resistance stay negative says something?
I mean its not just a small area where this happens.

That is predicted to happen so it's good.

QuoteConcerning the output V and I not being in phase, i tried a longer loop on the 1MOhm resistor putting
the current probe about 10cm above the var cap, but still the V and I stays at 90° when in resonance.

I would forget about the output there and concentrate on that negative power at the input.  If this is all genuine then the whole point of the exercise is to use that input and get it to self oscillate.  If I were doing this I would remove the 1Meg load and just have the secondary shunted by the capacitor.  I would try a small fixed capacitor as that large variable of yours could somehow provide a radiation path back to the source and it would be good to eliminate that possibility.

Smudge

Impressive calculations and analysis, i can't argue against it :-)

I thought for the negative resistance to use the "between 2 cursors math" setup and avoiding the zero crossing
but it will only calculate a half cycle or so.


So i will loose the the 1M resistor, find a fixed cap on the secondary (~260pF) and a low ESR cap
of about 1.22nF for the input.


I have no time today/tonight, so it will take some time to come back.

Itsu

My calculations were for the smaller capacitance value on the secondary you used earlier.  A higher value there will require a recalc.and that will result in a different value up front.
Smudge
Edit: see next post as you didn't use a smaller value.

Hi Itsu,
Looking back I see that your 10mW negative power at 2.9MHz did use 260pF across the secondary.  If you can repeat that with a fixed value capacitor then that would be good.  If the input tuned with a 1.22nF capacitor is going to self oscillate it will require a trigger to get it going.  I don't think you can use the FG directly as its internal 50 ohms will consume that 10mW of free power.  You can get over this by using two capacitors in series with one of them much greater than 1.22nF, but the series value is still that wanted 1.22nF.  I have used a 10 to 1 ratio for those two capacitors in the diagram below.  The FG can then be fed onto the larger value capacitor.  If you keep your scope probes in place you should witness what appears to be a very very high Q resonance as you adjust the frequency as the input circuit is no longer shunted by the FG 50 ohms.  Using more than a 10 to 1 ratio for those two capacitors takes the FG further away from shunting the circuit giving higher Q, and hopefully you will eventually reach self oscillation where the FG can be disconnected.  I have shown a switch in the FG connection so that you can quickly disconnect it if needed.
Smudge

Smudge,

updates seen, i will go back to 2.5MHz resonance and measure the var cap capacitance exactly as i
made a guess (260pF) about it.
Then use a fixed cap of that measured value across the secondary and loose the 1M resistor.

If i again get the negative wattage above resonance i can continue with setting up the input side.

I have some 2.2nF Multilayer Ceramic Capacitors MLCC caps, so 2 in series will get me close to your
calulated 1.22 / 1.34nF value.

Itsu

Turned out that the var. cap was set at 288pF when at resonance on 2.5MHz.

So i use a 270pF (269pF measured) MLCC cap instead making resonance at 2.56MHz.
I removed the 1MOhm resistor.

Installing the input circuit as per diagram above, i have:

2x 2.2nF in series making 1.040nF (measured), 1x 270pF parallel to above making a total of 1.304nF (measured).

The series cap across the FG is made of 1x 10nF plus 1x 3nF parallel totalling 12.7nF (measured)

It seems that now the secondary resonance point shifted to 2.96Mhz (17Vpp)
We also see a very strong resonance point at 590KHz (51Vpp) probably from the primary LC, but i will disregard it.

Hunting for negative wattage above resonance shows now very little (-244uW) negative wattage around 3.1MHz see screenshot.

Trying to let is selfresonate fails up till now.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKrE8-agtRs

Itsu

Itsu,

In your latest screen shot in the post above, there is considerable positive offset in the current probe waveform.  This is quite visible but is also evident by the varying peaks in the math waveform.  If the current waveform (usually the problem) is not offset by any appreciable amount, the power waveform peaks will be at relatively equal peaks.

It may not be the case but since the offset is positive, it could be possible your actual input power is at a higher negative value than displayed.

Pm

PM,

yes, at these low current settings (5 / 10mA/div.), my current signal tends to start floating a bit.
But if i take a screenshot at the right moment, like below, it gives a similar picture/value's.
It stays in the -200 to -250uW's.

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.13, 18:35:55
Turned out that the var. cap was set at 288pF when at resonance on 2.5MHz.

So i use a 270pF (269pF measured) MLCC cap instead making resonance at 2.56MHz.
I removed the 1MOhm resistor.

Did you then move your probes to the primary to check that you still got somewhere near minus 10mW at somewhere near 2.9MHz?  You don't show this in the video.  If those numbers have changed significantly then the calculations that I did won't hold.  That initial exercise was to rule out any radiation feedback from the large variable C, i.e a stray E field coupling back from that capacitor to the front end.  If the "good" result of minus 10mW is mainly due to some radiation feedback it doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be repeated using smaller capacitors, it just means we would have to supply that feedback path.

Assuming that you did do this we continue.

QuoteInstalling the input circuit as per diagram above, i have:

2x 2.2nF in series making 1.040nF (measured), 1x 270pF parallel to above making a total of 1.304nF (measured).

The series cap across the FG is made of 1x 10nF plus 1x 3nF parallel totalling 12.7nF (measured)

It seems that now the secondary resonance point shifted to 2.96Mhz (17Vpp)

That's OK.

QuoteWe also see a very strong resonance point at 590KHz (51Vpp) probably from the primary LC, but i will disregard it.

Hunting for negative wattage above resonance shows now very little (-244uW) negative wattage around 3.1MHz see screenshot.

I will go over my calculations again to see whether I have made an error.  In the meantime you might go back to you variable C so that you can adjust that slightly and see whether that -244uW can be increased.
Smudge

Smudge,

i did briefly mention that the negative value's are still there using the fixed 269pF cap, around 1:14 in the video.

A quick check just now (cold equipment) showed around -6mW @ 3.5MHz (FG directly to the primary), but i will double check later today.

The 590MHz resonance point might be the primary L 49.2uH and the 1.3nF C.

Perhaps i should loose the breadboard with its stray capacitance etc.

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.14, 10:59:34
Smudge,

i did briefly mention that the negative value's are still there using the fixed 269pF cap, around 1:14 in the video.

Sorry I missed that.  The audio on my old PC isn't working so I am using subtitles and in order to catch the best frame I played back in slow motion.

QuoteA quick check just now (cold equipment) showed around -6mW @ 3.5MHz (FG directly to the primary), but i will double check later today.

OK that's good

QuoteThe 590MHz resonance point might be the primary L 49.2uH and the 1.3nF C.

I agree

QuotePerhaps i should loose the breadboard with its stray capacitance etc.

Well it may be that it needs a more precise alignment between the notional 1.22nF at the front and the C at the secondary.  So it might be worth trying to use the variable C again and tweaking this looking for a sweet spot where the Q takes off.

Smudge

Reinserting the var. cap on the secondary, using your input circuit and looking for a sweet spot, i find
best results when the var. cap is at its max. (345pF).

The negative input wattage is then -2mW @ 2.71Mhz, see screenshot.

The problem with this is that the resonance frequency is very close (2.69Mhz) and i have a negative
input wattage there as well of -1mW  :D

Itsu

Itsu,
Something has worried me about that inductive input circuit.  You would normally expect the capacitive loaded transformer to have a positive (inductive) reactance below resonance, passing through zero at resonance and becoming negative (capacitive) above resonance.  Graham's measurements showed this classical S shaped curve.  Yet you are showing an inductive effect where the the voltage phase leads the current phase.  Then it struck me that the Hall effect current probe must insert some series inductance that could be significant at high frequencies.  Does the specification for your probe give you a value for this inductance?

If not could you please simply feed your FG onto a non-inductive resistor (say 100 ohms) and measure the voltage and current and calculated power in the way you have been doing?  That will tell us whether the probe's inductance is influencing the results, and if it is then my suggested input circuit from the FG is all wrong.  It will tell us what the probe's inductance is and then I can recalculate everything.  The image below shows the apparent input to the MDT as a series circuit equivalent to the parallel one, where the input has a series negative resistance of 7.43 ohms (using the 1.667V, 37.7mA, -10.55mW at 2.9MHz data that I previously used).  If the probe is responsible for that series inductance, then the image also shows the real input to the MDT as that -7.43 ohms in series with the expected input capacitance.  If I know the inductance of the probe I can then calculate that input capacitance and re-jig the manner in which to connect the FG.
Smudge

It may not be an inductance effect of the current probe, it may be propagation delay.  Here is an extract from Tectronix "ABCs of Probes" (my underlining added).

Propagation delay is usually only a concern when comparative
measurements are being made between two or more
waveforms. For example, when measuring time differences
between two waveforms, the waveforms should be acquired
using matched probes so that each signal experiences the
same propagation delay through the probes.

Another example would be making power measurements by
using a voltage probe and a current probe in combination.
Since voltage and current probes are of markedly different
construction, they will have different propagation delays.
Whether or not these delays will have an effect on the power
measurement depends on the frequencies of the waveforms
being measured. For Hz and kHz signals, the delay differences
will generally be insignificant. However, for MHz signals the
delay differences may have a noticeable effect.

