As i already made a similar coil setup as Captainloz uses, i could not resist a replication attempt of Captainloz his setup presented in his video #9: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6X9jQIAVt4" in which he shows a COP of 2.
His circuit used there is slightly different from earlier ones as he now uses a variable cap to tune L2 for resonance.
As far as i can see his circuit used is shown in the diagram below.
The L2 and L3 coils are special as the inner parts (2/3) are folded back, see his video #5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk9uSOdj-hE&t on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Captainloz/videos
My replication can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWkVofOCBk
The resulting input / output measurements are in the screenshots below, some specifics layout in the picture.
Screenshot 1: input 60mW, screenshot 2: output 30mW for a cop of 0.5
I was using only my FG as input (5V DC square wave @ 30% duty cycle) and i don't think using a MOSFET driven by a FG will result in a higher COP.
Only potential problem i see is the groundloop caused by the FG grounded black lead and the scope ground leads when measuring the output.
But using a battery operated FG did not show a drastic change.
As we have lots of RF showing up in the output, i can imagine it will be hard to make correct measurements especially when using long(er) wiring and higher input voltages.
Non-members can reach me via a PM on Overunity.com.
Regards Itsu
Itsu,
If you look closely at the video you referenced at the beginning, you will see that the output circuit capacitance is in parallel with the lamps. IOW, he is measuring the capacitance reactance current in parallel with the resistive loads through the current sense resistor. This will nearly always produce "OU" when configured this way. Try paralleling your output capacitance with the load instead of series and watch your COP go up!
Regards,
Pm
Technique of measurement is the hardest part in electronics. When I bought an oscilloscope I found out that I hardly could use it correctly. It took some time to learn even the simplest measurements which were not simple at all.
I am a layman in electronics and it seems that the OU scene (and specially the most verbal and loud ones) are also mostly laymen. Therefore the many false claims. I also must claim OU really soon now, I have all the necessary qualifications (an oscilloscope and no technique).
Greetings, Conrad
Itsu,
Disregard what I said in my previous post and I was referring to his video #5 not #9!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: conradelektro on 2020.09.27, 17:51:32
Technique of measurement is the hardest part in electronics. When I bought an oscilloscope I found out that I hardly could use it correctly. It took some time to learn even the simplest measurements which were not simple at all.
I am a layman in electronics and it seems that the OU scene (and specially the most verbal and loud ones) are also mostly laymen. Therefore the many false claims. I also must claim OU really soon now, I have all the necessary qualifications (an oscilloscope and no technique).
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad,
i agree, but despite you being a laymen in electronics (which in my perception you are no longer) i still will believe you when you claim OU or found propulsion with a gyroscope. O0
Itsu
As suggested by member picowatt on OU.com to compare the brightness of the used bulbs with a DC source i put my little bulb on my DC PS and put it to about the same brightness as when used on the AC circuit.
To compare the brightness via eyeballing is very rough, but it can show the difference between almost right and completly off.
My scope earlier came to 30mW and the DC methode came to 1V @ 34mA which is 34mW also, close enough.
Good suggestion, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh3sqQcHy4E
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.09.27, 20:30:52
As suggested by member picowatt on OU.com to compare the brightness of the used bulbs with a DC source i put my little bulb on my DC PS and put it to about the same brightness as when used on the AC circuit.
To compare the brightness via eyeballing is very rough, but it can show the difference between almost right and completly off.
My scope earlier came to 30mW and the DC methode came to 1V @ 34mA which is 34mW also, close enough.
Good suggestion, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh3sqQcHy4E
Itsu
The issue of measuring output power crops up regularly. In my view, there is only one method which will convince most people, especially non technical ones. It is not always easy or possible but where possible, convert the output into a current which can be used to heat water and use: mass x temp rise x cal value. Obviously, with very small power levels, this may be difficult, if not impossible. But when achieved, sceptics have nowhere to hide.
Hi Paul,
i agree, Chet also promotes this kind of measurements which also ION was a big fan of.
Itsu
A replication is just that, a replication, there will be differences in the layout and components used which will make it hard to "grab" the correct sweep spot if there exist any.
I tried to follow the "Captainsloz coil setup" as close as possible, using the same thickess of wiring and length (see his Video #5), but the ferrite rings inside them are possible different in size and make, so the L2 and L3 coils came out a little less in inductance (71uH versus 90uH), but the L1 was the same (18uH).
Also the L2 and L3 inner windings (at 2/3) "foldback" was incorperated.
The L2 coil in combination with the variable cap was tuned to resonance which came out to be 830Khz (Like captainloz).
Max. output (30mW) was measured at this resonance, but i did not tune to a (sub)harmonic or "off" frequency yet.
The point of the replication was more to show the difficult waveforms due to the RF and the consequent difficulty to make precise measurements.
Very important in this matter is the post from Picowatt here:
https://overunity.com/18617/rant-caffe-asylum/msg551145/#msg551145
So a wire which has 10nH of inductance will have a reactance of 0.05 Ohm at the used 830KHz.
When using 0.1 Ohm csr's at this frequency, this is already half of that value, so i think it will be better to use 1 Ohm csr's and as minimal wire lengths to interconnect as possible.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.09.28, 08:20:02
So a wire which has 10nH of inductance will have a reactance of 0.05 Ohm at the used 830KHz.
When using 0.1 Ohm csr's at this frequency, this is already half of that value, so i think it will be better to use 1 Ohm csr's and as minimal wire lengths to interconnect as possible.
Yes, high frequencies are notoriously hard to measure. Also the skin-effect is a large factor at these frequencies.
Comparing the relative brightness of an incandescent light bulb with the RF current flowing through it to an identical bulb supplied by a known DC current is a pretty good way to measure OUTPUT power (it is not a good way to measure input power, though). I prefer to use one of these automotive dome light bulbs because they have a straight (non-coiled) filament.
Eyeballing the brightness is a little "how you're doing" - as Dave would say. A phototransistor (or a PV cell) attached to the bulb is more reliable.
The only thing about the behavior of this circuit that has a low yawn factor, is the appearance of high output frequencies from the low input frequencies ...however the square wave at the input already contains high-frequency components so after this consideration I wonder whether the high output frequencies will persist if the input is driven with a pure tone (sine wave). Of course any diode is a non-linear component and can work as a frequency doubler ...but is this enough to explain the HF output?
Presently i use a 1 Ohm csr to measure the current through the bulb, but it shows some fuzzyness (really RF??) on the blue current signal thus on the red math trace, see first post above (output.png).
In trying to increase the output measurement accuracy, i did not use a 0.1 Ohm csr as this makes the voltage drop across it smaller thus fuzzier thus less accurate, but instead i used a 10 Ohm csr.
The voltage drop is 10x higher, thus more stable and accurater.
But we now have to also calculate the power used by this csr as it is no longer neglectable.
Below screenshot 1 shows the signals and the calculated power across the bulb using a 10 Ohm 1% inductionfree csr which seems to get ride of the fuzzyness (no RF??).
I left the blue current trace value untouched, but it should be divided by 10 because of the 10 Ohm csr (so 31.7mA).
Instead i use the math output to divide by 10 so we see the correct output power (27.6mW).
Now we have to do the same for the power used by the 10 Ohm csr, so screenshot 2 shows the signals across and the calculated power of the 10 Ohm csr.
Again the the blue current trace value is untouched, but it should be divided by 10 because of the 10 Ohm csr (so 31.3mA).
Again also here i use the math output to divide by 10 so we see the correct output power (9.9mW).
Together they consume 27.6 + 9.9 = 37.5mW, the input 60mW says the same for a COP of 0.625.
One observation is that it looks like the output RF is gone while using a 10 Ohm csr (higher load?) which should make measurements (scope) easier.
Another observation is that the voltage and current across both the bulb and csr are in phase as is expected for resistive loads.
Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2020.09.28, 19:34:44
Yes, high frequencies are notoriously hard to measure. Also the skin-effect is a large factor at these frequencies.
Comparing the relative brightness of an incandescent light bulb with the RF current flowing through it to an identical bulb supplied by a known DC current is a pretty good way to measure OUTPUT power (it is not a good way to measure input power, though). I prefer to use one of these automotive dome light bulbs because they have a straight (non-coiled) filament.
Eyeballing the brightness is a little "how you're doing" - as Dave would say. A phototransistor (or a PV cell) attached to the bulb is more reliable.
The only thing about the behavior of this circuit that is above the yawn factor, is the appearance of high output frequencies from the low input frequencies ...however the square wave at the input already contains high-frequency components so after this consideration I wonder whether the high output frequencies will persist if the input is driven with a pure tone (sine wave). Of course any diode is a non-linear component and can work as a frequency doubler ...but is this enough to explain the HF output?
