I am playing around with the "Romanian ZPM (Zero Point Module)" circuit from member "fighter" (from BeyondUnity.org forum) see his thread (still on AboveUnity.com) here: https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/romanian-zpm-zero-point-module/
See his diagram here:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46031;image)
My both coils are (also) on an AMCC-200 core (Metglas) but are 100 and 200 turns of 0.8 mm magnet wire with a DC resistance of resp. 0.9 and 1.5 Ohm.
Measuring the both coils separately for inductance (when both are on the core) using my Agilent U1733C LCR meter, shows at 10kHz an inductance of about 280mH (200 turns) and 90mH (100 turns), see pictures:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46033;image)
But when measuring at 100kHz, on the 200 turns coil, the meter switches over to capacitance (like 41pF) or when fixing the meter to inductance i get negative inductance values (like -53mH) on that meter.
Similar when measuring the 100 turns coil.
So i used my nanoVNA to plot the inductance of the 200 turn coil and got the following plots (for inductance versus frequency, see upper graph):
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46037;image)
At 10kHz (see marker 1) it corresponds with the value measured by my LCR meter (280mH), but then it fluctuates rather strongly and ends up negative to 500kHz as shown.
I was wondering why and found a convincing answer i think here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/explain-inductance-vs-freq/msg1586398/#msg1586398
where it says:
In ideal inductor, the L is constant.
If you make an air core inductor this will hold true.
If you put a magnetic material in the mix, things get complicated.
Now your core material will dominate the inductance.
Depending on its properties, you will see different L at different frequencies.
To complicate things even more, the total impedance of your inductor is modified by ESR of the wire, losses in the magnetic material and capacitances of the coil.
When adding a series capacitance plot to the measurement (see lower graph for capacitance versus frequency in the above plots) we see a flip from negative capacitance to positive capacitance around 40kHz, meaning we flip from how the coil behaves itself from inductance to capacitance.
With other words, the coil start acting like a capacitor.
I will further build up the circuit and try to make some measurements........
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu
I think a negative inductance is a positive capacitance when viewed as an inductor. I don't think you can measure an inductance with a VNA nor with an inductance meter when the circuit is a mixture of inductances and capacitors (those related to inter-coil capacitances).
It is the impedance of the whole that must be measured, Z = R+jX. If the imaginary part X is positive, it is an inductance, otherwise it is a capacitance. The complex impedance is obtained from the measurement of the parameter S21, but in this type of measurement I don't have much practice with my nanoVNA to tell you more now.
On the other hand, can you specify the ground connection on your diagram?
Itsu, could you take a few marker measurements of both inductance and capacitance at various frequencies?
200kc, 300kc, 400kc, and especially that odd negative region 340-360kc.
If both inductance and capacitance are reading negative, then the coil might actually be acting as a left-handed / negative-index meta-material in that frequency band. O0
Itsu,
That is a large capacitance value of nearly 2nfd at ~335kHz for 200 turns of 20ga wire in that coil configuration! Have you measured the self resonant frequency of the 200T coil?
Also, with the running configuration of the circuit involving the bucking of the 2 coils located on the ends of the core, there will be a relatively large so-called leakage inductance. This makes the analysis of the overall circuit very complex especially with the parameters you measured with the VNA.
Interesting!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.26, 10:58:45
Hi Itsu
I think a negative inductance is a positive capacitance when viewed as an inductor. I don't think you can measure an inductance with a VNA nor with an inductance meter when the circuit is a mixture of inductances and capacitors (those related to inter-coil capacitances).
It is the impedance of the whole that must be measured, Z = R+jX. If the imaginary part X is positive, it is an inductance, otherwise it is a capacitance. The complex impedance is obtained from the measurement of the parameter S21, but in this type of measurement I don't have much practice with my nanoVNA to tell you more now.
On the other hand, can you specify the ground connection on your diagram?
Hi F6,
QuoteI think a negative inductance is a positive capacitance when viewed as an inductor.
I don't think you can measure an inductance with a VNA nor with an inductance meter when the circuit is a mixture of inductances and capacitors (those related to inter-coil capacitances).
As a coil consists of both inductance and capacitance, you basically say that we cannot measure a coil with a VNA.
I know that a VNA uses some basic signals it captures (amplitude and phase of a high-frequency signal) and that the built-in computer in the VNA calculates key parameters such as return loss and insertion loss of the network under test.
It is also capable of visualizing the results in different formats—for example, real/imaginary, magnitude/phase, Smith chart, etc.
From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/vector-network-analyzer
Concerning the ground connection, it's not my diagram, it's from member Fighter, but when reading that thread i linked, one can read that there seems to be some problems with the ground as the scope probes / FG used probably are the only grounding points which can lead to ground loops and wrong measurements.
Suggestions as using an isolated scope/FG and/or using differential probing were given in that thread to mitigate the problems encountered (like powering up full a 12V/5W bulb while the PS used shows 25V @ 0mA
at a frequency of 604kHz, see this post video around the 4 min mark: https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/romanian-zpm-zero-point-module/?order=all#comment-4b4524d9-81b1-4605-b930-aa71010a436b
Itsu
Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.10.26, 13:57:14
Itsu, could you take a few marker measurements of both inductance and capacitance at various frequencies?
200kc, 300kc, 400kc, and especially that odd negative region 340-360kc.
If both inductance and capacitance are reading negative, then the coil might actually be acting as a left-handed / negative-index meta-material in that frequency band. O0
Hakasays,
see below graph with some extra markers. Not sure which marker data (right side) you want, so i toke marker 7 which has a negative capacitance but obviously a (small) positive inductance.
Indeed, that negative region 340-360kc is odd, as one (i) would expect to see similar fluctuations on the inductance as on the capacitance.
But it seems that never i have an "inductance and capacitance are reading negative" situation as far as i can see.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46063;image)
Here a zoomed in (325kHz to 370kHz) with more data points (1601 instead of 101) picture:
(not sure how accurate this nanoVNA is in this situation).
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46065;image)
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2022.10.26, 14:20:41
Itsu,
That is a large capacitance value of nearly 2nfd at ~335kHz for 200 turns of 20ga wire in that coil configuration! Have you measured the self resonant frequency of the 200T coil?
Also, with the running configuration of the circuit involving the bucking of the 2 coils located on the ends of the core, there will be a relatively large so-called leakage inductance. This makes the analysis of the overall circuit very complex especially with the parameters you measured with the VNA.
Interesting!
Regards,
Pm
Hi PM,
no, i did not yet measure the self resonances of the coils, but will do that later today / this week.
I will also see if i can measure the leakage inductance and the coupling coefficient.
Member Fighter did report some strange behavior with this circuit, so it probably comes from this complex combination of metglas core and series connected opposing coils on the end of the core together with the grounding problems.
I will see if i also get these problems.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.10.26, 14:30:35
Hi F6,
As a coil consists of both inductance and capacitance, you basically say that we cannot measure a coil with a VNA.