And that noticeable effect could well be the appearance of the current waveform lagging the voltage waveform.  It could explain why the input to the MDT appears to be inductive when it should be capacitive.  If we can determine that difference in propagation delay by measuring a known resistor then I can recalculate things as stated in the previous post.

Edit: And my recalculation may well remove that negative power reading.  :'(

Smudge

Smudge,

updates seen, i know about the delay of the current probe, and normally i try to compensate for this
delay by adjusting the voltage probes (±10ns) and or current probe (±10ns).

At 2.5Mhz there is slightly more then 20ns delay, so i set the voltage probes to +10ns and the current
probe to -10ns so the delay should be largely compensated for, but indeed not completly.

So let me measure the delay using a (normally i use a 50 Ohm 1% inductionfree) resistor at 2.5Mhz.

The Tektronix A6302 current probe (with AM 503B controller) specs do not mention any inductive influence,
see picture of its specs taken from the PDF below.

I will use a 100 Ohm 1% inductionfree resistor for making current measurements on the input later tonight.


Itsu

Using a 50 Ohm 1% inductionfree resistor to measure the propagation delay belween the voltage and
current probe at 2.5Mhz with a 10Vpp square wave.

Screenshot 1 is with both probes uncompensated,
screenshot 2 with voltage probe compensated with its max. +10ns, and the current probe with its max. -10ns.

So we are left with a 8.8ns propagation delay at 2.5MHz.

Itsu

Well that 8.8nS is about 8 degrees at 2.5MHz.  Take that off your measured phase delay and the phase is then less than 90 degrees, not more than 90 degrees that is displayed and used in the math channel.  That means the negative power is an artifact.  So we are back to the situation that we arrived at with Graham's work.  Input resistance drops to a minimum at a frequency above resonance but doesn't go negative.  That drop in input resistance results from the time delay across the transformer, if there were no time delay it wouldn't happen.  Which is where we started on this thread and I wanted to deliberately increase the time delay across the transformer to see if we can get that input resistance to actually go negative.  I have already suggested means for doing this.
Smudge

Thanks Smudge,

had some family matters to attent, but let me try with a 100 Ohm resistor as csr instead of the current
probe, both with and without your input circuit to see of all negative wattage/resistance has gone.

Itsu

The csr route should solve the probe time delay problem.  It would be helpful if you could do one simple thing, and that is feed your FG onto the primary, load the secondary with your 100 ohm non inductive R and then measure the time delay across the MDT.  This will be about 35nS and it would be good to get this verified.
Smudge

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.16, 07:44:43
Thanks Smudge,

had some family matters to attent, but let me try with a 100 Ohm resistor as csr instead of the current
probe, both with and without your input circuit to see of all negative wattage/resistance has gone.

Itsu

I used a 100 Ohm csr in the return line and measured the circuit as proposed in below diagram.

First using the direct attached FG to the primary, then the Smudge input circuit.

Strange to me is that in the 1st case, the voltage across the 100 Ohm resistor is NOT in phase with
the voltage across primary + R when at resonance.

Going up in frequency it gets in phase.
Not sure the formula mentioned in the diagram below is valid for non "in phase" signals.

For the 2th case the signals are in phase almost all the time and at 2.7Mhz the voltage peaks.

Video here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTCiTh56DRI


Itsu

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.16, 15:18:52
The csr route should solve the probe time delay problem.  It would be helpful if you could do one simple thing, and that is feed your FG onto the primary, load the secondary with your 100 ohm non inductive R and then measure the time delay across the MDT.  This will be about 35nS and it would be good to get this verified.
Smudge

Using a FG (10vpp sine wave @ 2.5MHz) directly attached to the primary, and a 100 Ohm resistor only
across the secondary, i measure a 72nS time delay, see screenshot.

Yellow FG input signal,
blue signal across the 100 Ohm.

Itsu

That's quite a significant time delay.  Looking at the 3F4 ferrite data I see it is quite lossy at 2.5MHz with its mu" at about one third of its mu'.  I think maybe those losses may account for why the input resistance remains above zero.  I think it would be worth using a lower frequency, say 500KHz and see what happens.  That means loading the secondary with a 6.5nF capacitor.  My input circuit values no longer apply so just connect Fg directly to primary + csr. Measure input voltage and current via csr and tune for minimum input watts on the math channel as before.  There should still be a minimum point above the resonant frequency.
Smudge

ok, i will set that up time permitting.

I also have a T520-2 toroid (iron powder) which is designed for 2-30MHz which i might try,  see:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3847.msg78156#msg78156


Itsu

Smudge and Itsu,

I have these powdered iron cores on hand so I tested one and the results are below.

It is a T225-26B core with 10 turns each for primary and secondary.  The load is a non-inductive 100 ohm film and with the frequency at 500kHz, the delay appears to be ~ 210ns.

Pm

Edit: Added single pulse scope pix.

Thanks PM,  my T520-2 (iron powder) with 2x 6 turns shows a delay at 500KHz, of 36ns,
At 2.5MHz i measure 34ns.


Smudge,

Measuring propagation delay across the T107 transformer using a 100 Ohm resistor shows that at 420KHz there
is a delay of 117ns, so worse then at 2.5MHz (72ns), see screenshot.


Having 3x 2.2nF in parallel gives a measured 2.35nF cap at the secondary.
F-res seems to be 420KHz then.

The current probe delay is still 9ns at this 420KHz, but represent about 1.4° phase @ 420Khz.

Using the FG directly at the primary and using the yellow probe and current probe for power measurements,
i never see any negative power value's, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pOoidqNaHM



Itsu

Hi Itsu,

I wasn't expecting negative power, but looking for minimum input power.  Since there is no actual resistive load your input power hovers around a few milliwatts.  I did note that at the highest frequency you went to (630KHz or thereabout) the secondary voltage is almost at 180 degrees to the primary voltage.  As voltage is directly related to flux and since you are using sine waves we can reasonably assume that the flux in the secondary is at 180 degrees to that in the primary.  That is most interesting and it means that it is equivalent to the two coils being in bucking mode.  There must then be flux driven outside the core, see FEMM image below.  You can check this by placing a coil in the centre of the ring core to sense the flux there.  With the secondary flux opposing the primary flux, it makes me wonder how the transformer will then respond with a load across that secondary, keeping the capacitor there of course.  If the phase delay for the signal return from that load is also 180 degrees, does the primary see that load as a positive one.  And if so, if the frequency were chosen slightly lower where the phase delay across the transformer is 90 degrees (i.e. the two way delay is 180 degrees), will a secondary load then reflect back as a negative one?

If there is flux outside the ring core as shown below, can a coil placed there be driven so as to reduce that flux?  What effect would that have on the transformer efficiency?  You can see there is much to learn about this MDT.

Smudge

Hi Itsu,
That talk of bucking coils reminds me of a paper I wrote a couple of years ago, and here it is again.  As you now have a large toroidal core that has a significant phase delay across it perhaps you could quickly connect your two coils in series opposing and drive them directly from your FG, measuring voltage and current to see whether you achieve this magical negative input resistance, as suggested in figure 5 of that report.
Smudge.

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.20, 15:42:10
Hi Itsu,

I wasn't expecting negative power, but looking for minimum input power.  Since there is no actual resistive load your input power hovers around a few milliwatts.  I did note that at the highest frequency you went to (630KHz or thereabout) the secondary voltage is almost at 180 degrees to the primary voltage.  As voltage is directly related to flux and since you are using sine waves we can reasonably assume that the flux in the secondary is at 180 degrees to that in the primary.  That is most interesting and it means that it is equivalent to the two coils being in bucking mode.  There must then be flux driven outside the core, see FEMM image below.  You can check this by placing a coil in the centre of the ring core to sense the flux there.  With the secondary flux opposing the primary flux, it makes me wonder how the transformer will then respond with a load across that secondary, keeping the capacitor there of course.  If the phase delay for the signal return from that load is also 180 degrees, does the primary see that load as a positive one.  And if so, if the frequency were chosen slightly lower where the phase delay across the transformer is 90 degrees (i.e. the two way delay is 180 degrees), will a secondary load then reflect back as a negative one?

If there is flux outside the ring core as shown below, can a coil placed there be driven so as to reduce that flux?  What effect would that have on the transformer efficiency?  You can see there is much to learn about this MDT.

Smudge

Due to some problems here, my time is still limited.

QuoteI wasn't expecting negative power, but looking for minimum input power.

Concerning this, here an input / output sweep from 1KHz to 1MHz for both input power (white) and output power (red).

The signals are NOT at scale, so look for the numbers to compare.
Not sure how to present those figures (mean or pp or rms), but it shows the sweep shape and that we have more input then output all the way (measuring inbetween the vertical lines).

I was using the current probe for current measurements as i guess the propagation delay concerns both measurements equal.

Output was measured across/through a 1M resistor parallel to the output LC.