QuoteA phototransistor (or a PV cell) attached to the bulb is more reliable.
Yes, but needs to be put into a blackend box for max. accuracy.
QuoteThe only thing about the behavior of this circuit that is above the yawn factor, is the appearance of high output frequencies from the low input frequencies
:) right, so could it be the load (or lack of) is causing this HF as with a 10 Ohm csr it looks dampened/gone.
Itsu
Looking at the RF spectrum (9KHz to 250MHz) emmited by the coils shows strong RF, but hardly any difference between the 1 or 10 Ohm csr's.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.09.28, 20:37:05
Looking at the RF spectrum (9KHz to 250MHz) emmited by the coils shows strong RF, but hardly any difference between the 1 or 10 Ohm csr's.
Even if you drive it with a kHz sine wave ?
Driven with a kHz sine wave shows waaayyy less RF, both in amplitude as in frequency range.
I had to increase sensitivity and limit the frequency range to 50MHz to show anything.
But we see more RF generated with the 10 Ohm csr (mrk 2 -59dBm) compared to the 1 Ohm csr (-63dBm).
Mrk 1 shows the L2 resonance frequency, Mrk 3 and 4 are from outside somewhere.
Itsu
Itsu,
I posted this at OUdotcom and will post here as well as it may be of interest-
All,
For those who might wish to replicate CaptainLoz's [CL] video #9, I have some info that is my opinion based on Chris's own words, scope pix, etc, that will perhaps help[ in your replication.
The POC schematic shown below is from Chris himself and is basically incorrect based on his scope pix of his secondary currents. Using standard dot notation, if a positive voltage pulse is applied to L1 as he shows with the dot end being more positive than the non-dot end, the dot ends of L2 and L3 will have a more positive voltage than the non-dot ends thus forcing the diodes D1 and D2 into conduction thereby forcing current to flow in L2 and L3 during the time that L1 is charging. This is not in agreement with his scope pix which show that L2 and L3 conduct current during the collapse phase of L1. This means the diodes D1 and D2 need to be reversed in order for this to be correct. When both L2 and L3 conduct during the collapse phase of L1, Chris refers to this as the POCs are "slapping" together. He also refers to the rising edge of the L2 L3 current waveforms as an "asymmetrical regauging" process!
The energy in L1 that is built during it's charging phase or time, must be discharged back to the power supply. This means you must use a full or 3/4 bridge driver circuit. A 3/4 bridge driver simply replaces the upper conduction mosfet for the side of the bridge that returns the energy from L1 to the supply with a Schottky diode.
You could also wind L1 as a bifilar coil and then one half of the bifilar would be used for the charging phase using a single low side mosfet, then use the other half of the bifilar for the return path to the supply with again a Schottky diode. One must observe the dot convention for this to work. The disadvantage to this latter method is the relatively large inter-winding capacitance created will produce higher frequency harmonics in L1.
Chris mentions resonance. This could be in many different forms and Chris never reveals exactly which type of resonance he means. So, we must take hints that he gives from CL's attempted replication and that is, the wavelength of the operating frequency is some fractional part of the length of wire used in the secondaries.
And referring to the pix below of Chris's bucking coils, this configuration works with a series connection as shown. However, if a standard coil is center tapped with the start and finish wires connected together, we now have two paralleled coils that when driven between the tap and the start/finish, will also be bucking. I mention this because of the need to carefully observe if L2 and L3 are truly bucking when they conduct under the above rules.
It is understood from Chris's videos that L1 is wound over say L2 for relatively tight coupling. L2 is then used to drive the load while L3 has only the diode for conduction of current. The duty cycle of the input pulse to L1 is typically ~10% but could vary depending on the build.
In the CL video #9, he places the output resonating across the diode.
And again sounding like a broken record, please use the maximum vertical deflection possible on your scope for all waveforms.
Also, anybody that is using the same Rigol scope as CL, please check to see if the Math result is in avg or rms and/or is selectable!
Regards,
Pm
PS: Chris, please feel free to correct any of the above with DATA not stupid remarks!
Hi Partzman,
thanks for your comments, they are most valuable O0
But i am replication Captainloz his Video #9 setup (Asymmetrical Regauging 9) which has some changes from the diagram you presented above.
You say:
QuoteIn the CL video #9, he places the output resonating (cap??) across the diode.
(i think you forgot the "cap" word) but that is not what i understood from his video's as i think he removed that diode and replaced it with the variable capacitor, see my modified diagram below.
Hopefully Captain can confirm this somehow and not let Chris do it for him as Chris did not replicate it himself (nor did anyone else yet).
Concerning the wavelength and length of wires used, In video #5 Captainloz showed the below shown writings and in a post on his thread the folowing data:
QuoteI started winding the coils from each end using the right hand grip rule, (current pointing into the middle).
When you get to the middle just fold the wire over and come back on itself 7 turns, then fold the wire again and wind back to the start.
So it's just 2 layers.
The torid OD is 62mm, ID is 35mm, 11mm thick.
I got these about 10 years ago and I can't find the record of the type of ferrite.
I'm pretty sure I got them off Ebay.
Yellow wire is 14 AWG (L2 & L3)
Red wire is 2.5mm (L1)
General purpose diode's 6A05 - 1212
2 x 14V bulbs
1 x 12 V 7.5 wLED bulb
2 x WIMA 2kV, 2nF caps
Cheers,
Loz
Be aware; in a later video Loz changed the L2 / L3 coils to be wound FROM the inside to the ends, then back inwards and reverse direction the last 7 windings, ending all connections in the middle!
Presently i am building a coil set more according to those specs.
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2020.09.29, 17:47:06
Using standard dot notation, if a positive voltage pulse is applied to L1 as he shows with the dot end being more positive than the non-dot end, the dot ends of L2 and L3 will have a more positive voltage than the non-dot ends thus forcing the diodes D1 and D2 into conduction thereby forcing current to flow in L2 and L3 during the time that L1 is charging. This is not in agreement with his scope pix which show that L2 and L3 conduct current during the collapse phase of L1.
Very good PM, I did not expect such basic inconsistency in the schematic and did not analyze it in that much detail. You did!
Verpies,
Thank you for your comment!
Itsu,
Here is the response to my post on OUdotcom of which I appreciate. He has corrected me on his schematic-
Partzman,
If I were you, I would stop trying to correct, and follow the basic layout!
Each Partnered Output Coil carry's a Current due to Electromagnetic Induction, each is the others Primary Coil - So claiming I am incorrect is Wrong! You need to follow basic well known rules here!
Study Carefully:
Quote from: Floyd Sparky Sweet link="http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Nothing%20is%20Something.pdf"
The principle of superposition states that; "In order to calculate the resultant intensity of superimposed fields, each field must be dealt with individually as though the other were not present". The resultant is obtained by vector addition of each field considered singularly. Consider for a moment the construction of the triode which includes the bifilar coils located within the fields of the two conditioned magnets.
When the current in one half of the conductors in the coils (i.e., one of the bifilar elements in each coil) of the device is moving up, both the current and the magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.
The resultant motional E-field would be vertical to both and inwardly directed.
At the same time the current in the other half of the conductors in the coils is moving down and both the current and magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.
The resulting motional E-field is again vertical to both and inwardly directed.
Thus, the resultant field intensity is double the intensity attributable to either one of the set of coil conductors taken singularly.
Expressed mathematically:
E = ( B x V ) + ( -B x -V ) = 2 ( B x V )
Now, Study Carefully: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsKoAu_X25A
Quote from: EMJunkie on Today at 12:36:55 AM
My Diagram is correct, change it, it wont work! Period!
Each Coil has a Magnetic Field Changing in Time, this is directly related to the Changing Current! di/dt, you all should know this already!
Electromagnetic Induction can occur more than once in a Single Machine! That's why This statement was made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa4nUEsBer8
If your Partnered Output Coils do not Oppose, you have it wrong! Period!
Again I define Magnetic Resonance: Each Current, in each Partnered Output Coil, is 180 Degrees out of Phase - Simple! Antenna Theory is the same basic Rules!
You must stop trying to change things! It will not work if you change things! This is so Simple! Yet so easy to balls it up! Only if you don't follow the basic, simple, straight forward Rules already laid out!
Shown below, when you have this all correct, the Input Power sent back to your Power Supply, can be greater than the Input Power Sent to the Coil! Input can become Negative!
I am not posting on overunityresearch, I don't like that forum! I only post on My Forum and sometimes here.
Best wishes, stay safe and well in these Dire Times,
Chris Sykes
Regards,
Pm
partzman
Quote from EMJ
QuoteShown below, when you have this all correct, the Input Power sent back to your Power Supply, can be greater than the Input Power Sent to the Coil! Input can become Negative!