Of course not. What I mean is that you can't measure inductance when the parasitic capacitances are not negligible, i.e. represent a non-negligible impedance at the observed frequency, which is certainly the case of the large coils seen on the picture at frequencies of several tens to hundreds of KHz, in addition with conductive cores adding more capacitances. At hundreds KHz the capacitances are surely the preferred path followed by the signal.
Otherwise of course you can measure a pure capacitance or a pure inductance with a VNA, but the bigger the parasitic capacitances are, the bigger the measurement error will be, until nothing correct is indicated anymore. How else do you explain your negative inductance?
Quote
Concerning the ground connection, it's not my diagram, it's from member Fighter
The question was about your setup. What point do you use for the ground? Is it at the source of Q1?
Quotebut when reading that thread i linked, one can read that there seems to be some problems with the ground as the scope probes / FG used probably are the only grounding points which can lead to ground loops and wrong measurements.
Suggestions as using an isolated scope/FG and/or using differential probing were given in that thread to mitigate the problems encountered (like powering up full a 12V/5W bulb while the PS used shows 25V @ 0mA
at a frequency of 604kHz, see this post video around the 4 min mark: https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/romanian-zpm-zero-point-module/?order=all#comment-4b4524d9-81b1-4605-b930-aa71010a436b
Itsu
I think this is a good suggestion, grounds are indeed a real problem, all the time (I had one recently). What JohnStone says in his post of 23 June 2019 sounds interesting too.
I think the 25 V DC source should be decoupled with a RF capacitor (0.1 to 1 µF), as we have no idea what impedance it is at high frequencies.
QuoteOf course not. What I mean is that you can't measure inductance when the parasitic capacitances are not negligible, i.e. represent a non-negligible impedance at the observed frequency, which is certainly the case of the large coils seen on the picture at frequencies of several tens to hundreds of KHz, in addition with conductive cores adding more capacitances. At hundreds KHz the capacitances are surely the preferred path followed by the signal.
Otherwise of course you can measure a pure capacitance or a pure inductance with a VNA, but the bigger the parasitic capacitances are, the bigger the measurement error will be, until nothing correct is indicated anymore. How else do you explain your negative inductance?
Ok, i see what you mean, that is the same as the answer i found in the linked comment in my 1st post from eevblog:
I was wondering why and found a convincing answer i think here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/explain-inductance-vs-freq/msg1586398/#msg1586398
where it says:
In ideal inductor, the L is constant.
If you make an air core inductor this will hold true.
If you put a magnetic material in the mix, things get complicated.
Now your core material will dominate the inductance.
Depending on its properties, you will see different L at different frequencies.
To complicate things even more, the total impedance of your inductor is modified by ESR of the wire, losses in the magnetic material and capacitances of the coil.QuoteThe question was about your setup. What point do you use for the ground? Is it at the source of Q1?
well, i have not build up the circuit yet, i only have the 2 coils on the metglas core which i now measure for inductance, resistance, resonance etc.
So no ground problem here yet.
Itsu
Measuring the inductance of the coils while shorting to other coil shows the leakage inductance and then calculate the coupling coefficient (CC) using:
https://www.e-magnetica.pl/calculator/magnetic_coupling_coefficient
100 turn coil 86mH @ 10kHz gives 6.6mH when shorting the 200 turn coil: CC = 0.96
200 turn coil 270mH @ 10kHz gives 20mH when shorting the 100 turn coil: CC = 0.96
Self resonance 100 turn coil = 40.7kHz
Self resonance 200 turn coil = 37.7kHz
Putting the both coils in series aiding and opposing gives the following inductances:
Series aiding: 655mH @ 10kHz
Series opposing: 63mH @ 10kHz
This last configuration (series opposing) is the one which is being used in the circuit.
Self resonance of this series opposing configuration gives a 1st peak at 37.7kHz (2nd at 350kHz) which 1st peak is the same as the self resonance of the single 200 turn coil!
Itsu
Using the nanoVNA to plot some graphs of this series opposing configuration:
# inductance showing the 10kHz start inductance at 63mH
# capacitance
# impedance showing the impedance peaks (parallel resonance) at 44.3kHz and 323kHz.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46075;image)
itsu
@Itsu
Z = R + jX. The impedance consists of a real and an imaginary part, the resistive part and the reactive part, and you have only one curve. What do you really show? Its modulus, √(R²+X²)?
The R of the both coils are resp. 0.9 and 1.5 Ohm as mentioned above and measured with my DMM, so R of this series opposing configuration will be 2.4 Ohm or so.
I can put up as 3rd graph "Freq R Jx S11" which both shows the R and the Jx graph, but i put up the "Freq impedance S11" graph just to indicate where the resonance peaks are.
I have no idea how this nanoVNA app calculates this impedance Z S11.
I measured the present graphs in the "series measurement" setup which is not for a low impedance environment, so i have to remeasure (recalibrate etc.) the setup to be in "shunt measurement".
https://www.mwrf.com/technologies/test-measurement/article/21849791/copper-mountain-technologies-make-accurate-impedance-measurements-using-a-vna
I am more worried about the position of Q1 (MOSFET) in the in the first post shown diagram. I think it should be reversed (drain - source).
Itsu
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.10.27, 07:58:11
@Itsu
Z = R + jX. The impedance consists of a real and an imaginary part, the resistive part and the reactive part, and you have only one curve. What do you really show? Its modulus, √(R²+X²)?
This equation is for a
simple ideal inductor with no internal capacitance. The correct equation with internal capacitance is Z = R + j𝛚L/(1-𝛚^2LC) .
Pm
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.10.27, 08:29:12
The R of the both coils are resp. 0.9 and 1.5 Ohm as mentioned above and measured with my DMM, so R of this series opposing configuration will be 2.4 Ohm or so.
I can put up as 3rd graph "Freq R Jx S11" which both shows the R and the Jx graph, but i put up the "Freq impedance S11" graph just to indicate where the resonance peaks are.
I have no idea how this nanoVNA app calculates this impedance Z S11.
I measured the present graphs in the "series measurement" setup which is not for a low impedance environment, so i have to remeasure (recalibrate etc.) the setup to be in "shunt measurement".
https://www.mwrf.com/technologies/test-measurement/article/21849791/copper-mountain-technologies-make-accurate-impedance-measurements-using-a-vna
I am more worried about the position of Q1 (MOSFET) in the in the first post shown diagram. I think it should be reversed (drain - source).
Itsu
Yes you are correct. With the polarity shown, the conventional current would always flow thru the substrate diode. IOW, the Q1 would always conduct with or without gate drive.
Edit: Perhaps they actually used a P-channel mosfet which would work properly in this configuration but incorrectly show an N-channel.
Pm
PM, thanks,
yes, this intrinsic Body Diode would act as if the MOSFET is always active this way.
But even without such a diode, the gate signal would have to be 4 or 5V higher than the source voltage (25V here) to be able to activate the MOSFET which would mean 30V or so.