Itsu

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.20, 15:42:10
Hi Itsu,

I wasn't expecting negative power, but looking for minimum input power.  Since there is no actual resistive load your input power hovers around a few milliwatts.  I did note that at the highest frequency you went to (630KHz or thereabout) the secondary voltage is almost at 180 degrees to the primary voltage.  As voltage is directly related to flux and since you are using sine waves we can reasonably assume that the flux in the secondary is at 180 degrees to that in the primary.  That is most interesting and it means that it is equivalent to the two coils being in bucking mode.  There must then be flux driven outside the core, see FEMM image below.  You can check this by placing a coil in the centre of the ring core to sense the flux there.  With the secondary flux opposing the primary flux, it makes me wonder how the transformer will then respond with a load across that secondary, keeping the capacitor there of course.  If the phase delay for the signal return from that load is also 180 degrees, does the primary see that load as a positive one.  And if so, if the frequency were chosen slightly lower where the phase delay across the transformer is 90 degrees (i.e. the two way delay is 180 degrees), will a secondary load then reflect back as a negative one?

If there is flux outside the ring core as shown below, can a coil placed there be driven so as to reduce that flux?  What effect would that have on the transformer efficiency?  You can see there is much to learn about this MDT.

Smudge

Concerning the second part of your post, i made the below video showing what happens when inserting
a pickup coil in the middle of the toroid.

There is some flux being picked up, but it is fairly stable across a broad frequency range so does not
appear suddenly when input and output are 180° off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZtPKcVc4pc

Itsu

Hi Itsu,

Thanks for doing that.  That flux across the centre of the core is to be expected when you have primary and secondary on opposite sides of the core and the secondary is loaded so that it supplies current.  Under normal conditions (resistive load) the secondary current is opposite to the primary load current.  The mmf's are equal and opposite, thus acting like bucking coils to the load current component (not the magnetizing current component in the primary).  If primary and secondary are wound over each other the load currents do not create any flux at all, only the magnetizing current creates flux which remains inside the core.  But with the coil separation across the core the load currents drive that leakage flux outside the core.  In our case we have the phase due to propagation delay across the core and the phase caused by the capacitive loading, so I need to examine your video carefully to see what conclusions I can draw.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.21, 16:34:41
Hi Itsu,
That talk of bucking coils reminds me of a paper I wrote a couple of years ago, and here it is again.  As you now have a large toroidal core that has a significant phase delay across it perhaps you could quickly connect your two coils in series opposing and drive them directly from your FG, measuring voltage and current to see whether you achieve this magical negative input resistance, as suggested in figure 5 of that report.
Smudge.

Smudge,

using the Fig. 5 in the pdf and measuring voltage and current as shown in the diagram below shows no negative input power across the 100KHz to 5MHz range.
The input power is fairly stable around 2.5mW, see screenshot taken at 2MHz.

i was using my battery operated FG here.

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.24, 19:33:34
Smudge,

using the Fig. 5 in the pdf and measuring voltage and current as shown in the diagram below shows no negative input power across the 100KHz to 5MHz range.
The input power is fairly stable around 2.5mW, see screenshot taken at 2MHz.

i was using my battery operated FG here.

Itsu

Hi Itsu,
Thanks for doing that.  I was interested in the variable peaks in the math waveform and I noticed that the current waveform had a DC offset.  Wasn't sure whether this was just a scope setting.  I downloaded your screenshot, added my own cursors to take reading of the peak math power to see whether the DC offset was the cause of the variable peaks.  I took two peaks, one positive and one negative and for each took the displayed voltage and current values to show that these were indeed used by the math channel, see first image below.

Next I measured the phase between voltage and current, not using the zero crossings but using the DC offset crossings to see whether this made any difference to the phase, see second image.  The phase agreed with the scope's measurement.  So although it appears your FG puts out a sine wave with a small DC offset, this doesn't materially affect the scope readings.

If you are willing to proceed I think the next step is to introduce some deliberate phase delay along the magnetic core to see whether this can be beneficial.  A series of separate windings of a few turns each along the top and bottom of the core, with each coil shunted by a low value capacitor, will make a lumped constant magnetic delay line that will increase the time delay from primary to secondary.  Increasing those shunt capacitor values will increase the time delay.  Perhaps you could try this and see what time delays you get, initially using a resistive load on the secondary.

Smudge 

Smudge,

i measured my used FG to have no offset, so the shown blue current offset is somehow caused by the
setup used, see my circuit diagram in post #89.


Concerning:

QuoteA series of separate windings of a few turns each along the top and bottom of the core, with each coil
shunted by a low value capacitor, will make a lumped constant magnetic delay line that will increase
the time delay from primary to secondary,

i am not sure i understand what you mean.

Should i keep the 6 turns primary and secondary intact and add these "A series of separate windings
of a few turns" next to them?
These are stand alone coils right?


Perhaps a simple drawing would explain, thanks.

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.29, 14:43:11

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.28, 14:34:38
A series of separate windings of a few turns each along the top and bottom of the core, with each coil shunted by a low value capacitor, ...

Perhaps a simple drawing would explain, thanks.

Thanks vepies,

so these extra coils/caps turn the ferrite inbetween the prim/sec into a magnetic delay line which
should increase the time delay between prim/sec (without them now 107ns @ 420KHz and 72ns @ 2.5MHz).

Itsu

Hi Itsu

Been busy with family so couldn't reply earlier.  It is important to get the winding directions right for the version that Verpies posted, the first image below shows this.  An alternative version is shown in the second image.

As regards that 107nS @ 420KHz and 72nS @ 2.5MHz, I think that variation is down to measurement technique, IMO there really shouldn't be any variation with frequency.  I think it best to input a continuous sine wave and measure the delay as phase (if the math does that automatically) or as time between zero crossings.  Of course that is with a resistive load, the addition of a load capacitor will affect the measured phase.

That DC offset on the input current, if that is truly being caused by the item under test then that could be an important finding, it must not be dismissed as a curiosity.   I say this because electron spins and orbits that create magnetic fields, can be considered as perpetual motion quantum dynamos, they can both deliver power and absorb power.  They are miniature atomic perpetual-current loops.  Under normal cyclic conditions the flow of energy back and forth from or to the quantum domain averages to zero.  It is thus hidden from view and is not taught in mainstream physics.  However if it is possible to induce a DC voltage into those atomic current loops, they will deliver power continuously.  If you look into my Marinov Generator work you will see that I believe it is possible to create such an effect that explains where the energy comes from.  Maybe this MDT is also a means for doing this.

Smudge

Thanks Smudge,

i will use the setup as mentioned by verpies, so all the extra coils sides the same direction, but connected
to their opposite side with the caps.
I will use 22pF smd caps.


Concerning the "107ns @ 420KHz and 72ns @ 2.5MHz" time delays, it seems that the phase between input
and output is changing by frequency and thus the time delay.

It follows the below table (see screenshot 1 and 2 for min. and max.):

100KHz: 118ns / 4°   (so input and output almost in phase).
500KHz: 115ns / 21°  (our 117ns @ 420KHz)
1MHz:    105ns / 37°
2MHz:    81ns  / 58°
2.5Mhz: 72ns  / 65°  (our 72ns @ 2.5MHz).


     
Concerning the DC offset on the current via the csr, its still there when using a 10 Ohm csr instead
of 1 Ohm when using by battery operated FG.

But when using my Rigol FG (and swapping the scope groundleads to the FG black lead side, it is almost
completely gone, so i think its caused by this cheap FG, see screenshot 3.

Itsu

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.10.31, 11:17:16
An alternative version is shown in the second image.

Please elaborate on the differences between the two versions of the magnetic delay line, that you've posted.

Quote from: verpies on 2019.11.01, 07:51:41
Please elaborate on the differences between the two versions of the magnetic delay line, that you've posted.

I think they would both behave in the same manner.  However the first version requires the coil placings to be geometrically identical top to bottom.  If not, the magnetic delay along the core is different for each top coil relative to its partner at the bottom and this will affect the performance.  In the second version there is no connection between top and bottom coils so this problem does not arise.

Smudge 

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.10.31, 21:08:54
Concerning the "107ns @ 420KHz and 72ns @ 2.5MHz" time delays, it seems that the phase between input
and output is changing by frequency and thus the time delay.

It follows the below table (see screenshot 1 and 2 for min. and max.):

100KHz: 118ns / 4°   (so input and output almost in phase).
500KHz: 115ns / 21°  (our 117ns @ 420KHz)
1MHz:    105ns / 37°
2MHz:    81ns  / 58°
2.5Mhz: 72ns  / 65°  (our 72ns @ 2.5MHz).

Hmm, I need to think more about that.  Maybe the L/R time constant at the secondary is having an effect (50uH and 100 ohms).

Quote
Concerning the DC offset on the current via the csr, its still there when using a 10 Ohm csr instead
of 1 Ohm when using by battery operated FG.

But when using my Rigol FG (and swapping the scope groundleads to the FG black lead side, it is almost
completely gone, so i think its caused by this cheap FG, see screenshot 3.

OK, we can ignore that strange effect.  Thanks for that check

Smudge

Still working on the magnetic delay line on my toroid so now and then.
I plan to have 40 turns on each half with a capacitor (22pF) on every 2th turn.

Getting it nice and tidy is the problem.

Itsu

Itsu,

Sounds good. O0

Smudge

Just realized that the paper I posted here
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3505.msg65795#msg65795 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3505.msg65795#msg65795)
deals with the subject matter in this thread.
Smudge

Finished my delay line toroid according to the "verpies" setup (see diagram) as i understand it.