This is a common mistake many novice experimenters seem to make when they cannot understand what there seeing on there DSO.
We charge a coil with a current having a known voltage polarity which produces a magnetic field. Then when the magnetic field collapses the current remains in a forward direction however the voltage polarity reverses. The novice then assumes the coil produced "negative electricity" because the positive input pulse above the zero plane is now below it at a higher voltage if the circuit resistance is higher. They then confuse the reversed polarity and higher voltage with a gain in energy when none is present.
The problems here are many...
1) there confusing a reversal of the voltage polarity with a reversal of the current flow when the current does not reverse.
2) there confusing a voltage rise/current fall with a gain in power or energy when none is present.
3) there confusing the voltage polarity displayed on the DSO above and below the zero plane with a state of charge ie negative electricity.
I know this because decades ago I made the same mistakes and see many others repeating them. So it's important to understand what were seeing on our DSO and how it relates to what's actually happening.
Another very common mistake relates to oscillations. We apply an input pulse to a coil with capacitance in the circuit and we see voltage oscillations. It is then assumed because we only applied one input pulse but many oscillations occurred more energy was present. However this is obviously not a gain in energy and the energy is simply being conserved not dissipating producing the oscillations. It's important to understand that voltage is not energy, voltage times current over a specific time period is energy.
Regards
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2020.09.30, 13:20:20
partzman
Quote from EMJ
This is a common mistake many novice experimenters seem to make when they cannot understand what there seeing on there DSO.
You are preaching to the choir. IMO both Partzman and Itsu know this very well, although I can't speak for the others.
Take a look at the experiment I have done with Itsu a while ago, where an inductor was charged with current and next, the energy representing the product of this current and inductance was recovered in a capacitor.
We accounted for all the energy losses in diodes, switches and resistances and even published a pie chart of them in MS-Excel. @Itsu: Can you find a link to that pie chart or thread ?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2020.09.30, 13:20:20
Another very common mistake relates to oscillations. We apply an input pulse to a coil with capacitance in the circuit and we see voltage oscillations
I also agree with you that LC resonances and TL reflections can generate decaying oscillations from a single pulse, but I do not think they should generate a wide spectrum of frequencies after the input pulse terminates.
Quote@Itsu: Can you find a link to that pie chart or thread ?
It started out on OU.com: https://overunity.com/16167/sharing-ideas-on-how-to-make-a-more-efficent-motor-using-flyback-moderated/msg471611/#msg471611
parallel on OUR.com: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3221.msg54127#msg54127
Itsu
Itsu,
In addition to my post #15, there is another factor that Chris has never answered [among other things] and that is, whether of not he is gapping the Metglas cores he uses. It is very difficult to saturate a core when two bucking windings are driven even with high current. This fact can be used to make extremely small high current inductors that don't saturate. Since he avoids answering this point, it may be important.
If you are placing the POC windings on the same core leg and close together, I would wind the primary as close as possible to where the two POCs meet. This will give opportunity for the "squeezed" flux between the POCs to possibly influence the primary during the discharge phase back to the power source. Just a thot!
I also don't think it is important to counter-wind the POCs, just make sure they are providing bucking flux in the core. An easy way to confirm this is to do inductance measurements of the two coils in series and use the connections that provide the lowest inductance and I'm sure you already know this.
Regards,
Pm
Verpies
QuoteYou are preaching to the choir. IMO both Partzman and Itsu know this very well, although I can't speak for the others.
I would agree, and my post was basically directed at others not so much partzman.
QuoteTake a look at the experiment I have done with Itsu a while ago, where an inductor was charged with current and next, the energy representing the product of this current and inductance was recovered in a capacitor.
I hope this doesn't sound like nitpicking but I have a problem with the term "inductance" because it doesn't really describe anything per say. It's an enigma within electrodynamics in my opinion. At which point, I should point out I am about to ramble just as I did in my response to partzman and this is not directed at you specifically.
I begs the question what is "inductance", here is the completely nonsensical definition on the web which many consider normal for reasons I cannot begin to understand... "In electromagnetism and electronics, inductance is the tendency of an electrical conductor to oppose a change in the electric current flowing through it". So inductance is an opposition to an electron current?, well no that's mental because there trying to describe lenz law which is in fact a specific effect caused by an expanding/contracting magnetic field causing an opposing force on the electrons in a conductor which carry an electric field with them in the conductor which is the cause of why there motion is inhibited.
Not to mention the fact there are countless ways in which to "induce" a force on the electrons in a "conductor" and I use that term liberally, causing them to move a predetermined path. Here is a hint, I once charged a capacitor bank to some 300kV, I then discharged said capacitors through a magnetically quenched rotary spark gap around 1" in the smallest period of time I could manage. This energy was transferred to an 8" stainless sphere in such a short time period that the electrodynamic forces on the sphere caused it to eject particulate matter(radiant energy ie moving outward from a center) charged to a high potential. This was the cause, the effect was that any conductor within a given proximity out to 36" or more was "induced" with a potential equal to the number of particles ejected and the magnitude of charges they carried with them which then dispersed causing a current to flow in said conductor. This qualifies as "induction", as Faraday and Ampere initially described it in there literature which begs the ultimate question why anyone would degrade the substance of there vast work to something as simplistic as... an opposition to a change in electric current?. It is, to be honest, degrading to the magnitude of there work in my opinion.
Now for most I suspect this means little but for some I hope the wheels started turning. Follow the line of reason, Induction... but not induction as most know it, charged particles being ejected through a distance because of a radiant event through a spark gap. We could enclose the gap with cylindrical layers of conductors and route the radiant energy to any number of contrivance such as electrical motors for an automobile?. The unfortunate truth is that if someone described this invention to me I could tell you the inventors whole history, who he associated with, his literature, his theory and the science behind it from memory. So who do you suppose this inventor is?, obviously not me however his work speaks for itself.
The unfortunate truth is that we have to do our homework because better men and minds than us solved all these problems a very long time ago. So let's throw it out there... you tell me who invented what I described and I will tell you how it works.
Regards
Compare between my new coil set and CaptainLoz (CL) his (see his data above):
L2 and L3 are wound inwards to outwards and back in (bucking, least inductance).
me CL
Ferrit diameter/circumference: 66mm/239mm 62mm/207mm
L2 / L3 wire length: 8m +25cm leads 8m +5cm / 8m +1cm leads
L2 / L3 wire thickness 1.4mm 1.6mm (AWG14)
L2 / L3 nbr layers / turns 2 / 36 2 / 34
L2 / L3 Last turns (inside) folded back 8 7
L2 / L3 inductance 96uH @ 100KHz 90uH @ 200KHz
L1 Wire length 4m +25cm leads 4m +10cm ?
L1 wire thickness 2mm 2.5mm
L1 nbr layers / turns 1 / 16 1 / 14
L1 inductance 37uH @ 100KHz 18uH @ 200KHz <========?
Not sure why my inductance of L1 is twice of CL his coil, when looking at his red L1 coil in video #5 i see about 14 turns, diameter former must be about 68mm (62mm ferrite + 2x2 turns 2mm makes 68mm) which has a circumference of 231.6mm x 14 turns = 2.9m.
So is his L1 really 4m? Hopefully he can answer.
I will be using this coil set for new tests for now.
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2020.10.01, 00:14:47
Itsu,
In addition to my post #15, there is another factor that Chris has never answered [among other things] and that is, whether of not he is gapping the Metglas cores he uses. It is very difficult to saturate a core when two bucking windings are driven even with high current. This fact can be used to make extremely small high current inductors that don't saturate. Since he avoids answering this point, it may be important.
If you are placing the POC windings on the same core leg and close together, I would wind the primary as close as possible to where the two POCs meet. This will give opportunity for the "squeezed" flux between the POCs to possibly influence the primary during the discharge phase back to the power source. Just a thot!
I also don't think it is important to counter-wind the POCs, just make sure they are providing bucking flux in the core. An easy way to confirm this is to do inductance measurements of the two coils in series and use the connections that provide the lowest inductance and I'm sure you already know this.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM,
good to know.
I want to stay as close to CaptainLoz his setup.
He does not use Metglas and has his L1 coil on the outer parts of L2 / L3.
Also the counter-wind parts of L2 / L3 are his idea i think, so following that too.
I have verified that the L2 / L3 coils are coupled as bucking (when putting them in series), but they are not in series connected in the circuit used.
Itsu
Initial measurements with the new coil setup (for specs, see above).
I had to re-adjust the resonance frequency of L2 due to the higher L1 inductance.
Its now tuned to 690KHz (with the variable cap only set to max. = 692pF).
Still using the FG only, so with 5Vpp DC square wave @ 34% duty cycle (same as CaptainLoz used).