But then when switching on the MOSFET would put the source to ground level and thus the gate - source voltage to be 30V which might blow the MOSFET (typical 20V).
Anyway, i found out which MOSFET he uses (IRF3205ZPBF so N-channel) and how it really is connected (so wrong as shown on the diagram above) here:
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/romanian-zpm-zero-point-module/?order=all#comment-a34ffa77-6081-4aee-a5a0-aa7500ba4ee1
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46094;image)
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2022.10.27, 13:40:55
This equation is for a simple ideal inductor with no internal capacitance. The correct equation with internal capacitance is Z = R + j𝛚L/(1-𝛚^2LC) .
Pm
This is wrong, my equation is for the general case. I have not given the impedance of an inductor or a capacitor. Z = R+jX is the impedance in the general case.
Besides you should understand this from your own equation, that here X = 𝛚L/(1-𝛚^2LC). Your equation does not contradict mine, it is only a special case.
And as already said, if the imaginary part X is positive, it is an inductance, otherwise it is a capacitance. You have to realise what this means. It doesn't mean that there is only a pure inductance or a pure capacitance in the circuit, it means that at the two input terminals of your circuit, you will only see an inductance OR a capacitance, never both at the same time at a given frequency. The measured value, equivalent to only one inductance or one capacitance, will depend on the values of the real inductances and capacitors used in the circuit.
A black box with two terminals is a dipole, and its impedance at a given frequency is R+jX whatever the real passive elements inside, which R and X will depend on.
I put together the below shown circuit.
The first diagram is the basic circuit as i understand Fighter was using.
I am using a 12V battery at first (without any filtering) as the circuit produces many spikes and peaks which did affect my PS (i believe that was also the problem (OU) Fighter had).
My PS was already damaged earlier by such a circuit, so no risk taken for now.
With the battery, i can make some scope shots of this spiky signal to show the problem.
Later on, i can add some filtering and use my PS instead.
Second picture is the real circuit i am using right now
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46102;image)
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46106;image)
I made a first run with this present circuit, monitoring the input voltage, current and power while sweeping the frequency from 1kHz to 1MHz.
Input from a 12V, 7AH battery without any filtering on the input.
Voltage and current monitored via 2 DMM's as well via the scope with yellow probe across the battery input and the blue probe across the 1 Ohm CSR in the return line to the battery.
The screenshot shows the Blue input current, the yellow input voltage and the red power via the math function.
The 3x 5W bulbs (15W) pull around 9W initially at low frequency and decrease with up going frequency, but no special effects like sudden decrease in input voltage, current or power are noticed.
Video here: https://youtu.be/955-n_SasF8
I will now measure the signals across the bulbs to see how they compare to Fighter's signals.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
The voltage back spikes that your scope shows appearing across the 12 V battery (with their both positive and negative 20 - 25 V peak amplitudes) may indeed fool even a laboratory power supply if it is not designed for pulsed operation, feeding such switched resistor + inductive loads.
It is interesting what Fighter wrote on his forum here with respect to his ZPE circuit:
https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/public-answer-to-chris/?p=4&order=all#comment-9bd08b3c-e71a-471a-828b-af360090bfea (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/public-answer-to-chris/?p=4&order=all#comment-9bd08b3c-e71a-471a-828b-af360090bfea) I quote:
"From my experience a diode placed on the input could not stop ZPM to send power back to the DC source.
ZPM "see" the DC source as a load and is sending power back to it.
The diode (even a very fast one) get very hot and is burned. I don't know why."
So he inserted a diode in series with the input supply rail and it got burnt. One possible explanation for this is that during the negative back spikes the high peak currents they caused via the diode exceeded the specs of the diode. The built-in current meter of the PS showed only some tens of mA (30-50 mA) current in the 300 - 400 kHz switching frequency range he used for the circuit because the spikes may have influenced the internal circuit for the meter . The series diode in the supply rail may have conducted indeed in the reverse direction driven by the negative back spikes if Fighter's circuit also produced those your scopeshot above clearly shows.
He also used 3 pieces of 9V alkaline batteries in series to replace his entire PS and he wrote the batteries got warm and their voltage dropped down fast and the battery tests remained inconclusive.
These are the pieces of information from which I suspect the internal current meter got fooled and showed only less than 50 mA output current taken by his ZPE circuit.
Your measurements seem correct and I think they show reality. Thanks for showing your efforts.
Gyula
Edited for more clarity.
Hi Gyula,
thanks for your insights, yes there are some spikes on the (unfiltered) input, see here a better screenshot of the 12V input signal.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46127;image)
My PS also did show some strange behaviour and noises so i went for using a battery at first.
I will try to insert a series diode to see what it does, but i think Fighter mentioned more heating problems in other components as well.
I am slowly reading forward in his thread to see how things developed there, but up till now my setup is behaving rather normally, even the DMM's (voltage / current) i put in the input circuit.
Itsu
Itsu,
Since the bucking coils have different individual inductances, you might try reversing the leads to the coil assembly to see if the current pulse to the power supply changes polarity at the mosfet turn off.
Regards,
Pm
PM, thanks for the suggestion, i will do so.
But i was measuring the different currents in the circuit and found something i did not expect.
The below picture shows the points where i measured the currents (blue, purple and green).
I expected to see that the total input current (blue) would be the sum of the both currents through resp. the lamps (purple) and the coils (green).
But it does not, so i wonder where i make a mistake, in either my mind or in my measurements.
Blue is voltage probe across the 1 Ohm csr,
purple is AC only current probe (current has no DC component),
green is AC / DC current probe.
Frequency was 330kHz.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46133;image)
Itsu
Itsu,
It would appear that the probe polarity for CH3(pur) measuring the lamp current is reversed from what it should be. If so, then the sum of CH3 and CH2 would equal CH4.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
i added the current probe direction on the above picture.
So what you are saying is that the lamps current flow from bottom to top?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.10.31, 16:50:57
PM,
i added the current probe direction on the above picture.
So what you are saying is that the lamps current flow from bottom to top?
Itsu
Itsu,
From your current probe arrows, you are correct so I'm not sure what is going on at this point! According to Kirchhoff current law, the sum of currents leaving a junction should equal the current entering the junction.
Pm
Edit:
Hi Itsu,
Would like to ask on the switching frequency here in this current measurement test.
The series bucking coils may still have the 63 mH inductance you wrote in Reply #9, right?
So the inductive reactance may be in the kOhm range? so coils current should be in the some mA range from 12V?
The 3 bulbs in parallel may have around 10 Ohm resistance (counting back from full brightness power).
So we should have some mA coil current (at this frequency you will tell) versus the 755 mA bulb current. 12V/0.755A = 15.9 Ohm resistance for the 3 paralleled bulbs, so this bulb current seems correct for the less brightness than at full (15W) power.
EDIT: I see your time base was set to 1 us/DIV so the frequency may have been around 333 kHz or so? If this is correct, then the inductive reactance of the 63 mH coil may be around 130 kOhm, so coil current is negligibly small, under a mA?