Picture shows the both orange prim / sec coils (52uH each), the red and green delay line coils (each totaling 2mH)
with every 2th turn a tap to the opposite coil (each measure 6uH) with a 22pF cap inbetween.

I measured again at 100Khz, 500KHz, 1MHz, 2MHz and 2.5MHz, see screenshots.

Above 500KHz the signal flips (around 800KHz) from almost in phase to almost 180° out of phase while
the input (yellow) dips.

FG was set to 10Vpp, yellow is input signal, blue is across the 100 Ohm load on the secondary.


Screenshots for 100 and 500KHz show the delay between input output, rest was due to 180° flip somewhat
out of context so not shown, but can be measured if needed.

Itsu

Wow, that is interesting!  That flip near 800KHz, does it flip suddenly, like a toggle switch with hysteresis, or is it a gradual change over a small frequency increment?  Thanks so much for doing this.  I think you will find exploring this a journey into the unknown, hopefully a journey with a satisfactory ending.
Smudge

It would be interesting to know the COP for those measurements. If there is a frequency where the phase delay is 90 degrees perhaps it becomes OU since you would expect the secondary mmf as seen at the primary to appear phase inverted from normal.
Smudge

Hi Smudge,

i did not do much measurements yet as i wanted to be sure this is a correct setup.

The 180° flip is not that sudden, more like you said, a gradual change over a small (400KHz) frequency
increment, see short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDpAeWoaoa8

I will do some more measurements including some COP tests in this frequency range.


Regards Itsu

A quick input / output measurement from 100Khz to 5MHz shows the following data:

We see a slight Cop > 1 in the green area, so we might look into that area more in detail.

Itsu

   Itsu:
   Well, that might be a first, and worth looking into.
   I have been following along, watching and waiting...
   My Kacher circuit also likes to run at 900KHz to 1.1Mhz.
   Good luck with your tests...
                                           NickZ
   

Excellent work Itsu O0

@ 2.3Mhz looks to be the best gain!

I hope this is the real deal. You definitely deserve it  ;)

8)Looking forward to more.

Thanks for sharing
Luc

Thanks guys,  but don't jump to any conclusions yet, i want to repeat these measurements a few times.

Looks like at 2.3MHz, the COP is at 1.32.


I was using my battery operated FG and used a 10 Ohm csr in the input for current measurements and
a 1 Ohm resistor as csr in the output (confirmed by using my current probe there too afterwards).

I measured EITHER the input OR the output to avoid any groundloops from my scope probes.

Doing some more tests / measurements.......   Itsu

   Itsu:
   Might be good to try also leaving the scope's negative probe off, to see if there is any difference on the output voltage. As it may go higher...

Hi Nick,

i could try that but i think its a strange advice as also a scope needs to have a reference (its groundlead) to measure from like a DMM etc.

Itsu

Thanks Itsu, that is most interesting.  When you get time could you repeat that COP v. frequency measurement but using shunt capacitors across the secondary (keeping the 100 ohm load)?  That could move the COP>1 region lower in frequency where core losses are less.  Start with a lowish value C (say 100pF) and see what happens.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2019.11.19, 16:50:57
Thanks Itsu, that is most interesting.  When you get time could you repeat that COP v. frequency measurement but using shunt capacitors across the secondary (keeping the 100 ohm load)?  That could move the COP>1 region lower in frequency where core losses are less.  Start with a lowish value C (say 100pF) and see what happens.
Smudge

I used a 100pF ceramic cap across the 100 Ohm load at the secondary and used the same setup as yesterday.
But going from 100KHz to 3.5MHz.

It seems that the frequency response is almost the same as yesterday, but the COP > 1 is gone, see
grey (input) and yellow (output) graphs below.


Will try some other shunt values......

Itsu

Using first a 220pF ceramic cap and then a 470pF ceramic cap across the 100 Ohm load shows that the COP gets worse and worse, see picture.

Adding the excel file too.

Itsu

OK, let's leave that for now.  I guess you would like to get back to the perceived 1.32 COP (no shunt capacitance) and investigate that further.  If I were doing this I would do enough tests to convince myself that the 1.32 is genuine.  Then I would try different value load resistors, I would wave a magnet near it, I would do anything to see if that 1.32 figure could be improved.

When you get time perhaps we could get back to the original intent, to see whether the input resistance will go negative above the resonant frequency when the secondary is loaded with a capacitor (and perhaps a high value resistive load like 1M or 10M.)  Making the time delay along the core greater should have made this more likely.

Smudge

OK,  i will first get back to the no shunt situation and try to improve on the COP 1.32 figure.

Itsu

I ran 10x the "no shunt" situation input/output test to see if i could replicate or improve on the COP 1.32 reported earlier.

Turns out that these 10 tests show a COP between 0.82 and 1.24, so i was not able to get to the 1.32 again.

I ran those 10 tests using different probes (CH1, CH2 or CH3) for voltage and current making sure to use the same set of probes for input then output.

It matters greatly where to place the probes, especially the ground leads.

When using the so called RF tip on the probe for the current measurements (so directly placed across the CSR's) the COP's > 1 were gone (COP = 0.83 range).

To show what an impact placing the groundleads have on the measurements, i finally used a very sloppy groundlead placement with the groundleads some centimeters away from its probe which resulted in a
COP of 2.9!

So once again i learned that anything above 1MHz needs to have special attention during measurements.



Going back to the original intent to see whether the input resistance will go negative above the resonant frequency when the secondary is loaded with a capacitor (and perhaps a high value resistive load like 1M or 10M.)


Regards Itsu

Initial tests show no negative input power (negative resistance) using a 10M resistor at the secondary
with either a 6.1nF or a 270pF cap parallel.

Same with a 270pF only (no 10M).

Using a 10 Ohm csr in the input with RF probe tips across and Rigol FG.

Problem noted is that the calculated resonance frequency using http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm
6.1nF and 58uH = 267khz is not there, same with the 270pF cap.

Itsu

To visualize the noted problem about the resonance frequency, i made a sweep of the secondary voltage
using the secondary (58uH @ 100KHz) and a parallel cap (270pF).

According to the mentioned website, the resonance frequency should be at 1.27MHz

Using my Rigol FG set at 10Vpp and sweeping from 100KHz to 6MHz.

Screenshot 1 shows in blue to voltage across the secondary and in red the input power.

Resonance frequency seems to happen mainly at 3100 and 5200KHz with a smaller peak at 270KHz.

Also visible is the abcense of the dip in input power AFTER resonance.

Is this shift in resonance peaks caused by the magnetic delay lines

Anyway, zoomed in on the first small peak shows a better input dip BEFORE resonance, see screenshot 2     

Itsu

That is good work Itsu.  Clearly the magnetic delay line makes the classical resonant frequency formula using L and C unworkable.  That dip at about 230 KHz looks interesting.  Could you try checking input and output power at that input dip frequency using smaller value load resistors to see whether you get close to COP>1?
Smudge

Sweeping from 1KHz to 500KHz while displaying input power (red) and output voltage (blue).

Output is loaded with a 100 Ohm resistor in series with a 1 Ohm csr across the secondary LC (C=270pF).

Screenshot shows a broad output frequency peak around 250KHz with a dip in the input power.
So it looks like the load (101 Ohm) across the LC has flatten out the resonance peak and filled up
and moved the input dip somewhat.

Strangly when noting down the input power in 10KHz steps from 200KHz to 300KHz, it does not reflect
the shown dip, but more a steady increase, see data below.
Using the RF tip on the csr's

Frequency (KHz)    input power (mW)    output power (mW)
    200                         49.6                  42.6         
    210                         50.3                  43.8     
    220                         51.1                  44.9
    230                         51.7                  45.7
    240                         52.3                  46.4                   
    250                         52.8                  46.9
    260                         53.3                  47.2
    270                         54                    47.6
    280                         54.3                  47.6 
    290                         54.6                  47.5
    300                         54.9                  47.3

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2019.11.26, 21:15:18
Strangly when noting down the input power in 10KHz steps from 200KHz to 300KHz, it does not reflect
the shown dip, but more a steady increase, see data below.

Hi Itsu,
OK thanks for that.  I note on your frequency sweeps the math channel shows some negative excursions, see first image below.  I presume this is an indication of some reactive watt-less power which disappears at the 250KH resonance.  Assuming that such negative excursion is a reasonable indication of reactive power sloshing back and forth, on the next image I have crudely drawn the locus of the negative excursion, then created its mirror image positive excursion.  Then the real power is indicated by how far more positive the math channel goes, as shown by the arrows.  I think this solves the apparent anomaly.

Going back to your earlier sweep without a load resistor and doing the same thing, see the third image below, it can be seen that at resonance there is little input power, but either side of resonance circuit losses show up with that "more positive" excursion.  I find it strange that resonance should almost null out those circuit losses, as you would expect the large LC circulation current to create greater loss.  So I do wonder whether at a larger value load resistor we could get nearer COP>1.
Smudge

Smudge,

thanks for explaining the strangeness i saw, that makes sense.


Redid the test with a 100K and 10K ohm resistor as secondary load (again with a 1 Ohm csr in series).

Screenshot 1 is the 10K load and screenshot 2 the 100k load (sweep 1KHz to 600KHz).