Input measurent using a 1 Ohm 1% inductionfree csr in the L1 supply lead, see screenshot 1
Output measurement using a 10 Ohm 1% inductionfree csr (divided the math value by 10) see screenshot 2
So with the new coil set, we have input 71mW, output 26mW for a COP of 0.36.
I will now increase the input voltage to 30V by using a MOSFET driven by the FG.
Regards Itsu.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2020.10.01, 07:19:21
I begs the question what is "inductance", here is the completely nonsensical definition on the web which many consider normal for reasons I cannot begin to understand... "In electromagnetism and electronics, inductance is the tendency of an electrical conductor to oppose a change in the electric current flowing through it".
How about the simplest definition L = Φ / i ...or how many Webers you get from an Amp.
Also,
this (http://blazelabs.com/f-u-allconstants.asp) is illuminating.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.01, 12:11:50
Initial measurements with the new coil setup (for specs, see above).
It would be nice to see how much of the output waveform is caused by the diode.
So next time you do your measurements please short the diode and open it to see what difference it makes.
Quote from: verpies on 2020.10.01, 13:22:10
It would be nice to see how much of the output waveform is caused by the diode.
So next time you do your measurements please short the diode and open it to see what difference it makes.
This is an excellent suggestion because if the circuit polarities are as Chris claims they are, no diodes should be needed due to the fact that the output di/dt never goes below zero. At least not in the experiments I ran!
Regards,
Pm
You mean diode D1 (as thats the only diode in my present (and captainLoz) circuit, see below)?
Shorting D1 makes no difference for the output, open it increases the output on the bulb to 29mW (so + 3mW).
Itsu
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2020.09.30, 13:20:20
partzman
Quote from EMJ
This is a common mistake many novice experimenters seem to make when they cannot understand what there seeing on there DSO.
We charge a coil with a current having a known voltage polarity which produces a magnetic field. Then when the magnetic field collapses the current remains in a forward direction however the voltage polarity reverses. The novice then assumes the coil produced "negative electricity" because the positive input pulse above the zero plane is now below it at a higher voltage if the circuit resistance is higher. They then confuse the reversed polarity and higher voltage with a gain in energy when none is present.
The problems here are many...
1) there confusing a reversal of the voltage polarity with a reversal of the current flow when the current does not reverse.
2) there confusing a voltage rise/current fall with a gain in power or energy when none is present.
3) there confusing the voltage polarity displayed on the DSO above and below the zero plane with a state of charge ie negative electricity.
I know this because decades ago I made the same mistakes and see many others repeating them. So it's important to understand what were seeing on our DSO and how it relates to what's actually happening.
First I agree there is much confusion about this on the forums. I could be wrong, but I think that EMJ's drive circuitry is a full bridge. He makes and sells the drive circuit pcbs to his followers along with his current sensing pcb. In this case, he could be and appears to be directing the collapsing field of the primary back to the power supply. What doesn't make sense in his scope shots is that they indicate he is gating the supply voltage and the voltage source is very "soft" due to the relative voltage increase during the primary collapse phase. Having used this type of input circuitry for many years, something just isn't right about all that! Of course I've quizzed him on this and got nothing in response.
Quote
Another very common mistake relates to oscillations. We apply an input pulse to a coil with capacitance in the circuit and we see voltage oscillations. It is then assumed because we only applied one input pulse but many oscillations occurred more energy was present. However this is obviously not a gain in energy and the energy is simply being conserved not dissipating producing the oscillations. It's important to understand that voltage is not energy, voltage times current over a specific time period is energy.
I agree and would add that the average of any measurement of ring-down oscillation in an inductive circuit be it voltage, current, energy, or power, will be the same as if the parasitic capacitance creating the oscillation wasn't there. No gain mechanism available here.
Regards,
Pm
Quote
Regards
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.01, 13:54:58
You mean diode D1 (as thats the only diode in my present (and captainLoz) circuit, see below)?
Shorting D1 makes no difference for the output, open it increases the output on the bulb to 29mW (so + 3mW).
Itsu
Chuckle~! C.C Yes, this is what I meant. The reason the output increases when that secondary is opened is that the leakage inductance created by the shorted secondary is gone.
If Chris is correct about the polarity connections on his POC circuit, consider the fact that the flux present in the core or air, can only change in magnitude over time due to di/dt but at no time is any additional flux or H field added to the circuit to provide a gain. Now if the secondaries only conduct during the "off" time of the primary, [IOW reverse the diode connections] there may be some magic in the collapsing primary driving the connected secondaries through the leakage inductances. This so called "leakage inductance" can store energy which few are aware off!
I know you are intent on replicating CaptainLoz's circuit and if he is still claiming OU at this point in time, it may be worth it. For my 2cents, I don't think he has OU.
Regards,
Pm
Thanks PM,
as far as i know, CaptainLoz has not retracted his COP = 2 claim, as that is what he was seeing on his scope.
I am sure that if he finds an error or otherwise finds out what is wrong he will come forward with it.
I only am amazed by the fact that he seems to have no time to work on his COP = 2 circuit as that is what everyone is looking for, but then again, life takes priorities sometime.
When reversing the D1 diode in my circuit, the output on the bulb goes down to 22mW.
Itsu
Itsu and AC,
I think I was wrong when I said Chris was using a full bridge circuit to drive the primary. He appears to be using a high side switch only at least based on his own posting on his forum. The info below is taken from-
http://www.aboveunity.com/thread/the-input-coil/?order=all#comment-3d85527c-c560-48b5-a0af-ac44014c1e7c
If the pix below is what he is using to switch the primary, there is no path for the collapsing current to reach the power supply. What there is however, is a path for the avalanche current of the P-channel mosfet to draw current from the power supply! IOW, what he thinks is returned current is actually additional current draw from the supply. This is his circuit gain for OU IMO!
To confirm this, I need to study his schematic which he supplies on his forum somewhere but all I see on the driver pcb that CaptainLoz is using in video #9 is one, large case semiconductor.
This would explain why he states that when a load is presented on the POC, the returned current increases.
If this is how he and all his followers drive the primary of his POCs, there is no OU!
The second pix shows the scope waveforms from his schematic.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
i have no idea what CaptainLoz is/was using for driving his L1 coil, i understand a MOSFET, but how it is connected i have no idea.
I used a MOSFET driven by a MOSFET driver and put also 30V on the drain, but the L1 was connected to the drain, not the source.
See video which i will upload now.
Intense RF and HV is present, so very hard to make good measurements.
Itsu
I used a MOSFET and MOSFET driver driven by my battery operated FG.
Frequency set to resonance (940KHz) and with square wave @ 34% duty cycle.
Drain voltage was 30V and pulling about 1.1A (30W input).
Output was a pair of 12V/5W automotiv bulbs in parallel driven to full brightness.
Output measurement was done with a 1 Ohm 1% inductionfree csr and resulted in 12.7W output.
Input measurements are impossible using the scope due to the HV and intense RF causing all kind of problems in the equipments, even not connected Spectrum Analyzers etc.
I had to use some heavy common mode chokes and decoupling caps in the drain supply line and MOSFET driver leads to get the PS to work kind of stable.
No wonder CaptainLoz had his first scope fried.
Need to find a way to screen off the measurement equipment, but it goes without saying that adequate measurements are very hard to do.
Video from the setup and output measurement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwqL076SIhI
Itsu
Itsu,
Yes, I watched your video and there certainly is a lot of harmonics present. So, you are using what would be termed low side switching with an N-channel mosfet. What is the number of the mosfet or, check to see what the maximum Vds is as the avalanche will occur somewhere above this rating.
I've looked on the AU forum but have yet to find Chris's schematic for his driver board. He may have taken it out of public view. The more I think about it, I'm sure this mistaken assumption on his part is the source of his OU with his POC device.
Regards,
Pm
OK, a little confirmation that Chris uses a single high side mosfet in his circuit but he also say that a low side will work as well as long as...... well you take a look at the pix below.
As AC said, Chris has a misconception of the reverse voltage that appears during the collapse of the primary. He believes that the internal substrate diode or an external diode feeds energy back to the primary because of these diodes. Wrong! The only thing that happens is the avalanche of the mosfet due to exceeding the Vds breakdown limit or at a minimum he will charge and discharge the drain to source/gate capacitance of which neither will put energy back to the supply but instead will require energy from the supply. Oh my!
Regards,
Pm
There is a certain way to recover the energy stored in L1. This also protects the MOSFET from D-S overvoltage.
Namely using a double wire cable for L1 and connecting it like in this circuit.
Quote from: verpies on 2020.10.01, 23:25:42
There is a certain way to recover the energy stored in L1. This also protects the MOSFET from D-S overvoltage.
Namely using a double wire cable for L1 and connecting it like in this circuit.