EDIT 2: I disregarded the DC current of the coils taken from the 12V battery, sorry for that. So the 607 mA average current should be a correct coil current, this is established in a smaller part by the series DC resistances (2.4 Ohm) and mostly depends on the ON time, i.e. the frequency (the higher the frequency the smaller the average current in the coils).
Gyula
Quote from: partzman on 2022.10.31, 16:57:18
Itsu,
From your current probe arrows, you are correct so I'm not sure what is going on at this point! According to Kirchhoff current law, the sum of currents leaving a junction should equal the current entering the junction.
Pm
Edit:
PM,
i agree, so i also think its strange to see these currents.
Itsu
Quote from: gyula on 2022.10.31, 17:26:29
Hi Itsu,
Would like to ask on the switching frequency here in this current measurement test.
The series bucking coils may still have the 63 mH inductance you wrote in Reply #9, right?
So the inductive reactance may be in the kOhm range? so coils current should be in the some mA range from 12V?
The 3 bulbs in parallel may have around 10 Ohm resistance (counting back from full brightness power).
So we should have some mA coil current (at this frequency you will tell) versus the 755 mA bulb current. 12V/0.755A = 15.9 Ohm resistance for the 3 paralleled bulbs, so this bulb current seems correct for the less brightness than at full (15W) power.
EDIT: I see your time base was set to 1 us/DIV so the frequency may have been around 333 kHz or so? If this is correct, then the inductive reactance of the 63 mH coil may be around 130 kOhm, so coil current is negligibly small, under a mA?
EDIT 2: I disregarded the DC current of the coils taken from the 12V battery, sorry for that. So the 607 mA average current should be a correct coil current, this is established in a smaller part by the series DC resistances (2.4 Ohm) and mostly depends on the ON time, i.e. the frequency (the higher the frequency the smaller the average current in the coils).
Gyula
Gyula,
yes, see post #22 the frequency was 330kHz.
Yes, the series opposing coils have the 63mH inductance at 10kHz.
In post #10 i have the impedance of these series opposing coils plotted (bottom graph) and around 330kHz we have an impedance of 120kOhm.
I understand from a link posted in my first post and from F6FLT in post #7 that its not really the coils making up the inductance / impedance, but rather the core material,
the wire losses and the intercapacitance of the coils.
So i still fail to see how we can have a total input current of 703mA average while having 755mA rms going through the lamps plus another 607mA going through the coils.
Itsu
Itsu,
Change the measurement on CH3 to mean instead of rms. Then I think that CH2-CH3 will equal CH4.
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2022.10.31, 15:39:09
Itsu,
Since the bucking coils have different individual inductances, you might try reversing the leads to the coil assembly to see if the current pulse to the power supply changes polarity at the mosfet turn off.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
reversing the coil leads does not make any difference in the voltage signal nor in the current signal.
Itsu
Quote from: partzman on 2022.10.31, 20:56:36
Itsu,
Change the measurement on CH3 to mean instead of rms. Then I think that CH2-CH3 will equal CH4.
Pm
PM,
ok, i put CH3 (purple) in mean, but i do not think that is correct as we have an AC signal there.
As can be seen, the mean current on CH3 is about 6mA which can not be true as the 3x 12V / 5W bulbs would not light up with such low current me thinks.
Itsu
Concerning the diode used on the input lead by Fighter, i tried a High Speed 12R06DI diode https://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/107509/STMICROELECTRONICS/STTH12R06DI.html
Frequency was 330kHz and the diode warmed up to 30 degree Celcius only.
But we see the impact in the screenshots, where the white trace is input current without the diode, and green input current with the diode.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.10.31, 21:14:27
PM,
ok, i put CH3 (purple) in mean, but i do not think that is correct as we have an AC signal there.
As can be seen, the mean current on CH3 is about 6mA which can not be true as the 3x 12V / 5W bulbs would not light up with such low current me thinks.
Itsu
Itsu,
Thanks for doing that. The mean current thru the bulbs is what the power supply "sees" and the rms is what powers the bulbs. But things still don't match up as far as KCL is concerned!
Pm
Hi Folks,
This video deals with applying KVL for a series RC circuit fed by a sinusoidal AC 60 Hz generator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZNBn06PW58 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZNBn06PW58)
I freezed the video at 3:56 time where the voltage across the resistor is 37.5V and the voltage across the capacitor is 33.16V but the generator feeding them has 50V only... :D
He explains...
The title of this video is "You Can't Apply Kirchhoff's Loop Rule to a Circuit with an Inductor!" :D
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6d_nRTIl4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6d_nRTIl4) 3 minute long
The title of Part 2 video is "Faraday's Law is the correct approach for a Circuit with an Inductor!"
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNmEayHrCJg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNmEayHrCJg) 7 minute long
He wrote: "we apply Faraday's law to a circuit. This is the correct way to think about an LR circuit, and it leads to the same result as Kirchhoff's approach." :D
Are we better off? C.C
Quote from: gyula on 2022.10.31, 21:55:59
I freezed the video at 3:56 time where the voltage across the resistor is 37.5V and the voltage across the capacitor is 33.16V but the generator feeding them has 50V only... :D
I do not really get the point. The voltages at resistor and capacitor are out of phase so it is a quite a normal behavior in this circuit.
Quote from: Frederik2k1 on 2022.11.01, 06:55:42
I do not really get the point. The voltages at resistor and capacitor are out of phase so it is a quite a normal behavior in this circuit.
Yes, that is ok now and with reactances we need to do vector summing for voltages or currents. So, taking the square root of the sum of (33.6
2 + 37.1
2 ) gives 50 V.
Doing this calculation with the currents in Itsu's circuit still gives a certain error though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT4OvT0deVQ
Gyula
Thanks guys, i have to digest all this.
For now, just some reminders, as that this circuit is a parallel RL circuit, not series, see basic diagram.
Also, i am showing currents, not voltages.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46152;image)
I also made an LTspice simulation of this circuit and put in the currents through the components as i measured them, see picture.
The lamps are replaced by resistors, frequency is 330kHz.
Green is input current, blue is coils current and red is lamps current.
It shows similar results as my present setup, but here the averages do match.
LTspice file attached
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46157;image)
Itsu
Ok, i think i spotted the problem, as can be seen in the above simulation.
The red lamp's current trace there is No AC what i initially thought it was.
Because i thought it was AC, i used my AC-only probe to measure the lamp's current, but obviously there is a DC offset on that trace which is not detected by this AC-only probe.
This DC offset is less in my circuit, so harder to spot, but still there, so now i used my AC/DC probe to measure all 3 currents (in mean) and now the input current much better matches the sum of the coils
and lamps currents, see screenshot:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46159;image)
The green trace is the input current (742mA),
The White R2 current is the coils current (608mA),
The white R1 current is the lamp's current (121mA).
So 608 + 121 = 729 which is close to the 742mA input current.
Sorry for the confusion.