The below table shows the input / output power in both 10K and 100K load.
As there is almost no current flowing through the 1 Ohm csr, values are near to unmeasureable, so also
the output power calc's.



                                              10K load                                                100K load
Frequency (KHz)    input power (mW)    output power (mW)   input power (mW)    output power (mW)
       200                      6.3                         1.4                       5.5                          0.6
       210                      5.2                         1.5                       4.3                         0.65
       220                      4.3                         1.6                       3.4                         0.5
       230                      4                            1.7                       2.9                         0.5
       240                      3.9                         1.7                       2.8                         0.5
       250                      4.2                         1.7                       3.1                         0.45
       260                      4.8                         1.8                       3.7                         0.4 
       270                      5.6                         1.8                       4.6                         0.4
       280                      6.7                         1.7                       5.7                         0.35
       290                      8                           1.7                       7                            0.3                   
       300                      9.4                         1.7                       8.5                         0.3 


Itsu
   

Thanks again Itsu.  The dip in input power clearly shows up at 240KHz, but no OU there.  IMO it is not necessary to use a CSR for the output power, just use rms voltage squared divided by the load resistor value.  A quick check taking the Pk to Pk voltage from the screen shots doesn't improve things.  I still can't explain why the circuit losses (input power minus output power) reduce at that resonance, whereas in my mind they should increase.  Have to think more on that.
Smudge

QuoteThanks again Itsu.  The dip in input power clearly shows up at 240KHz, but no OU there.  IMO it is not necessary to use a CSR for the output power, just use rms voltage squared divided by the load resistor value.  A quick check taking the Pk to Pk voltage from the screen shots doesn't improve things.  I still can't explain why the circuit losses (input power minus output power) reduce at that resonance, whereas in my mind they should increase.  Have to think more on that.
Smudge

Smudge,

i was wondering too if i could use the output rms voltage squared divided by the load resistor value in this case, so i can.

Using that methode on the 10K load (actually measured 9880 Ohm) i get:

Freq. Vrms  Pout (mW)
200   3.14   0.99
210   3.24   1.06
220   3.33   1.12
230   3.40   1.17
240   3.45   1.19
250   3.49   1.24
260   3.51   1.24
270   3.52   1.25
280   3.52   1.25
290   3.49   1.24
300   3.46   1.21

Similar rms voltages are measured using the 100K (104.7K) equating to 100uW output range figures


let me know if i can do some more testing.

Regards Itsu

Hi Itsu,

Would like to ask what kind of resistors do you use for the 10 k and 100 k Loads?
I mean that their values may be different from their expected values in the 200 to 500 kHz frequency range (even if they are carbon resistors).
Even though your circuit output is surely reactive, the parasitic components of those resistors may be embedded in the circuit in an unknown way.
Somehow the resistor values should be checked at those frequencies separately from the circuit to learn about their real values.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,

these 10K and 100K resistors are indeed carbon ones as i do not have any high resistance inductionfree precision resistors.

So you might have a point as their parasitic components (inductive reactance) might influence the resistance in this frequency range.

Not sure however how to measure these resistors at that frequency range, but i will look for a solution.

Itsu

Using a known 270pF SMD capacitor parallel to the 100K (104.7K) resistor and using my picopulser to pulse
this LC (adding 8pF for my probe) i measure a damped resonance at 167MHz.

Using this resonance calculator ( http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm  ) i calculate the inductance to
be 0.00326uH (3.26nH).  Input 167Mhz and 278pF.

This inductive reactance calculator (http://www.66pacific.com/calculators/inductive-reactance-calculator.aspx)
calculates the reactance of this 3.26nH @ 200KHz to be 0.0041 Ohms.

Guess its of no influence on the resistance.

Itsu 

Okay Itsu, it sounds good enough.  I will ponder on some other simple means to check this if possible or still needed.   

The main reason I mentioned this as possibly problematic is that I find little difference in the swept voltage amplitudes between the two resistor loads in the scope shots you included in your Reply #123 (previous page). 
This small difference may come from a certain low output impedance of your circuit, very likely much lower than 10 kOhm.  So it is very likely that the 50 Ohm function generator at the circuit input transforms to the circuit output because of the 1:1 input - output turns ratio between the coupling coils and the delay circuit would not influence this significantly.  So now I think this explains why the very small amplitude difference for the two highly differing load resistance values.   

Thanks for doing these tests.

Gyula

Hi Itsu

Considering Gyula comments, perhaps the experiment should be repeated with a 50 Ohm output resistor.
Regards
Cortazar.

Hi Cortazar,

I did use a 100 Ohm resistor earlier, see post #121.

But using a 50 Ohm 1% induction free resistor as load parallel to the secondary LC (C again 270pF), i get
the following input / output relation (output calculated from rms voltage across the 50 Ohm (P=U²/R)):

Frequency (KHz)    input (mW)    output (mW)

    200                  56.34           46.20
    210                  56.88           46.82
    220                  57.33           47.43
    230                  57.72           48.05
    240                  58.11           48.67
    250                  58.45           49.30
    260                  58.76           49.93
    270                  59.30             "                         
    280                  59.54           50.56
    290                  59.75             "
    300                  59.95             "
    310                  60.11             "
    320                  60.28             "
    330                  60.41             "
    340                  60.53             "
    350                  60.64             "
    360                  60.67             "
    370                  60.72             "
    380                  60.75           49.93
    390                  60.74              "
    400                  60.69           49.30


Itsu

Itsu,

Have you still got your delay line transformer handy?  After finding the PM motor idea shown below on my computer, it struck me that if your primary and secondary coils were connected in series opposing this could show up some interesting features.  Could you set this up as shown in the modified image of yours and measure input voltage and current at different frequencies?  If there is any sign of the phase going above plus or minus 90 degrees then that could be significant.

Smudge

Hi Smudge,   yes i still got my delay line transformer.

Let me set up the prim. and sec. in series opposing tonight and do the measurements.............


Itsu     

I swepped from 1KHz to 20Mhz (20Vpp) sine wave, but never saw the phase between I and V be more then 90°, see video:  https://youtu.be/G_sN7h_HRJs


Itsu

Hi Itsu,
Thanks for doing that work.  Unfortunately I think you misunderstood the test.  You have a 100 ohm "load" resistor there and that will dominate the phase between input current and voltage.  The series opposing connected coils will have a peculiar input inductance/resistance characteristic, so I am interested in the phase between input voltage and input current of that strange inductor.  But you are not measuring that, you are measuring that input characteristic in series with the 100 ohms.   Can you please repeat with only the CSR in series with the FG input.  The CSR will affect things so you really need to measure the voltage only across the coils, and not across the series CSR plus coils.  Maybe use a current probe, or take a differential voltage measurement to eliminate the voltage across the CSR.
Smudge

Sorry about that Smudge.

I redid the test, now with my battery operated FG and a 10 Ohm csr in the return line.

FG return line (floating) on left side csr, probe grounds on right side csr, so measuring
on yellow probe the voltage across the series opposite coils, and on blue the voltage
across the csr (inverted), see diagram.

I also used the current probe (green), but as expected in the higher frequency range
it starts to be very optimistic.

The phase between voltage (yellow) and current (blue) is for a big frequency part at about
90°, but from 1.5MHz and up it starts to grow higher topping at about 101° on 2.6Mhz.

But this is closely before a resonance point, so current drops and the blue signal gets small
and unstable (the current probe (green) shows abnormal phase).

Hope thats what you wanted to see.


Itsu

Thanks again Itsu, that looks very promising.  I think there is a slight improvement that can eliminate the floating FG, see modified image below.  The FG will have a significant self capacitance to ground that will shunt the CSR, and that may affect the data.  The differential method for obtaining the input voltage could be better.  In any case the phase exceeding 90 degrees does indicate a negative input resistance, which is what we are looking for.  Please carry on with this work.  If you can give me some voltage, current and phase measurements over the higher frequency range I'll do some data analysis.  You mention the blue signal becoming unstable, and instability is itself an indication of something good.
Smudge

Smudge,

with "the blue signal becoming unstable" i mean that the signal gets weak (low amplitude) and
thus noisy so the scope has problems to accuratly calculate data like amplitude, frequency and phase.

Setting up the measurement as proposed by you made the "exceeding 90°" dissappear  :(
Below 1st screenshot shows the same 2.6MHz frequency as yesterday, but now only having 86° phase shift.

Yellow is the FG input voltage (for reference).
Red is the math: yellow minus blue for input voltage.
blue is voltage across csr thus current (10 Ohm)


There is a slight(er) above 90° range, but more down in frequency, see screenhot 2

Here we are at 70Khz but the blue (and yellow) signal is low in amplitude (still 20Vpp
input from the FG, but the impedance seems low).

This low in amplitude again has an effect on the math calculations as the sigs become noisy
and thus inaccurate, so the shown 96° phase shift here is doubtfull.

Is this shown data OK (V rms, frequency and phase shift) or do you need different data and/or more range?

Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2020.04.06, 15:25:21

Is this shown data OK (V rms, frequency and phase shift) or do you need different data and/or more range?