Yes, I agree and suggested this method in my post #15. But, this is not the connection method used in EMJ's POC.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
the MOSFET i use is a "9R500C", 900V, 0.5 Ohm Rdson, 11A cont.
I knew there would be nasty spikes at 30V, so choose a HV one, but even then.
verpies,
that looks familiar, but it won't avoid all that nasty RF being spread around and making scopes rattle and SA's beep i think.
Anyway, i may do some further tests using this new coil set, but at lower voltage.
I would like to make some input measurements using the scope and not rely on the input measurement via the PS's which CaptainLoz did, but even this doesn't look good:
Input: PS1 30V/1.1A = 33W PS2 12V/016A = 1.92W Total 34.92W (not including the battery driven FG for now)
Output: 12.7W (lightning up brightly 2x 12V/5W automotiv bulbs parallel.
COP: 0.36
I do hope CaptainLoz will interact somehow as i cannot believe that someone pursuing overunity can sit on a device showing a COP = 2 and go on doing other things.
Regards Itsu
Topics seem locked at Stefan's forum ! ?
I agree claim is enormous !
If he is a captain.. you are away for long times depending
On work?
QuoteTopics seem locked at Stefan's forum ! ?
Yep, seems like it, same as:
Partnered Output Coils - Builders Group - Moderated! and RANT CAFFE ASYLUM
typical.
QuoteIf he is a captain.. you are away for long times depending On work?
Hmmm, could be, but i doubt it.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.02, 08:34:31
that looks familiar,...
Yup
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.02, 08:34:31
...but it won't avoid all that nasty RF being spread around and making scopes rattle and SA's beep i think.
It actually will suppress all oscillations above V
2 significantly via C1 which also absorbs the inter-winding capacitance.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.02, 09:11:03
Yep, seems like it, same as:
Partnered Output Coils - Builders Group - Moderated! and RANT CAFFE ASYLUM
typical.
Hmmm, could be, but i doubt it.
Itsu
A bit like " locking the stable door after the horse has bolted " see screenshot below.
The string of recent events that saw several members moderated has totally ruined OU.Com's credibility IMO.
Keep up the great work guys. O0
Cheers Grum.
All,
Since CaptLoz is not responding to Itsu, I will propose the input scheme I believe Chris is using for his device. I had stated earlier that there is no way for a single mosfet circuit to return energy to the power supply but that is not correct and I know better from past experience so, I'm blaming my 79 years young as the problem!
Anyway, I've attached a schematic and scope pix of the input circuit and will explain how it works. Ch1(yel) is the input pulse to the mosfet, CH2(blu) is the power supply voltage, CH3(pnk) is the output voltage across the drain, CH4(grn) is the current in L1, and Math(red) is the input power.
Initially, L1 is connected between + and ground via M1 and current begins to ramp up linearly. At a given point in time M1 is turned off and the current in L1 starts to fall as the voltage across L1 attempts to reverse. This action can not happen instantaneously however due to the capacitance that appears at the mosfet drain or Coss plus the parasitic capacitance of L1. So, this total capacitance will begin to charge and we will see a half sine wave at the output of the drain as long as the mosfet is not going into avalanche. When the voltage across the capacitance has reached a peak, the energy it contains will nearly equal the energy stored in L1 and the current in L1 will be zero.
Now, the charged capacitance will use L1 for the discharge path back to the + power source and will discharge back to zero volts and the current in L1 will now be negative and nearly equal to the positive peak current reached during the charging phase. This is when the energy stored in C1 returns to the power supply as seen by the negative current and power on the scope traces. Notice the relatively low net average input power of 43.7mw when the average input power for just the positive half of the cycle is 747.7mw in the 2nd scope pix.
I personally did not use this type of input circuit when testing my variations of the POC device but will give it another try to see if there is any possible OU.
Regards,
Pm
Chet
QuoteTopics seem locked at Stefan's forum ! ?
I agree claim is enormous !
If he is a captain.. you are away for long times depending
On work?
Yes Stefan locked the threads and it was about time in my opinion. Chris and friends managed to spam and degenerate almost every thread at OU and it begs the question why. Why spam and gaslight so many people through open and moderated threads when they have there own forum?.
As well, the claim by Captainloz is not enormous because nothing was proven to date. It was just another baseless claim we have all seen before hundreds of times in the past all of which could not be replicated or proven.
In fact, I have written a couple of electrodynamics related science papers recently which require rigorous and accurate proof through meaningful justification and real data. This is what a professional format should look like...https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/scientific-papers-13815490/. Most people have no idea what it takes to write a science paper nor the amount of work, justification and proof required just to prove something relatively simple. So as you can imagine when I see all this hocus pocus posted in the forums and people jump in head first I have to question there motives.
In my opinion all this hearsay and gaslighting nonsense needs to end which was why everyone was justified in being so critical and Stefan was right in closing the threads. They were not proving anything, they were gaslighting people through sheer repetition and that's not good science.
Regards
I would also point out that what Partzman and Itsu are doing is what good science should look like. Doing some meaningful theorizing with justification to support the theory and real experiments. We need more of this kind of quality work in my opinion.
With that in mind, I'm almost done my new Arduino FE/efficiency detector based on input/output capacitors. I haven't added that much that qualifies as tangible to the FE community lately and I think this can help. No more DSO's or expensive equipment would be required and a $50 device can give us 100% reliable and meaningful data. The only real limitation is the power handling capability which peaks at around 100 watts on my setup.
A science paper will also published with all the relevant schematics, components, testing, data graphs and the results. In my opinion the key is removing all the uncertainty and ambiguity we see out there and this is a step in the right direction.
Regards
Quote from: partzman on 2020.10.02, 14:51:21
All,
Since CaptLoz is not responding to Itsu, I will propose the input scheme I believe Chris is using for his device. I had stated earlier that there is no way for a single mosfet circuit to return energy to the power supply but that is not correct and I know better from past experience so, I'm blaming my 79 years young as the problem!
Anyway, I've attached a schematic and scope pix of the input circuit and will explain how it works. Ch1(yel) is the input pulse to the mosfet, CH2(blu) is the power supply voltage, CH3(pnk) is the output voltage across the drain, CH4(grn) is the current in L1, and Math(red) is the input power.
Initially, L1 is connected between + and ground via M1 and current begins to ramp up linearly. At a given point in time M1 is turned off and the current in L1 starts to fall as the voltage across L1 attempts to reverse. This action can not happen instantaneously however due to the capacitance that appears at the mosfet drain or Coss plus the parasitic capacitance of L1. So, this total capacitance will begin to charge and we will see a half sine wave at the output of the drain as long as the mosfet is not going into avalanche. When the voltage across the capacitance has reached a peak, the energy it contains will nearly equal the energy stored in L1 and the current in L1 will be zero.
Now, the charged capacitance will use L1 for the discharge path back to the + power source and will discharge back to zero volts and the current in L1 will now be negative and nearly equal to the positive peak current reached during the charging phase. This is when the energy stored in C1 returns to the power supply as seen by the negative current and power on the scope traces. Notice the relatively low net average input power of 43.7mw when the average input power for just the positive half of the cycle is 747.7mw in the 2nd scope pix.
I personally did not use this type of input circuit when testing my variations of the POC device but will give it another try to see if there is any possible OU.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
thanks for the confirmation/visualisation that energy is being returned to the PS.
Its good to mention you use the vertical (green) cursors to measure a specific timeframe and that the lower box value's are representing that data.
I was trying the same using a 5mH coil, but was not able to get the same traces, probably you are using different frequency / duty cycle / MOSFET.
Anyway, do you use a HV probe for the purple CH3 as 471V becomes nasty already.
Itsu
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2020.10.02, 17:36:44
I would also point out that what Partzman and Itsu are doing is what good science should look like. Doing some meaningful theorizing with justification to support the theory and real experiments. We need more of this kind of quality work in my opinion.
With that in mind, I'm almost done my new Arduino FE/efficiency detector based on input/output capacitors. I haven't added that much that qualifies as tangible to the FE community lately and I think this can help. No more DSO's or expensive equipment would be required and a $50 device can give us 100% reliable and meaningful data. The only real limitation is the power handling capability which peaks at around 100 watts on my setup.
A science paper will also published with all the relevant schematics, components, testing, data graphs and the results. In my opinion the key is removing all the uncertainty and ambiguity we see out there and this is a step in the right direction.
Regards
Sounds great, looking forward to your publishing of this tool, it could help a lot of people.
Itsu
Well
I agree
And another friend of community
Has a nano pulser he is designing (actually it's done)
For experiments
Quote from: Chet K on 2020.10.03, 14:13:00
And another friend of community has a nano pulser he is designing (actually it's done)
What's his FWHM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_width_at_half_maximum) amplitude and pulse width ?