Itsu
Comparing my voltage across the lamps / coils with that from Fighters thread here: https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/romanian-zpm-zero-point-module/?order=all#comment-919e6a86-806b-493c-b8c9-aa7201308781
Fighters screenshot:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46161;image)
My screenshot:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46163;image)
We are at 327kHz, so it seems to me both screenshots are very similar.
Itsu
Good job Itsu, thanks for all the hard work.
The waveforms are pretty similar to that of Fighter's, so most likely his power supply seems to cause his circuit's low input current consumption, until proven otherwise of course.
Gyula
Itsu,
OK, that all makes sense now. I also thank you for all the effort to replicate this circuit. O0
Pm
I have replaced the 12V battery now in use as DC source for a variable Power Supply like in use by Fighter, but with some additional filtering.
Without this filtering, the PS is heavily influenced (current limiter plays up, noises from inside, etc.) by the spiky signals coming from the device under test (DUT), see screenshots in posts #18 and #20.
But with some filtering (caps with CMC) things clear up, and we have an almost DC Voltage and current at the PS input:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46205;image)
The filtering consists of a 1uF capacitor, a 37mH CMC and a 476nF capacitor
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46207;image)
In Fighter's thread, member Vidura also already advised the use of such a filter here:
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/romanian-zpm-zero-point-module/?order=all#comment-19f2b67c-054e-450d-bd5e-aa750128e505
https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/romanian-zpm-zero-point-module/?order=all#comment-0f76b2a8-3a21-4499-9063-aab201244554
I will be using this filtered PS to make some further experiments.
Itsu
The above filter was measured using my nanoVNA and shows as expected a low pass characteristic.
All frequencies above a few tenths of kHz are blocked (-20 to -80dB) effectively and thus are protecting the PS, see screenshot below.
Using this filter shows we have a (parallel) resonance frequency in the device around 12kHz, which is pretty low compared to the 604kHz reported by Figther.
We see a sharp dip in input current approaching 1mA like reported by Fighter, but also my lamps go out contrary to Fighters lamps which stay on full.
I think this behavior of my device is as expected, as that in parallel resonance the impedance is at maximum and thus the current at minimum.
Strange is however that without the filter there is no resonance to be found in a 10kHz to 5mHz range, thus no dip.
So i think this filter (capacitor) is causing the device showing parallel resonance.
Why Fighters device also shows the input current dip, but not the lamps dimming, is still the question.
Reading further in Fighters thread, it seems there is a need for a ground connection of the device at the drain of the MOSFET which looks like a strange place for grounding to me.
Initial tests here with this ground connection does not show much difference in behavior of the device.
Will continue reading Fighter's thread and doing some measurements....
Itsu
It seems that the low pass input filter has a strong influence on the workings of the Device Under Test (DUT).
The first low pass filter above caused a resonance in the DUT around 12kHz even when fed by a 12V battery, which without the low pass filter showed NO resonance in the DUT in a 0 to 5MHz range.
I now build a second low pass filter using different caps and CMC and this one causes a resonance in the same DUT (also on 12V battery) around 308kHz.
Like the 1st one it will cause the DUT to decrease input current to practical 0mA when in 12kHz resonance, but it also causes the DUT lamps to go out.
This 2nd one does the same (decrease input current to practical 0mA) at 308kHz resonance, but also here the DUT lamps go out.
EDIT, it turns out however that this 2nd filter does not protect the PS that much as the 1st one as the 308kHz resonance is also there on the input to the PS causing problems (current limiting etc.) in that PS.
Itsu
I still am working on a replication of this ZPM device, but I am doing it at the forum of the designer (Fighter) of this ZPM device to be found here: www.beyondunity.org
My ZPM replication thread over there is named: "Fighter's ZPM (Zero Point Module) replication by Itsu":
https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/fighter-s-zpm-zero-point-module-replication-by-itsu/
Regards Itsu
If I understand correctly, the PS and the generator are connected to the mains and therefore share the mains earth.
In other words, the coupling to ground that loops the input circuit of the gate goes through the ground wire of the mains connection, which can have any impedance at the working frequency. For people used to HF currents, this nonsense is frightening, nothing is mastered in this setup. In particular, the capacitive coupling between the three elements of the device, the electronic circuit, the generator and the PS, can present significant impedances compared to those of the ground wires and generates current loops. The result will be anything depending on who did it and how, and even on the arrangement of the elements in relation to each other and to the electrical environment.
I suspect that the author of the setup does not understand what he is doing, since he has not provided essential data.
It seems my trip to BeyondUnity.org has suddenly come to an end, i am not able to post there anymore:
https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/fighter-s-zpm-zero-point-module-replication-by-itsu/
I was working on a standing wave detection contraption to be able to measure any standing waves in the input circuit and promised to make a video of my findings.
As i hate to leave loose ends, here as promised the video of the standing wave test i conducted: https://youtu.be/CAEllXlPfSE
I am in resonance, as can be seen at the current and voltage waveform across the bulbs.
I first slide along the minus lead using the current transformer showing the triangle shaped return current, but no sign of an in- or decrease of the amplitude along the 1m length.
Then i use the Fluke 179 probes to slide along the length and we do see an increase towards the end up to 48V.
But picking up the fluke shows a decrease back to normal 24V with some fluctuations pointing to an influence of the HF signal across the leads and thus invalidates this Fluke DMM measurement.
Double checking the voltage reading using the scope with 2 probes in differential measurement method (due to the lamp being grounded) shows a reasonable steady 23.3V across the 1m length thus
confirming, we see no standing wave along this 1m length.
It could be the 1m is to short for any longer wavelength standing wave to manifest, so perhaps there are some other tests to try.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
It is very strange because the moderator Fighter wrote here https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/fighter-s-zpm-zero-point-module-replication-by-itsu/?p=18&order=all#comment-af7905b6-b1de-427a-8059-af6a015c6228 (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/fighter-s-zpm-zero-point-module-replication-by-itsu/?p=18&order=all#comment-af7905b6-b1de-427a-8059-af6a015c6228) : "Actually, you know what ? Prepare your bags, you'll go back to your buddies within 24 hours. We have no obligation to keep this crap you produce on our site. It's time to end this bad joke."
So the 24 hour is not over yet, he wrote it 9 hours earlier yet.
All you have done is you attempted to replicate the ZPM "effect" i.e. to achieve a significant drop in the input current at a certain input frequency while the output power manifests in a brightly lit incandescent lamp and unfortunately your lamp remained faint when your input current dropped but your COP was < 1.
I would like to suggest for Jagau to use a simple solution which would put an end to the debate on which of the following two methods is correct for the input power measurement:
- using the math formula he adheres to as described here: https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/energy-in-a-pwm/ (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/energy-in-a-pwm/)
- or using the Math function of a good quality digital oscilloscope to multiply the instantaneous DC input voltage and current you use (besides you use a non inductive current sensing resistor to double check),
so a very simple solution would be to apply a step down isolated DC-DC converter and loop the 118-120 V AC or rectified DC output back to the 24 VDC input supply.