As I was hoping for the effect to show up at the frequency range where your delay line transformer was showing a big shift in V-I phase, and this new experiment didn't live up to that expectation, I do not see any further work along those lines as being of use.  However if you are interested in doing some more work I would like you to look into continuing work that was being done by Chava and then got cut short.  This showed an anomaly at about 14MHz which is way above the frequency for that 3F4 ferrite,  but it did show a negative input resistance.  It used the toroidal core that you have with primary and secondary on opposite sides.  Can you do measurements around that frequency?

Thanks again for trying.

Smudge

Smudge,

no problem in doing some further tests, but i don't quite understand which toroidal core you are referring to now for this 14Mhz test.

Is it the 3F4 core with the delay line setup i was using or the big red T520-2 toroid i did use earlier which is without any delay line?

The 3F4 delay line toroid has a -40° phase shift as it has a resonance point (so 0° phase) at 14.2Mhz.
Anything higher or lower reverts back to about 88° phase shift.

The T520-2 toroid without any delay line has a 80° phase shift around 14Mhz and does not change much when going higher or lower.

Using the same setup as proposed by you, using a 10 Ohm csr.

Itsu

Hi Itsu,

The previous work was done on a 3F4 ferrite as shown in the image below, hence no delay line wound onto the core.  This core is 107mm OD, is your 3F4 core that size?  There are two phase shifts involved.  One is the phase between input voltage and input current and this core exhibited an anomaly near 14MHz.  The other is the phase delay across the transformer from primary voltage to secondary voltage.  At that frequency the phase delay was close to 180 degrees.  If you look at figure 6 in the progress report you will see that measured phase delay for a 1K load shunted by various capacitor values, the one of interest being the 20pF scope probe result.  This almost straight line of phase v frequency indicates a fixed time delay across the transformer, and it would be interesting to have this measurement confirmed.  Note that at 14MHz the core is very inefficient, so the secondary voltage is small.  Maybe the transmission from pri to sec was by a lossy surface wave, who knows?  But somehow that transmission created the anomaly where the input resistance went negative, and it would be good to track that down.   Graham's set up was quite large, he automated the system so as to automatically switch in different load resistors and capacitors and to take measurements at different frequency steps, thus providing a huge data set that I had to analyze.  It may be that the anomaly was an artifact associated with that set up, in which case you will not be able to replicate it.  But on the off chance that it was real, I think it is worth exploring further.  So the first step is to measure the phase delay from primary to secondary using say a 1K load and just the scope probe as capacitance, and repeat that curve in figure 6.
Smudge

For anyone interested here is another form of transformer that uses electric fields as the coupling mechanism.  Basically it is a ring "core" made of high K dielectric material.  The primary is a small magnetic ring core acting as a single magnetic turn, and so is the secondary.  Coils wound onto those magnetic rings become the primary and secondary connections to our external electric circuit.  We could use multiple magnetic ring cores to increase the number of magnetic turns.  The possibility of this being a delay transformer interests me as the TEM transmission wave along the dielectric "core", like its magnetic equivalent, has an imaginary characteristic impedance (E and H in phase quadrature).  And transmission line theory tells us that lines with that impedance can exhibit negative input resistance, hence can be a source of energy.  Turning that "core" into a series of capacitors does not alter that imaginary impedance.  Is anyone interested in making one of these?

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2020.04.08, 10:15:22
Hi Itsu,

The previous work was done on a 3F4 ferrite as shown in the image below, hence no delay line wound onto the core.  This core is 107mm OD, is your 3F4 core that size?  There are two phase shifts involved.  One is the phase between input voltage and input current and this core exhibited an anomaly near 14MHz.  The other is the phase delay across the transformer from primary voltage to secondary voltage.  At that frequency the phase delay was close to 180 degrees.  If you look at figure 6 in the progress report you will see that measured phase delay for a 1K load shunted by various capacitor values, the one of interest being the 20pF scope probe result.  This almost straight line of phase v frequency indicates a fixed time delay across the transformer, and it would be interesting to have this measurement confirmed.  Note that at 14MHz the core is very inefficient, so the secondary voltage is small.  Maybe the transmission from pri to sec was by a lossy surface wave, who knows?  But somehow that transmission created the anomaly where the input resistance went negative, and it would be good to track that down.   Graham's set up was quite large, he automated the system so as to automatically switch in different load resistors and capacitors and to take measurements at different frequency steps, thus providing a huge data set that I had to analyze.  It may be that the anomaly was an artifact associated with that set up, in which case you will not be able to replicate it.  But on the off chance that it was real, I think it is worth exploring further.  So the first step is to measure the phase delay from primary to secondary using say a 1K load and just the scope probe as capacitance, and repeat that curve in figure 6.
Smudge

Smudge,

I have the 107mm OD 3F4 core, but it has the delay line around it which toke some work to install and needs to be removed then.

I did use this core earlier on some tests in this thread without the delay line, but on a lower frequency range.

I have received my newer MDO3000 series scope which i need to get acquainted to, so i will need some time here.

Itsu

Itsu,
My brain is suffering from old age.  I had completely forgotten about the work done by Peter on my "A closer look at a simulated negative resistance coil" thread
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2773.0 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2773.0)
which was devoted to the bucking coils with time delay idea.  This was 5 years ago.  For some reason the work ceased.  But it did throw up some links (supplied by Orthofield) to other related work.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2020.04.08, 10:15:22
Hi Itsu,

The previous work was done on a 3F4 ferrite as shown in the image below, hence no delay line wound onto the core.  This core is 107mm OD, is your 3F4 core that size?  There are two phase shifts involved.  One is the phase between input voltage and input current and this core exhibited an anomaly near 14MHz.  The other is the phase delay across the transformer from primary voltage to secondary voltage.  At that frequency the phase delay was close to 180 degrees.  If you look at figure 6 in the progress report you will see that measured phase delay for a 1K load shunted by various capacitor values, the one of interest being the 20pF scope probe result.  This almost straight line of phase v frequency indicates a fixed time delay across the transformer, and it would be interesting to have this measurement confirmed.  Note that at 14MHz the core is very inefficient, so the secondary voltage is small.  Maybe the transmission from pri to sec was by a lossy surface wave, who knows?  But somehow that transmission created the anomaly where the input resistance went negative, and it would be good to track that down.   Graham's set up was quite large, he automated the system so as to automatically switch in different load resistors and capacitors and to take measurements at different frequency steps, thus providing a huge data set that I had to analyze.  It may be that the anomaly was an artifact associated with that set up, in which case you will not be able to replicate it.  But on the off chance that it was real, I think it is worth exploring further.  So the first step is to measure the phase delay from primary to secondary using say a 1K load and just the scope probe as capacitance, and repeat that curve in figure 6.
Smudge

Hi Smudge,

i made some measurements on my 107mm OD 3F4 core (2x 6 turns) using my voltage probes (3.9pF @ 10MOhm)
with a 1K resistor on the secondary.

I measured:

Frequency
input voltage rms
input current rms
phase input voltage / output voltage

is this what you had in mind?
Do you need more frequency steps and/or other measurements?

be aware, i switch at 1Mhz from 100Khz steps to 500Khz steps

The picture goes to 18Mhz,  the xls file till 20Mhz.
be aware,  my decimal point is a comma.

I added a graph frequency / phase:

Regards Itsu

Thanks Itsu for doing that.  I have charted your results showing the phase as a negative one (i.e. a delay) for comparison with Graham's earlier measurements.  I am not clever enough to merge the two results onto a single graph.  In Graham's case his phase delay reached 180 degrees at about 14MHz and that was the area where his input power went negative.  In your case this occurs at about 17MHz.  His scope probe was 20pF whereas yours was much smaller.  His output power was tiny at his anomalous frequency, but of course his negative input power gave a negative COP result (energy fed back to source).  It would be interesting to know the phase between your input current and voltage to see whether you also get a negative input power that occurs when that phase exceeds 90 degrees.  We never discovered whether his anomalous result was an artifact associated with his complicated set up (like come external RF coupling between output and input) and I was hoping that your work would clarify this.
Smudge

OK Smudge,

There is a slight phase dip around 13.5Mhz, i will zoom in there to see how deep it is.


Further i will add some 16pF to the probes to get around 20pF and redo the measurements using 500KHz steps including the input voltage / current phase.


I added Graham his data (from the above graph, so very little data points) to my delay data graph.


Itsu

Smudge,

here the second batch of data:

secondary was loaded with 1K Ohm and 20pF (16pF cap + 3.9pF probe)

Input frequency range from 100KHz to 20MHz in 500Khz steps

frequency
Input voltage rms
input current rms
input voltage / current phase in °
input voltage / output voltage phase in °

Again, decimal point is a comma.

Blad 2  (Page 2)


EDIT, i added one more colum being the negative delay phase and created a graph, see below.

Regards Itsu
 

I did some work using he input voltage / current and their phase relationship to calculate the input
impedance using this (AC part) website:  https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/electric/ohms-law-calculator.html


Results shown in the below graph:

Itsu

bump

Itsu,

Sorry for not replying sooner.  From your latest work I think we can conclude that Graham's 14MHz anomaly was an artifact associated with his quite complex measurement set up.  I am trying to figure out what to do next with this thread.  Clearly there is a propagation delay from pri to sec that we should be able to use somehow, and keep to frequencies where the core is effective (like 1 to 2MHz as stated in the 3F4 data sheet).