Just asked today
Will get more info
But might be more light duty
More a "twitcher" than a PULSER !!
OK, as promised, an input / output measurement using the scope with the new coil set.
Input measured using the scope, but at 12V as at 30V (or slightly higher then 12V) there is massive HV and RF influencing the equipment causing erroneous measurement results.
Input measures ONLY the drain voltage/current, so ignoring the MOSFET driver input AND the FG input.
Using a single 12V/5W automotiv bulb driven at its normal levels.
screenshot 1 shows the input (drain only) and is calculated as 9.6W
screenshot 2 shows the output across the 12V bulb and is calculated as 5W
COP = 0.52.
So using severall setups during these last days i get an average COP of around 0.5.
No response from CaptainLoz on my severall questions, so i take it that he is not interested in exchanging data, which is fine with me and i will continue with other stuff.
Hopefully others (members from Chris his forum??) will jump in and show their replications.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3vjOm-wI_E
Regards Itsu
Itsu,
Good work as usual! O0 I doubt CaptianLoz will contact you as I have gotten close to the same COP results as you from Chris's design info. As I read his AU forum, most there do not know how or have the proper techniques to make accurate measurements. I don't say that to slam them, it's just a fact. I will make a critical comment however, I love the videos on that sight where the author just points at wires in a circuit and shows scope pix without any audio! For the life of me, I can't understand what the point is!!!
regards,
Pm
Edit: Chris will say and has said on his forum to his followers, "They don't know what they're doing"! Oh well.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.03, 22:34:29
Input measured using the scope, but at 12V as at 30V (or slightly higher then 12V) there is massive HV and RF influencing the equipment causing erroneous measurement results.
Yes, the HV RF can damage your equipment so the only safer and reliable way to judge the
output power is by the temperature of a resistor or the brightness of the light bulb. (I use the same type of bulb because it has a non-coiled filament).
The input power cannot be judged with a light bulb, so the DC readings provided by the power supply, which supplies current to the DUT through a multistage input filter constructed out of hefty EMI chokes and very large caps, is the simplest way.
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.03, 22:34:29
Not response from CaptainLoz on my severall questions, so i take it that he is not interested in exchanging data, which is fine with me and i will continue with other stuff.
It was a nice low frequency break from the MHz land in the NMR thread.
Quote from: partzman on 2020.10.03, 23:48:03
Edit: Chris will say and has said on his forum to his followers, "They don't know what they're doing"! Oh well.
What's wrong with this replication?
Is it the 1Ω CSR instead of 100mΩ ?
Itsu
Could you try to take a temperature reading of bulb during run?
And then perhaps bulb just connected to power supply ...run input until it matches device run temp?
And then drive bulb up to what Captain loz is claiming ( what is bulbs temp?
IMO would be good data to see
Also luxmeter comparison
The experimenters need to realize they can check these claims very easily !
Hi I dont know if any one noticed but over on Over Uty Handle 'color' put up a link to a vid with English speaker
he showed a devise similar to the device your having fun with, he was saying after many experiments he could only
get his device to work with a 2in tube and pri and sec length wasn't important but weight was.
I have tried to find it since but he or she has a habit of deleting stuff, such is life, well there i let you know
use it or forget it eh!
AG
I asked in that topic yesterday
He gave me a hammer and a block of sand ( told me to pound salt and tell my story walking ( away 🙂
I removed the request
Also can you remember when he posted ?(about?)
Post cannot be altered after forum times out that feature
So it should still be there ...
If you could respond above in your last post
I will look ( just to not flood itsu topic... and perhaps someone else will know about the other
Public video?
EDIT
Image of recommended Extech LT300 with
Remote sensing unit
I am told these can be found around 100.00
However, IMO ever Captain has a laser thermometer on board! 27 or so dollars
Quote from: verpies on 2020.10.04, 02:25:31
What's wrong with this replication?
Is it the 1Ω CSR instead of 100mΩ ?
IMO, there is nothing wrong with Itsu's replication! The 1 ohm CSR is far better than the .1 ohm for current measurement resolution.
However, Chris would probably say that we don't have the "resonance" right. He never really defines "resonance" but sometimes refers to it as "magnetic" and other times references "wavelength" and yet again likens the device operation to a rotor and stator configuration plus even mentions core delay, etc. So who really knows?
I wish him and his followers the best but if they really have OU, wouldn't one expect to see some sort of working device after 5 or so years?
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Chet K on 2020.10.04, 10:12:54
Also luxmeter comparison
Yes, an incandescent light bulb with a straight filament, like the one Itsu has shown in his video, measured with a luxmeter in a dark box, would be a safe and reliable way to compare the OUTPUT POWER.
IR/laser temperature meter is not suitable for a light bulb, but it is suitable for a non-inductive matte BLACK resistor (although it is slower because it takes a long time for the resistor to equilibrize with the ambient temperature, which is just another confounding factor). A thermistor will work, too.
The lightbulb and resistor tricks do not work for measuring the INPUT POWER.
The only easy way to measure the INPUT POWER is to supply the DUT through a multistage LCR filter, which makes sure that only
flat DC is drawn from the power supply. Then the multiplication of the Amps x Volts displayed by the power supply (or external meters
* connected
before the filter) will be accurate. The electrolytic caps should be large and the smaller caps should have different values e.g. 1nF and 100pF. The chokes should have spaced winding turns (to minimize the C
IT) and not saturate nor heat up under load. Their magnetic coupling must be minimized in order to keep their mutual inductance low - this means toroidal or pot cores and orthogonal placement at a distance.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3951.0;attach=36580)
*
If the DUT returns more energy to the power supply than it takes periodically on average, then the ammeter will read a negative value.
Quote from: Chet K on 2020.10.04, 10:12:54
Itsu
Could you try to take a temperature reading of bulb during run?
And then perhaps bulb just connected to power supply ...run input until it matches device run temp?
And then drive bulb up to what Captain loz is claiming ( what is bulbs temp?
IMO would be good data to see
Also luxmeter comparison
The experimenters need to realize they can check these claims very easily !
Hi Chet,
CaptainLoz uses different bulb (14V) AND a 12V led, so its hard to compare, but its already mentioned by f.i. picowatt that there cannot be running 30W output while only powering these 2x 14V / 2.8W bulbs at seemingly normal brightness.
But i used my setup with a single 12V/5W bulb to compare brightness using a smartphone Lux app and a laser temp meter (not really useable for this).
Lux app used was "lux light meter pro - free" using the front camera (iphone).
First setup was using the captainloz device running and set to 5W output on the scope measuring 1804 lux and 51°C with the laser temp meter.
.
Secondly i kept the bulb and smartphone in place and used a DC source adjusted to give the same lux value, then noting the voltage / current thus watts used.
Set at 1803 lux the DC input was 14.1V / 380mA thus 5.3W.
The laser temp meter showed 54°C.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmtaDYriMQM
I hope this is what you mean
Regards itsu
Itsu
Thank you
I have never tried laser therm on such tiny
Bulbs
I do know the black dot target keeps more accurate data
Reflectivity effects accuracy
This happens with infrared light
Remember Ken Wheeler bithmus heat claim with magnets??
He was using very expensive IF camera
And did not realize such artifacts can happen!!
TinselKoala found that error
As did all thereafter who did not get results with normal caloric methods)
Do you have a remote thermometer around? ( place bulb in box ?
Compare temps inside box against ambient loss?
For clarity on bigger bulbs with some high temp
Paint ( flat black) ION scaled various bulbs through
Input range he said he could calibrate bulbs (input against temperature)
He was going to send me this info
But ??
I can ask if they ever got his files open
So much good work he did
Thanks for giving effort here
This is on my to do list
However you have actuall DEvice
For clarity
If Captain loz and his crew all used the same
Bulbs
ION said he could calibrate the bulb through all inputs
And anybody on the planet with access to bulb could use this
Chart for output
However his fixed loss to ambient protocol was more accurate
where frequencies and other issues were involved
Things that would fry equipment and cause reading errors on meters
Priceless edition to a builders tool box
A cardboard box and thermometer
😳
Chet,
i do have a blackend tube which contain a solar cell which i used to do some bulb / led calibration, see picture.
I can drill a hole in the side to install the temperature sensor and make some temp readings, but the tube is not really good isolated.
Will try some tonight.
Itsu
It is a little bit of a question as to exactly which bulb the AU group is using. It is a Radio shack lamp and they offer two version that fit that bulb design in an S10 base. One is a 14v at 200ma and the other is 14v at 270ma.
These lamps are still available today at RS.
What is puzzling to me is that with the COP so low, why go to all the trouble with calorimetry?
Regards,
Pm
Itsu
Fixed loss to ambient requires poor insulation
Your input will only sustain a given temp against this loss to ambient
And them temperature inside box will stabilize against losses
This is the entire point !