The formula Jagau uses for calculating the input power gives 2.5 W for his ZPM circuit and the output power he measures (correctly) at the output of the circuit is 4.03 W, a COP of 1.59, indeed a pretty good COP value. His power supply shows 4.32 W taken out by his ZPM circuit (24 V, 0.18 A).
This isolated DC-DC converter here has an efficiency above 80% https://www.ebay.com/itm/133998157732 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/133998157732) and can receive AC input between 100 V to 380 V and its isolated output gives a regulated 24 VDC at 0.42 A rated load current. The tech specifications for the converter is included by the seller.
Such converter can safely receive the output voltage coming from Jagau's circuit which presently feeds a 118V 4W rated incandescent bulb https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/ (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/)
Jagau rectified and filtered the AC output (frequency 1 kHz) voltage of his circuit and the converter I refer to can accept either the AC 1 kHz output voltage or the rectified DC output of his circuit without any problem.
I understand that Jagau firmly believes in his input power calculations but you have spent a lot of efforts and time attempting the replication of the ZPM circuit and you also firmly believe in your measurements.
So a solution would be to loop the output back to the input in Jagau's circuit.
Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2022.12.13, 20:48:41
Hi Itsu,
It is very strange because the moderator Fighter wrote here https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/fighter-s-zpm-zero-point-module-replication-by-itsu/?p=18&order=all#comment-af7905b6-b1de-427a-8059-af6a015c6228 (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/fighter-s-zpm-zero-point-module-replication-by-itsu/?p=18&order=all#comment-af7905b6-b1de-427a-8059-af6a015c6228) : "Actually, you know what ? Prepare your bags, you'll go back to your buddies within 24 hours. We have no obligation to keep this crap you produce on our site. It's time to end this bad joke."
So the 24 hour is not over yet, he wrote it 9 hours earlier yet.
All you have done is you attempted to replicate the ZPM "effect" i.e. to achieve a significant drop in the input current at a certain input frequency while the output power manifests in a brightly lit incandescent lamp and unfortunately your lamp remained faint when your input current dropped but your COP was < 1.
I would like to suggest for Jagau to use a simple solution which would put an end to the debate on which of the following two methods is correct for the input power measurement:
- using the math formula he adheres to as described here: https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/energy-in-a-pwm/ (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/energy-in-a-pwm/)
- or using the Math function of a good quality digital oscilloscope to multiply the instantaneous DC input voltage and current you use (besides you use a non inductive current sensing resistor to double check),
so a very simple solution would be to apply a step down isolated DC-DC converter and loop the 118-120 V AC or rectified DC output back to the 24 VDC input supply.
The formula Jagau uses for calculating the input power gives 2.5 W for his ZPM circuit and the output power he measures (correctly) at the output of the circuit is 4.03 W, a COP of 1.59, indeed a pretty good COP value. His power supply shows 4.32 W taken out by his ZPM circuit (24 V, 0.18 A).
This isolated DC-DC converter here has an efficiency above 80% https://www.ebay.com/itm/133998157732 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/133998157732) and can receive AC input between 100 V to 380 V and its isolated output gives a regulated 24 VDC at 0.42 A rated load current. The tech specifications for the converter is included by the seller.
Such converter can safely receive the output voltage coming from Jagau's circuit which presently feeds a 118V 4W rated incandescent bulb https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/ (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/)
Jagau rectified and filtered the AC output (frequency 1 kHz) voltage of his circuit and the converter I refer to can accept either the AC 1 kHz output voltage or the rectified DC output of his circuit without any problem.
I understand that Jagau firmly believes in his input power calculations but you have spent a lot of efforts and time attempting the replication of the ZPM circuit and you also firmly believe in your measurements.
So a solution would be to loop the output back to the input in Jagau's circuit.
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
yes, i thought i still had some time to prepare the promised video (see above) about the standing waves, but i was blocked posting much earlier.
Apparently only successful replications are allowed there and when you fail you are banned.
I know there are many more failed replications done there, but these members were much smarter than me (not difficult) and they already knew what would happen if they came forward with it.
You can suggest all you like for Jagau, but he won't be reading here, so your suggestions are useless, no matter how simple and practical they are.
The formula used by Jagau does IMO not take the input power into account, but only the pulsed part across the inductor, and thus discarding part of the device needed for creating the output in the first place.
I am not a math wizard, but i understand this formula uses the frequency / duty cycle twice almost halving the input power, so the COP would be easily > 1.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.12.13, 21:43:54
You can suggest all you like for Jagau, but he won't be reading here, so your suggestions are useless, no matter how simple and practical they are.
Well, I sent him a PM to draw his attention to my post here. We shall see what he does or not.
Gyula
Gyula,
OK, good,
Jagau is a good researcher and i have no problem with him, i worked fine with him for a while on his Melnichenko replication, but this drive for using only the pulse power for calculating the COP is something i do not agree with and seems to have troubled our relation instead of just "agreeing to disagree".
I do agree with Vidura his latest comment that it is useless to find standing waves while the "effect" is not present.
But the only one which has the "effect" present is Fighter who has no time to experiment.
I did show that the used Fluke DMM (or any) meter can cause a wrong indication in both a positive and negative way, so are not to be trusted in this scenario.
Itsu
Back to basic.
I went back to basic with my ZPM replication as suggested.
The picture shows the present setup stripped from all unneeded items:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46499;image)
We have the 24V switch mode PS with display for voltage and current, with some filtering and with grounding connected to the minus lead.
We have the core with both coils in opposing (checked again)
We have an IRFP260 MOSFET directly driven by the FG (5V driven from mains, not grounded)
We have 3x 12V / 5W bulbs parallel together with 2x 12V / 21W bulbs parallel each on different length of wire to detect standing waves.
We have short, thick wires.
Some initial testing shows some special effects like:
# a strong resonance at 63kHz,
# decrease of the current on the display of the PS dipping to 100mA minimum,
# Unfortunately we also see the bulbs go off during that dip but,
# we do see the both 12V / 21W bulbs dim differently (one earlier than the other) pointing to some sort of standing waves.
I will make some further measurements later today and shoot a video showing these effects.
Regards Itsu
Since that i now am attacked and accused of lying and making personal attacks to members via PM or in threads on BeyondUnity.com, i am forced to respond to defend myself.
I never made any personal attacks on members there, not in threads nor in PM's, prove it, show us.
I made copies of all PM's i send and of all PM's i received (i always do) so i know exactly who wrote what and who responded what.
I did send some members a PM asking for a second opinion on the used formula, and they gave me their thoughts about the matter, with which is nothing wrong IMO.
I was promised that in due time, a second opinion / analysis of the used formula / procedure will be given in a public thread.
I still have good hope that this promised analysis will be given in such thread, in time, as those are the words of decent truth wordy and honest members.
Thanks, Itsu
As promised here, a video of some testing i did today,
I show the difference in brightness of the 2x 21W bulbs parallel, but it turns out that no standing wave are in play here IMO.