Smudge

No problem Smudge, good to know that you could come to some sort of conclusion (artifact).

If i can help any further, please let me know.

Regards Itsu

I am reviving interest in this thread.  Although I receive a warning that after such a long time starting a new topic might be best, I want to give newcomers the chance to review the considerable amount of work done by Itsu looking into magnetic delay effects.  The reason for this new interest is a new approach where a different set-up might offer new insight.  Newcomers might like to review my paper "Analysing Transformers in the Magnetic Domain"
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2609.0;attach=14949 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2609.0;attach=14949)
where the magnetic circuit can be analysed in the same manner as an electric circuit.  This brings into focus magnetic circuit components.  We already have one component know as core Reluctance that has the same form as resistance in an electric circuit that obeys R=V/i, but in the magnetic circuit obeys Reluctance=Mmf/Flux.  A loaded secondary coil appears as a magnetic inductance, and that is an energy sink.  There is the possibility that we can create magnetic capacitance that will appear as an anomalous energy source, and to do that we need to use magnetic delay.  This will all be revealed in the paper I am currently writing.  As we already have the name Reluctance for "magnetic resistance", it is helpful to have names for other "reactive" components where their use keeps our mind from wandering into the electrical domain.  In my paper I use Minductance, Mapacitance and Meactance for the names of magnetic inductance, capacitance and reactance respectively.  Minductance obeys Mmf=-Minductance*dFlux/dt (compare to electrical V=-L*di/dt) while Mapacitance obeys Flux=Mapacitance*dMmf/dt (compare to electrical i=C*dV/dt).

Smudge 

Quote from: Smudge on 2023.08.10, 15:30:31
I am reviving interest in this thread.  Although I receive a warning that after such a long time starting a new topic might be best, I want to give newcomers the chance to review the considerable amount of work done by Itsu looking into magnetic delay effects.

I think you are quite right., A new thread loses the data in previous threads.

Smudge

QuoteNewcomers might like to review my paper "Analysing Transformers in the Magnetic Domain"

It's an interesting subject and I think we have a similar mindset and form of reasoning.
I found most consider motor/generator/transformer cores as benign having bulk/average properties which is a mistake in my opinion.
I was curious about how fields propagate through materials so I started doing experiments to see how stuff actually works.

For example, most suppose an iron core just becomes magnetized ignoring the magnetic domains and electron spins. So I embedded hall effect magnetometer arrays within and around various cores of different geometries to track the magnitude and velocity of the magnetic domains. The rate is not linear as most supposed and as some domains flip they link with the source increasing the rate at which other domains flip(magnetic induction). As well, a standard solenoid coil/core electrical input does not always correspond to the magnetic output as supposed. The rate of electromagnetic and magnetic induction are not always the same.

In effect, I found electron spins and magnetic domains must be considered as individual elements within the whole(infinite element analysis). The effects also follow some rules similar to aerodynamics. As load on a windmill increases the amount of energy diverted around the disk increases. Ergo, the more power we want to extract from the medium the less we get as a whole because the energy starts diverting around the load element. In electromagnetic systems we tend to see this as an increase in the magnetic field density specific to an area.

Your paper also touches on some interesting questions very few people seems to be considering. For example, if magnetic reluctance can be treated like an electrical resistance then what is the exact mechanism responsible for this effect?. We know electrical resistance relates to an electron scattering effect within the material lattice so could we presume reluctance relates to an electron spin/domain scattering effect?. It seems relevant when we consider that the greater the individual element separation(Solid cores>>>laminates>>> suspended ferrite particles)the lesser the reluctance. On the surface it seems like a reasonable assumption. If effect, resistance and reluctance may not be similar they could be the same phenomena under different conditions.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.08.10, 17:45:35
Smudge
It's an interesting subject and I think we have a similar mindset and form of reasoning.
I found most consider motor/generator/transformer cores as benign having bulk/average properties which is a mistake in my opinion.
I was curious about how fields propagate through materials so I started doing experiments to see how stuff actually works.

For example, most suppose an iron core just becomes magnetized ignoring the magnetic domains and electron spins. So I embedded hall effect magnetometer arrays within and around various cores of different geometries to track the magnitude and velocity of the magnetic domains. The rate is not linear as most supposed and as some domains flip they link with the source increasing the rate at which other domains flip(magnetic induction). As well, a standard solenoid coil/core electrical input does not always correspond to the magnetic output as supposed. The rate of electromagnetic and magnetic induction are not always the same.

In effect, I found electron spins and magnetic domains must be considered as individual elements within the whole(infinite element analysis). The effects also follow some rules similar to aerodynamics. As load on a windmill increases the amount of energy diverted around the disk increases. Ergo, the more power we want to extract from the medium the less we get as a whole because the energy starts diverting around the load element. In electromagnetic systems we tend to see this as an increase in the magnetic field density specific to an area.

Your paper also touches on some interesting questions very few people seems to be considering. For example, if magnetic reluctance can be treated like an electrical resistance then what is the exact mechanism responsible for this effect?. We know electrical resistance relates to an electron scattering effect within the material lattice so could we presume reluctance relates to an electron spin/domain scattering effect?. It seems relevant when we consider that the greater the individual element separation(Solid cores>>>laminates>>> suspended ferrite particles)the lesser the reluctance. On the surface it seems like a reasonable assumption. If effect, resistance and reluctance may not be similar they could be the same phenomena under different conditions.

AC

If you consider a closed magnetic circuit like a ring core (no air gap) it seems to obey the classical B=u₀*u_R*H where H=N*i/d, d being the mean circumference of the core, N the turns and i the current.  If you apply the current you get the field B in the core, and that suggests cause and effect, the B comes directly from i.  But u_R involves core magnetization M, and the electron dipoles that flip or rotate to alter M do not respond to the current derived vector H, they respond to B, so there is something more subtle going on.  How can current i create B directly without involving H?  The answer is via the magnetic vector potential A.  If you are interested you can look up the formula for A produced by a current element and then apply it to all the elements of the wire used in the coil, but the important result for a circular wire is an A field of concentric circles within the coil; the A field has maximum magnitude close to the wire and reduces in magnitude as you move closer to the center.  This field pattern has vector curl and we get the result that B=curl(A).  The A field can penetrate magnetic material, so that B field occurs within the material to immediately affect the electron dipoles there.  There is not an inward slow propagation magnetic wave due to dipole or domain wall movement that some authors have assumed. For a coil wound onto a small length of core the magnetization directly under the coil responds in synch with the current, but at points along the core away from the coil there is a delay resulting in a magnetic wave slower than light speed propagating outwards from the coil.   I am convinced that magnetic delay line effect can be put to good use.

Smudge

Why not using 1:1 transformer to generate output at each moments : one current when magnetic field is risen in magnetic core and second one when this magnetic field collapse. To me it looks like 200% efficient method, right ?

Quote from: forest on 2023.08.12, 18:24:39
Why not using 1:1 transformer to generate output at each moments : one current when magnetic field is risen in magnetic core and second one when this magnetic field collapse. To me it looks like 200% efficient method, right ?

Wrong, you have a misconception there.  Let's assume the magnetic field rises linearly with time, and falls linearly also.  That is a triangular wave.  On the rising portion the output from the secondary is a constant voltage, same on the falling portion but then of opposite polarity.  So the output voltage is a square wave.  With a resistive load R on the secondary the rising field voltage V drives current i=V/R and delivers power V*i, same during the falling portion.  The current i in the secondary wants to create its own magnetic field in the core but it doesn't.  If it did the rising magnetic field would change value but we have already assumed a field waveform that doesn't have a changed value, so how can the secondary current not create any field?  The answer is the primary input is forced to have a current in addition to that which is creating the rising field. That additional current directly opposes the secondary current, hence the two combined (square wave secondary current plus additional opposing square wave primary current) do not create any field at all.  The primary current is now a triangular waveform (creating the magnetic field) superimposed upon a square waveform (that with the opposing secondary current doesn't create any field).  The triangular waveform is the so-called magnetizing current and since the magnetic field changes in synch any energy taken from the source during the rise is given back during the fall.  That square waveform primary current means the input power is V*i exactly matching the output power during the field rise and fall (we have assumed no losses here).  There is no OU. For sinusoidal AC input and output the two primary currents components are both sine waves but at 90 degree phase to each other.

For other than a 1:1 transformer it is the ampere-turns mmf of primary and secondary load currents that oppose each other.  On OU forums there is much talk of Lenz's law relating to the magnetic field created by the secondary current, people don't seem to realize that the secondary current does not create field so Lenz's law does not apply.  If a transformer is to be OU what we should be searching for is a means to alter that mmf cancellation that the classical transformer imposes.  Then input power will not match output power and we would have either an OU or a UU transformer.  That could come about when primary coils and secondary coils are not wound on the same portion of the core and there is some intermediate artifact.  That is what I am searching for.

Smudge

Smudge
I disagree on several levels...

QuoteThis field pattern has vector curl and we get the result that B=curl(A).  The A field can penetrate magnetic material, so that B field occurs within the material to immediately affect the electron dipoles there.