Noting that temp limit reached after reasonable time
Write down temp
Captain should place his entire device in lossy cardboard box
If his box gets hotter than control (just same bulb driven to (was it 17 watts ?? )
He should see in a few minutes the results to verify his 34 watts output claim
Or?
Compare against control (just a bulb driven at same input
Would work)
Sorry working atm
Not doing a good job explaining
Will rewrite later
Quote from: Chet K on 2020.10.04, 16:17:43
A cardboard box and thermometer
Actually you'd need 2 thermometers to accurately measure the output power with the equilibrium temperature of a resistor.
One thermometer to measure the temperature of the resistor and the other one to measure the ambient temperature. You can plug these two values into an Excel spreadsheet, which contains you calibration lookup table, and obtain a very accurate output power measurement.
If you want to measure the light output of a light bulb, then you can use a variety of light sensors, e.g.: phototdiode, phototransistor, LDR, CCD, CMOS, PV cell, ...but they better be thermally isolated or behind a fan because these illuminance sensors are affected not only by light but by their temperature as well. The last thing you want is for these light sensors to act as thermometers (incandescent light bulbs will heat them up!). A Hot Mirror (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_mirror) or IR Cut filter or long glass optical fiber can remedy this.
Q: Which one is better?
A: Both are equally accurate but measuring the light output is FASTER, however for best accuracy it requires thermal isolation of the light sensor and a dark box.
Q: Why can't these things be bought on eBay ?
A: Because each one requires individual calibration with known DC current which is time consuming (the light sensing method is less sensitive to miscalibration because it does not depend on the thermal conductivity of the resistor's heat sink, thermal paste, air circulation, etc...). Also these methods cannot measure the input power.
I made some temperature measurements of the bulb in a blackbox driven by the device (about 5W).
My understanding is that this way we can compare the temperature rise over time of the bulb when driven by the device and when driven by a fixed DC value.
For now i will show what happens when driven by the device.
I also show the light output as seen by a little solar cell in the blackbox and contrary what i thought and in agreement with what verpies mentioned, this is NOT stable.
The heat of the bulb also heats up the solar cell and in my case decreases its output voltage.
The data / graphs shows the heating up of the little black box due to the bulb over time and the decrease of the voltage from the solar cell due to the heating up of that solar cell.
Next step, i think, could be to do the same measurement, but now with the bulb driven with a known DC voltage and to compare the results as they should be the same.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAp2VXLUnWE
Itsu
//Sorry to post over itsu report //
——————————
Well
If a given globe (say a sphere shape)
Is run on calibrated input and scaled from Nil
To Max
Ion said he could make a data sheet for the bulb
A calibration sheet
And he could also give ambient temp formula to work with bulb size
For calibration chart.
At such and such a bulb temperature in ambient temp of (see chart)
Your bulb has x for watts output
He also had done this I believe on many bulbs and had the spread sheets
And had said he could do this if we ever had a need
And send bulbs globally (calibrated bulbs )
For measuring ( persons with no equipment could still gauge results
And be a part of the work being done!
And contribute reasonable data
Ernie was a great innovator when it came to maximizing
Resources!
And giving everyone a chance to participate
Verpies
Yes he did mention your method
It is very good way to do this
Calibrated resistors could be sent to builders
All having the same to compare quickly results
When working with circuits that tend to damage
Equipment or effect readings
Cardboard lossy boxes are great for quick tests
I have just received a lab report for a similar test done on Lux meter!
I am trying to open it
I believe it may be a formal document done for
Client (lab report)
Not sure I can post parts yet as examples
Nor would I without permission!
I personally love this type of testing
And this captain loz experiment is perfect application!
Quote from: Itsu on 2020.10.04, 20:45:09
The heat of the bulb also heats up the solar cell and in my case decreases its output voltage.
The first time I encountered this problem, I destroyed my Mom's decoration...
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/518SYayl8dL._AC_.jpg)
...and used it to separate the hot bulb from the light sensor.
Itsu
QuoteI made some temperature measurements of the bulb in a blackbox driven by the device (about 5W).
My understanding is that this way we can compare the temperature rise over time of the bulb when driven by the device and when driven by a fixed DC value.
For now i will show what happens when driven by the device.
I once built a bomb calorimeter which works well. I wrapped the resistor leads in fiberglass tape as high heat insulation and stuffed it in sealed a metal tube. This was then placed in an insulated foam container of water with a 10K thermistor to measure the temperature. The specific heat capacity of water is 4,200 Joules per kilogram of water per degree Celsius. It we have the temperature rise(C), weight or volume of water(1 liter = 1Kg) and time then we can calculate the Joules and the watts, 1 Joule = 1 watt-second.
So 1 degree C rise in 1 liter of water = 4200 Joules, 4200 J = 4200 watt-seconds (watt=V x I) x time(s). So knowing Joules and time gives us watts and if we know watts and V we get I, or watts and I we get V, however this is a mean or average value. Thus with a thermistor measuring the temperature change in C, an RTC measuring real time and then either V or I we get a fairly accurate watt(power)/Joule(energy) calorimeter. This is where a microcomputer really shines to take all the measurements, do all the calculations and display them for us.
I should note water is used because it can absorb a great deal of energy, more so than most materials, however other materials could be used. The amount of energy to be measured and the range of measurement should be considered in the setup.
Regards
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2020.10.04, 23:12:37
I once built a bomb calorimeter which works well. I wrapped the resistor leads in fiberglass tape as high heat insulation and stuffed it in sealed a metal tube. This was then placed in an insulated foam container of water with a 10K thermistor to measure the temperature. The specific heat capacity of water is 4,200 Joules per kilogram of water per degree Celsius. It we have the temperature rise(C), weight or volume of water(1 liter = 1Kg) and time then we can calculate the Joules and the watts, 1 Joule = 1 watt-second.
A bomb calorimeter is an excellent method to measure the output energy.
However, a bomb calorimeter is a poor method to measure the instantaneous output power (because of the long delays involved
*). For faster responses, the thermal insulation must be low (low mass and low heat capacity, too).
Finally, a resistive bomb calorimeter is an unsuitable method for measuring the input power and input energy. (the light bulb, too).
*
Compare that to the sub-second responsiveness of the incandescent lightbulb.
Quote from: verpies on 2020.10.04, 22:20:29
The first time I encountered this problem, I destroyed my Mom's decoration...
...and used it to separate the hot bulb from the light sensor.
:) Of course you first convinced your mom that these things are dangerous because ..........
Thanks guys, i know this is a good way to compare light and heat sources so to get a feeling on the output power involved, especially if modern equipment show an extraordinary value.
But as i did not encounter that yet, then like PM said, no need for this backup system on low COP situations unless thats all you got.
Regards Itsu
-
CaptainLoz surfaced again on Chris his forum:
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/captainloz-s-asymmetrical-re-gauging-experiment/
He writes this among other things:
QuoteI've been taking a break on this one. For me this experiment was successful. As you said this principal and effect can be easily produced without a huge investment. I encourage people to build and experiment. We can't do it for them
I'm currently working on the Maxim Aliyev device that I purchased from Ukraine awhile ago. Now I have a better understanding I'm taking another look, building the coils from scratch. I don't have anything great to share yet but hopefully soon!
To me it is unbelievable that someone who is searching for Free energy can sit on a "Nobel prize worthy" device which produces twice the output compared to the input, "takes a break on this one" and goes working on another Free Energy device.
I hope he will return to it soon and/or others will try to replicate, but looking at the responses there not much action going on on that thread.
Itsu
Itsu
QuoteTo me it is unbelievable that someone who is searching for Free energy can sit on a "Nobel prize worthy" device which produces twice the output compared to the input, "takes a break on this one" and goes working on another Free Energy device.
We could look at the reality of our situation...
1)Over half the corporations want to bury this tech and the other half was to capitalize on it with no risk.
2)Over half the population are already hostile towards renewables and the other half don't want to be effected by renewables or FE.
3)The science community want nothing to do with it because they think it would contradict everything they believe.
4)A perpetual universe full of perpetual motion and energy does not fit well with many peoples "beliefs" if you know what I mean.
So given the circumstances many inventors not obsessed with fame, fortune or beliefs are content to stick to there research for now. Oh you may see some contrivance pop up every now and then but it soon disappears as does the inventor. So if as many imply, everyone welcomes this technology with open arms then why is everyone so hostile towards it and why do all the inventors tend to disappear?.
I would submit that many inventors and researchers not unlike myself see the reality of our situation for what it is based on the facts we know not wishful thinking or speculation. Many see the rise of populism and all this anti-science rhetoric as a threat and have already went underground.