But i don't know what is causing this either.
Also shown is the resonance peak around 60kHz manifest itself on the scope (voltage becomes sine wave, current minimizes) and on the PS (dip in current), but also as mentioned yesterday the bulbs go off :(
It looks to me like normal behavior of a parallel LCR circuit going into resonance and experience high impedance and thus minimum current.
So one can argue that i do not have the "effect" still, and i cannot disagree with that because that requires that the bulbs stay on brightly during the current dip, but how to find that "effect" is still the question for me.
2 effects that were noted in several replications including mine even without having the "effect" (the DMM on the input voltage varies upwards (24V to 36 or even 44V) and the difference in brightness of 2 similar bulbs on different length cable) seems to be not caused by standing waves or any sub-harmonics IMO.
Video here: https://youtu.be/sao3w7qSIx0
Regards Itsu
Some people who have seen my earlier screenshots of the input voltage and current may have noticed the difference in signal shape.
Each Power Supply that i have used (now 5 in total, including switch mode and conventional) plus the use of batteries with or without a filter produces different signal shapes.
This leads me to conclude that the used power source becomes a part of the active circuit (ZPM) it feeds.
The different filters and / or buffer capacitors in such power source partly determines the workings of the ZPM including the (parallel?) resonance peaks frequency.
This makes it extra difficult to exactly replicate the ZPM as it often is unknown how a PS is laid out internally.
Itsu
Here the same situation as yesterday, only i have removed the incandescent bulbs and hooked up only a 12V 3W AC led lamp.
It shows the same behavior as with the other bulbs as that at resonance (around 58kHz) the current decreases, but also the led lamp goes dimming.
Short video here: https://youtu.be/wN3efpxjJxs
Playing with some ceramic capacitors across the drain - source of the MOSFET (200pF, 1nF, 2nF, 4nF and 100nF) does not show much difference on behavior, only with 100nF the dip / decrease is much less.
Itsu
It turns out that the used power source in Fighter his ZPM is not a switch mode PS.
The QJ6005E is being sold as a "Linear PS" in several ads on the internet and this link shows a picture of the bulky PS it contains (scroll to the bottom): https://www.ebay.com/itm/263185946677
As the power source seems to be an integral component of the ZPM device, i will concentrate on using a Linear PS as the source to further narrow down the possible different components used in my replication.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.12.16, 10:51:47
...
This leads me to conclude that the used power source becomes a part of the active circuit (ZPM) it feeds.
...
Hi Itsu,
This may be due to the internal DC resistance of the power supply but often it is due to AC impedance because varying currents produced by the powered device can superimpose the DC. A good precaution is to always decouple the power supply by paralleling the DC input of the circuit with a low impedance capacitor at the signal frequencies (eg several thousand µF for frequencies of order of 50 Hz, or tens µF or nF the higher the frequency).
The disadvantage with large capacities is that you are no longer well protected by the current limitation of the power supply, which can only intervene with a delay.
Hi F6,
yes, i agree, but both the internal DC resistance and/or the AC impedance are different for each used PS which makes a replication very tricky.
And the question is if we NEED such superimposed DC for the "effect" to occur, so eliminating it by the use of low impedance capacitors in parallel to the DC input might be not the right idea.
The "effect" being, resonance in the circuit around 600kHz, having a dip (to nearly 0mA) in current measured by the internal current meter on the PS, while the 2x 12V 55W (100W) bulbs stays on brightly.
Thanks, Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.12.18, 15:35:14
Hi F6,
yes, i agree, but both the internal DC resistance and/or the AC impedance are different for each used PS which makes a replication very tricky.
And the question is if we NEED such superimposed DC for the "effect" to occur, so eliminating it by the use of low impedance capacitors in parallel to the DC input might be not the right idea.
The "effect" being, resonance in the circuit around 600kHz, having a dip (to nearly 0mA) in current measured by the internal current meter on the PS, while the 2x 12V 55W (100W) bulbs stays on brightly.
Thanks, Itsu
Itsu,
I've been loosely following your effort in this replication and if the condition for OU is as stated above, then mystery solved! To really validate if such a reading from the internal PS current meter can be used in calculations to show overunity, the entire power supply circuitry would need to be probed and measured Before and After the current meter and then and only then could a determination be made as to validity of the claim.
I mean if one wishes to ignore the potential of such errors, I can easily demonstrate infinite OU from my own experience and circuitry. It all depends on the reference points used for the measurements.
I've always suspected that the "filters" used between the PS and the ZPM circuit was the cause of the apparent OU at resonance.
Regards,
Pm
Hi Partzman,
thanks for your comment, i do agree that an internal PS current meter is not ideal to use as an indication for a pulsed load, especially as the below picture shows on the right side
near the yellow arrow, very probably the shunt used for this internal current meter, intended to measure DC loads.
The coil like shape of this shunt will have some inductance and with 600kHz pulsed load will have some reactance and thus will deviate from its intended DC operation spec.
However, there were different current measurements methods used, but they were classified as undetermined because the results could not be matched with what the PS internal current meter showed or
deemed unrealistic because they supposed to show more current, the PS could deliver. (5A @ 24V = 120W, mind you it is a 60V PS) etc.
Methods used were: using DMM's to measure voltage across a csr and directly as a current meter, using a "kill o watt" meter at the PS 240V side and a watt meter like shown here:
https://nl.aliexpress.com/item/32274797082.html which states DC Watt meter.
It might be that some methods did show considerable current still flowing while the internal PS meter showed near zero current, but they were put aside as unreliable / undetermined which could be true due to the fact the DMM's are not designed for 600kHz operation.
But the fact of the matter is that I too (and other replicators) can show this decrease of input current to near zero (see my above video's) both on the used PS current meter, as via the scope (current) probes as well with a "kill o watt" meter, which makes this decrease real at resonance, but i and other replicators problem is that the bulbs go out too at that current decrease resonance point.
Could it be a so-called sub resonance inside this specific PS current meter circuit, showing minimum current there while full current passes through to the device?
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2022.12.18, 20:56:18
Hi Partzman,
thanks for your comment, i do agree that an internal PS current meter is not ideal to use as an indication for a pulsed load, especially as the below picture shows on the right side
near the yellow arrow, very probably the shunt used for this internal current meter, intended to measure DC loads.
The coil like shape of this shunt will have some inductance and with 600kHz pulsed load will have some reactance and thus will deviate from its intended DC operation spec.
However, there were different current measurements methods used, but they were classified as undetermined because the results could not be matched with what the PS internal current meter showed or
deemed unrealistic because they supposed to show more current, the PS could deliver. (5A @ 24V = 120W, mind you it is a 60V PS) etc.
Methods used were: using DMM's to measure voltage across a csr and directly as a current meter, using a "kill o watt" meter at the PS 240V side and a watt meter like shown here:
https://nl.aliexpress.com/item/32274797082.html which states DC Watt meter.
It might be that some methods did show considerable current still flowing while the internal PS meter showed near zero current, but they were put aside as unreliable / undetermined which could be true due to the fact the DMM's are not designed for 600kHz operation.