I understand what your saying and the terminology but disagree with the context. Your description sounds strange to me because it treats a description/notation like A or H as a real entity when it's not. There is no "A field" and the "curl(A)" simply describes how a real magnetic field polarity seems to shift around objects. I get it but found the terms and equations unworkable. I think it's problematic because it tends to generalize and lump many different details/effects happening on different levels together.

QuoteThere is not an inward slow propagation magnetic wave due to dipole or domain wall movement that some authors have assumed. For a coil wound onto a small length of core the magnetization directly under the coil responds in synch with the current, but at points along the core away from the coil there is a delay resulting in a magnetic wave slower than light speed propagating outwards from the coil. I am convinced that magnetic delay line effect can be put to good use.

It's problematic because intuitively we should know the magnetization under or around a coil cannot be in sync with the electron current. This would violate cause and effect therefore we should assume it's a low resolution/timing issue. Many different things on our DSO seem simultaneous, then we change the time period and see it's not even close to being simultaneous. We could assume this basic concept has universal application.

For example, how would one accurately measure the domain magnetization in a specific region of an iron core directly under a coil responding to an electron current?. They cannot, because 1)the sensor would distort the field, 2)the sensor sense time/resolution would be inadequate and 3)the sensor cannot tell the difference between the changing electron current magnetic field and the changing electron spins of the material producing a second magnetic field aligning to the first.

This relates to the last part of your post.

Quotebut at points along the core away from the coil there is a delay resulting in a magnetic wave slower than light speed propagating outwards from the coil.   I am convinced that magnetic delay line effect can be put to good use.

We could ask, how does the far end of a long solenoid core become magnetized when it's outside the influence of the coil?. The answer is that there are two kinds of induction occurring. Electromagnetic induction relating to an electric field causing an electric current producing a magnetic field at the coil. Also magnetic induction ie. induced magnetism, where the electron spin orientation in the iron producing a magnetic field causes other nearby electron spins in the same iron to align with it. Induced magnetism should be sequential, where one electron spin/domain induces the next and so on leading to a delay.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2023.08.13, 16:44:16
Smudge
I disagree on several levels...
I understand what your saying and the terminology but disagree with the context. Your description sounds strange to me because it treats a description/notation like A or H as a real entity when it's not. There is no "A field" and the "curl(A)" simply describes how a real magnetic field polarity seems to shift around objects. I get it but found the terms and equations unworkable. I think it's problematic because it tends to generalize and lump many different details/effects happening on different levels together.

Strange that you should say there is no A field when every book I have read on EM mentions it, and there is a strong move towards the A field being more fundamental then the B field.  Your statement that "curl(A)" simply describes how a real magnetic field polarity seems to shift around objects is bizarre and naive.  It is a pity that the name Curl implies bent file line because there are curl fields that are not bent.  A better description of the Curl function is "the manner in which a vector field changes value at right angles to itself" (in rectangular co-ordinates the Curl function contains only terms such as dA_x/dy and dA_x/dz which is exactly that).

QuoteIt's problematic because intuitively we should know the magnetization under or around a coil cannot be in sync with the electron current. This would violate cause and effect therefore we should assume it's a low resolution/timing issue. Many different things on our DSO seem simultaneous, then we change the time period and see it's not even close to being simultaneous. We could assume this basic concept has universal application.

I was assuming that propagation at velocity c incurred negligible time delay compared to the magnetism wave velocity through the material.  And the B field from the current in the wire travels radially inward to the centre of the core at that speed, there is no magnetization wave involved in that.  Hence it is reasonable to take that as a starting point for (a) the dipole flips in the material under the coil then (b) the progressive slow wave of dipole flips along the core.

QuoteFor example, how would one accurately measure the domain magnetization in a specific region of an iron core directly under a coil responding to an electron current?. They cannot, because 1)the sensor would distort the field, 2)the sensor sense time/resolution would be inadequate and 3)the sensor cannot tell the difference between the changing electron current magnetic field and the changing electron spins of the material producing a second magnetic field aligning to the first.

I was not suggesting we should attempt to do that measurement.

QuoteThis relates to the last part of your post.
We could ask, how does the far end of a long solenoid core become magnetized when it's outside the influence of the coil?. The answer is that there are two kinds of induction occurring. Electromagnetic induction relating to an electric field causing an electric current producing a magnetic field at the coil. Also magnetic induction ie. induced magnetism, where the electron spin orientation in the iron producing a magnetic field causes other nearby electron spins in the same iron to align with it. Induced magnetism should be sequential, where one electron spin/domain induces the next and so on leading to a delay.

Exactly, that delay IS measurable, and we have the ability to create more delay of our choosing.  In electrical delay lines we already use resonant lengths to create wanted impedances, perhap the most well known being the 1/4 wave line that when shorted at the far end appears as an open circuit at the near end.  Perhaps a little known one is the 1/8 wavelength line that can produce an input reactance when the far end is an open circuit or a short circuit.  If we can do this with the magnetic delay line then a far end reluctance (air gap) could produce an input magnetic reactance, of interest being a magnetic capacitance Cm (in the magnetic domain obeying Flux=Cm*dU/dt where U is mmf).  If such a thing as Cm really did exist, for sinusoidal AC it would appear as an energy source.  Should we get anomalous energy from that source it could be argued that the anomalous phase shift between coil current and the magnetization within the coil (something that doesn't happen in the classical transformer) enables the magnetization dipoles to give up that anomalous energy.

Smudge

maybe will be useful.
I suppose, google-translate will be able translate it.

This is a scope shot of a positive delayed discharge into a coil. Both the pulses are positive with around 200v differential.

Regards

Mike

Smudge

QuoteStrange that you should say there is no A field when every book I have read on EM mentions it, and there is a strong move towards the A field being more fundamental then the B field. 

From ChatGPT

Quote
The magnetic vector potential is not a "real field"
The magnetic vector potential, often denoted as "A," is a concept used in classical electromagnetism to describe the magnetic field in certain situations. It is a mathematical construct that helps represent the magnetic field in cases where it might be more convenient than directly dealing with the magnetic field itself.

Here we need to be careful and not confuse a description/construct relating to something with the real thing being described.

QuoteYour statement that "curl(A)" simply describes how a real magnetic field polarity seems to shift around objects is bizarre and naive.  It is a pity that the name Curl implies bent file line because there are curl fields that are not bent.  A better description of the Curl function is "the manner in which a vector field changes value at right angles to itself" (in rectangular co-ordinates the Curl function contains only terms such as dAx/dy and dAx/dz which is exactly that).

From ChatGPT

QuoteThe curl of a vector field A, often denoted as ∇ × A, is a mathematical operation that yields a vector quantity. It describes how the vector field A "circulates" or "curls" around a point in space. In other words, the curl of A at a given point represents the local rotation or angular momentum of the field around that point.

I was describing what I actually measured and saw in line with the definition of the term. The polarity ie. field direction shifts around the object or conductor. For example, take a compass and move it around the z axis of a magnet or current carrying conductor. The needle/polarity indicator moves to align perpendicular to an imaginary point at the center indicating a curl or curve in the field direction. Even stranger, the curl is associated with a supposed circulation yet there is no indication the field can rotate around it's polar axis. It can induce on any movement along x, y and z axis but not on a rotation around z.

I would put it this way, I understand your perspective and seeing it through your eyes might agree. However most of the FE inventors of the past would disagree and in order to succeed I had to understand there more hands on perspective of things. Understand most geniuses and successful FE inventors were always labelled bizarre and naive. So I would tend to take your statement as a compliment and not an insult. It doesn't suit my Engineering background but I have begun to see the virtues and independence in it...

AC

Here is a paper discussing magnetic capacitance.  Since science does not have a name for such a magnetic component I have named it Mapacitance.  If it can be generated by using magnetic delay along a core then we could have an anomalous energy source.  If so I believe the source to be the atomic dipoles (electron spins and orbits) responsible for the magnetization of the core.   Enjoy!

Smudge

Smudge

Seems an interesting paper, will study it tomorrow.

The photo I posted of a delay line is real. The upper pulses are at 1.2kv and the bottom at 800v, a positive differential of 400v.

These pulses are used to run a parallel LC circuit which has a core made up of 2 capacitor plates which are configured as 2 loops. These loops heat up and the electrons in the metal are driven into a higher energy state. The core is part of the LC circuit, a positive to positive differential unlike the conventional induction heater running positive to  negative sine wave.

The outcome of this is a result of OU when the collection is connected as a regenerative oscillator by using 2 further capacitive plates which are not subject to induction heating.

The passive delay line is an important part to making this work.

The current is near infinite, a closed metal loop running through an induction coil.

Usable output is a positive positive AC/DC differential.

Regards

Mike

If you mechanical move the magnetic circuit at a speed equal to or greater than the speed of the magnetic field in it ?
magnetic induction from the primary winding will never reach the secondary ?

Is it possible that geometry of the core to have different effects of magnetic field ?  What is best magnetic conductor ? Can we use magnetic transmission in the same way as for electricity, I mean a wire to conduct magnetism more than electricity as electricity is always accompanied with magnetism ?
Do magnet shape have any influence on behaviour of magnetic field ? I mean do we have same effect obtained from a cylinder magnet polarised on the length versus on diameter ? How a cuboid magnet behave ?