So maybe it's not us, maybe it's everyone else and if everyone actually wanted free energy then obviously we wouldn't even be having this conversation. You have to remember that not so long ago they burned people like us at the stake for what we know to be true and unfortunately not much has changed in my opinion.
Regards
AC
Hi AC,
nice summing up of what might be the reason, but in my mind somewhat far fetched.
I realy think it simply boils down to the notion that CaptainLoz in his mind knows there is something wrong, but closes his eyes for it for now.
Maybe because on the forum he is on now there is some "loyalty" needed toward the host or he wants to be remembered for now for what he showed them, i don't know.
The proposed simple tests using some light bulbs to compare with real DC could give a quick answer, but that is not even given any thoughts.
The fact that none overthere is trying a replication makes me conclude that not many are convinced of this being a real COP > 2 device.
Itsu
CaptainLoz used an isolated MOSFET driver to drive his device.
This isolated MOSFET driver circuit was described in a separate thread called: "Reliable and Flexible Switching System" which can be found here:
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/reliable-and-flexible-switching-system/
There was a PCB created and was shortly available on Ebay, but due to costs and/or reliability (delivery) problems it was withdrawn from Ebay.
But Chris has graciously decided to post the zip file of the gerber and drill files, so the V.3.0 design is now freely available in the Public Domain, see above thread.
I have ordered some PCB's from his recommended PCB manufacturer and promptly received them, looking very good.
Its a 4-channel circuit from which i will build 2 channels for now.
It consists of an isolated frontend (isolator IL610) and DC2DC converter/booster (RK-0515s) to isolate the 5V into 15V.
There is a MOSFET driver (MCP1403) to drive a MOSFET.
I will do some tests to see how it performs, but there are already good reviews.
Itsu
I build up 2 channels on the PCB, call them Channel 1 and Channel 4
Channel 1 is build according to the list on the thread, see above.
Channel 4 i modified to increase stability etc. allthough difference seems minimum.
Upper frequency using a resistive load seems around 1MHz.
When using inductive loads it will increase the overshoot at MOSFET turn off time possible
damaging it, so snubbers should be added to protect the MOSFET.
I believe in the original design (quadratron) there was a snubber config (R7 and C8) in
combination with the D4.
So all in all a nice design and certainly an asset on the bench.
But this design will not overcome the spikes inherent to using inductive loads as no snubber
exist, so care must be taken to not damage the used MOSFET and/or the scope as
spikes of several hundreds of volts are easily obtained.
Also the isolated frontend will be compromised when using a grounded FG at the input and
using a grounded scope on the backend / dut during the measurement fase.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HCUil5Rcc&feature=youtu.be
My mods on Channel 4 done are:
# C3 was changed from 100nF ceramic as decoupling to 47uF tantalum as buffer.
The 100nF decoupling was moved directly on the MCP1403 chip pins 3 and 6 (+ / -).
# D1 schottky 1n5819 was changed to faster schottky bat 46 (faster MOSFET turn off).
# R3 was changed from 1 Ohm to 0 Ohm (faster MOSFET turn off)
# R4 was changed from 10 ohm to 4.7 Ohm (faster MOSFET turn on).
# D4 was changed from 1N5804 to MUR460 (lesser overshoot during MOSFET turn off).
# additional; better decoupling (100nF ceramic) of the 7805's input/output might be needed.
Itsu
Using the same setup as above (100KHz / 20% duty cycle), i now connected instead of the
automotive bulb the CaptainLoz primary coil (18uH) on channel 1.
It shows that with only 13V on the drain, we see 200V spikes during turnoff time on the MOSFET.
As my MOSFET (IRFP260N) is limited to 200V drain voltage, it is the upper limit.
So always with coils, one should be aware of this and protect your MOSFET and/or scope by implementing
snubbers when exceeding the MOSFET/scope limits.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkD-cWCYsV0&feature=youtu.be
Itsu
With the CaptainLoz replication setup connected, i made some input / output measurements using this new switching pcb.
Resonance was found around 740Khz (34% duty cycle) and using 2 scopes for input and output measurements.
Input was measured using voltage across the L1 primary coil and the current through this L1 coil using the current probe and it turns out to be 11W see screenshot 1
Output was measured using the 1 Ohm csr in series with the 12V / 5W bulb for current and the voltage across the 12V / 5W bulb which turns out to be 4.7W, see screenshot 2.
So again COP found is around 0.5.
Video here: https://youtu.be/FiqxiDCgh9Y
I will leave it at this as no further action is to be expected.
I do now have a nice switching device added to my toolsset so i want to thank Chris for that.
Regards Itsu
In the above tests i did not use 60V on the drain as the resulting inductive spikes will exceed the limit of the used MOSFET (200V type) and the scope as we are dealing with hundreds of volts.
I know CaptainLoz did, see his post in the CaptainLoz thread here: where he mentioned:
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/captainloz-s-asymmetrical-re-gauging-experiment/
QuoteCaptainloz posted this 26 August 2020
Hi Guys,
I was playing around last night by upping the voltage to 65 volts and I've done some damage.
I've blown out my mosfet(s) and it looks like diodes as well.
Using a 0.1 Ohm csr instead of 1 Ohm in the output does not change much, so that is not what is making the difference, at least not in my setup.
Video using a 0.1 Ohm output csr here: https://youtu.be/mwPgD77hJCY
Regards Itsu
Wrong waveform? I think not if one compares it to his latest video (COP > 2 / Asymmetrical Regauging 9), see screenshot 1 below.
# i am replicating the captain his latest (COP > 2) setup (Asymmetrical Regauging 9), meaning he removed the L2 diode and replaced it for a (variable) capacitor.
# my output circuit IS 2 separated circuits, on a single board, but separated.
# I think my output waveform is in the ballpark of the captain in his latest video
= His and my light blue trace is voltage across the bulb.
= His and my yellow trace is the voltage across the csr, in my case 1 Ohm, in his case 0.1 Ohm causing some difference in fuzzyness, but overall similar.
Anyway, i think i have closely matched the Captain his setup and think i have matched his shown output signals, so i must be close to what he has accomplished.
I did tune somewhat OFF resonance yesterday and the COP increased somewhat (0.75), so perhaps that is needed (Actions and Reactions between your two Output Coils) to get better results, so will do some further study and testing.
Simple BOM (Bill Of Material) and PCB component layout of the "Reliable and Flexible Switching System" attached below.
Based on my build which was based on the info in the "Reliable and Flexible Switching System" thread.
Itsu
Guys,
In my opinion, CaptainLoz REMOVED the diode in his L2 circuit and REPLACED it with a (variable) capacitor and got the COP = 2 in his latest video "Asymmetrical regauging 9" presented here:
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/captainloz-s-asymmetrical-re-gauging-experiment/?order=all#comment-28597a9a-a68c-49e5-b40a-ac3b0065360a
See that post and his video at the 2:13 mark.
Since i am replication THAT setup, so without the diode and with the cap, WHY do you guys keep on insisting that i miss the diode and that that the reason is that i not have any sign of Linear Slope (Sawtooth Waveform ) etc.
I will be happy to add the diode, but then i will deviate from CaptainLoz his setup which produced the COP=2.
Please agree that the diode in CaptainLoz his setup is replaced by the cap, or tell me i have that wrong, thanks.
Itsu
QuoteHowever once I put the air cap in place of the one of the diode it was an improvement.
...........
Itsu, yes I did remove the diode on L2 in Video 9 (The diode on the load side supporting the lights).
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/captainloz-s-asymmetrical-re-gauging-experiment/?order=all#comment-580af5b7-963d-4cdc-afee-ac71016ec116
Thanks Captain, i appreciate that O0
So your (and my) circuit which produced the COP = 2 in your "asymmetrical regauging 9" video looked like the below picture, no diode and in place of it the (variable) cap.
Looking at the making of your coils (earlier video), i would agree with your coil convention dots for L2 and L3, not sure about L1.
Will do some further tests now i know my circuit is similar as your winning circuit.
Thanks, Regards Itsu
Thanks for the invite, i was tempted, but no thanks, i prefer to be without any strings attached, not here, not there.
Apologies are not needed, i know how it goes, you are a man with a mission.
I know there are many competent guys overthere, so they might do a replication, afterall, COP=2 is the holy grail we are all looking for.
In the mean time i will be working on my replication when time permits and share any results with Loz and/or here, good or bad.
Up till now no new results to report, even when going back to the basics, meaning 2 diodes and hunting for the sawtooth waveform etc. (only seen on L3).
Regards Itsu
I will be shelving this replication for the time being as i exausted all possible leads without showing anything hopefull.
CaptainLoz has graciously agreed to help me to obtain COP=2 with my replication when he finished working on some projects he presently is working on.
Untill then i will be doing the same and work on some other projects.
Regards Itsu