But the fact of the matter is that I too (and other replicators) can show this decrease of input current to near zero (see my above video's) both on the used PS current meter, as via the scope (current) probes as well with a "kill o watt" meter, which makes this decrease real at resonance, but i and other replicators problem is that the bulbs go out too at that current decrease resonance point.
Could it be a so-called sub resonance inside this specific PS current meter circuit, showing minimum current there while full current passes through to the device?
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
I would have to think that your highlighted comment above is the case! What else could it be? Under the right circumstances, this particular PS meter arrangement in resonance with all other connected circuitry shows a current null while an obvious current flows to the load. All replications by yourself and others have apparently failed to produce Fighter's results due to the uniqueness of his test setup. To me, in order to claim OU in this premise, a complete independent verification of Fighter's device would be necessary to validate the OU claim.
Regards,
Pm
PM,
i tend to agree with you.
I am trying to find out what these "right circumstances" are, so i am looking into parallel resonance circuits, but up till now they behave as what i see on my bench, when in resonance, there is a dip
in current on the meters, which also kills the current through the bulbs, and they go out.
By the way, with "a so-called sub resonance" i more mean something like a "separate resonance" in that current shunt sensing circuit.
Thanks for your insights.
Itsu
Hi itsu
I saw that the replication is a bit stuck.If you are still interested, have a look at the replication from Atti in his thread :
https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/atti-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=2
You can see there in his videos very clearly the standing wave pattern of the hot area which lit the neon, and how it shifts to another pwhenart of the circuit when the ground is connected to the centre tap. This is typical for resonators with distributed parameters. He stated that the effect of input reduction was present while the voltage got high. Of course it could be argued that it is not the original layout as by Fighter, I think the additional taps allow a better impedance matching. Note that he also got the effects while powered from a battery, with a filter I think.
Just as a suggestion, you could try to make some substantial changes in your layout, until you can observe the above mentioned effects. The neon as indicator works fine, and maybe with additional taps or including an additional winding it is possible to bring the voltage up, and the standing waves to manifest. Regards.
Hi Vidura,
I did see Atti's videos as i am still following him (and others if any).
The neon is interesting, as i can only light one if the bulbs are disconnected, and then only the coils ends and center.
The bulbs seem to have a too big of a load on the signals to light up the neon, and / or my coils are not big enough.
I have received my AMCC 320 core and start winding the new coils on it at 150 : 300 turns.
I can use the old coils / core to extend with some wire like Atti has to see if i can show an effect as he has.
I don't think he uses the filter with the battery, so that's interesting too, but i do not consider this a one to one replication of Fighters ZPM as Atti himself mentioned this also, but it does show similar effects.
Itsu
I received my AMCC 320 Hitachi core and put 2 coils on the far ends in a 150 - 300 turns relation following this layout:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46594;image)
The coils specifications are:
L1 L2
150 turns 0.8mm 300 turns 0.8mm
Inductance 268mH @ 10kHz Inductance 1094mH @ 10kHz
Resistance 1 Ohm Resistance 2.1 Ohm
Coupling coefficient 0.97
Series aiding inductance 2260mH @ 10kHz
Series opposing inductance 290mH @ 10kHz (this is what we are using).
To compare with old AMCC 200 core:
L1 L2
100 turns 0.8mm 200 turns 0.8mm
Inductance 89mH @ 10kHz Inductance 277mH @ 10kHz
Resistance 0.9 Ohm Resistance 1.5 Ohm
Coupling coefficient 0.96
Series aiding inductance 655mH @ 10kHz
Series opposing inductance 63mH @ 10kHz
Here is a picture of the both cores side by side:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46600;image)
Here some VNA plots of the new AMCC 320 core including the series inductance (upper left) confirming the 290mH (292.4mH) opposing induction at 10kHz.
Also seen is what seems a self resonance point at 121kHz (upper right) as the impedance peaks to 114 KOhm there.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46604;image)
I will insert the new core in the circuit and start making some measurements.
Regards Itsu
Some initial tests showed this is a nasty beast, with 57W of bulbs as a load (3x 12V 5W plus 2x 12V 21W) and 12V input from a battery i have already 560V of spikes going back into the input (battery).
No wonder, diodes and capacitors in the input get hot and / or fail after a while.
In this situation i have the Fluke meter again raise to 36V or so due to these interfering pulses, and also the both 12V 21W bulbs each on a different length of cable go off at different points depending on how
high the frequency is.
A 24V linear (not switch mode) PS dropped its 24V with increasing frequency till 4V or so (not due to overload), causing the bulbs to go out with a small range of frequency just before it were to bulbs / voltage
is fluctuating slowly (few Hertz).
These are IMO all reactions of the used equipment on these nasty spikes coming back from the ZPM.
A quick sweep of 10kHz to 5MHz did not show the effect we are after, being the bulbs fully on with minimum current on an input current meter.
Need to find a way to safely make some further measurements.
Itsu
Here a video showing the present setup with the AMCC 320 core and the 300 / 150 turn coils including their north / south pole detection.
An 10kHz to 1MHz frequency sweep is made showing how the bulbs react and what voltage / current they present to the 24V PS including again the effects like a Fluke DMM showing more voltage (almost twice) then really is there and the unequal dimming of the 21W bulbs.
The effect we are after (decreasing current to almost 0 while the 57W bulbs stay on brightly) was not seen yet.
https://youtu.be/5orC-UaIEIU
Regards Itsu
Interesting results Istu, thanks.
Since inductance is roughly proportional to the square of the number of turns, it might be worthwhile to perform a test with a winding ratio that has an even multiple inductance, not an even multiple turns ratio.
For the AMCC200:
AMCC200 - 300 turns = 1094mH
estimated ~212 turns to hit 547mH
For the AMCC320:
AMCC320 - 200 turns = 177mH
estimated ~142 turns to hit 88.5mH
For a back-of-envelope test, instead of rewinding you could try placing a ceramic/neo magnet on top of the higher-turn coil to reduce the permeability of the core on that side, and by extension its inductance.
Hi Hak,
I think you mixed up the cores and coils, but i see what you mean.
However, this circuit uses the both coils in series (series opposing), so i think they act as one single coil with a resulting inductance at 10kHz of 290mH (much lower at higher frequencies, see the VNA plot).
Placing a stack of ceramic magnets on top of the higher-turn coil (or anywhere else on the core / coils) shows that this resulting inductance of 290mH @ 10kHz does not change much (few mH), even with a stack
of more powerful neo magnets, the inductance does not change.
Sliding the core halves slightly up or down or left or right has more of an influence on the inductance than the magnets.
Thanks, Itsu
Still doing some tests with my AMCC320 core.
The 150 : 300 turns coils in series opposing on it need to get into resonance to get the "effect", so i tried to find out what parallel capacitance brings this core/coil into resonance.
I used the core coil only, so no load (bulbs) or MOSFET attached, just some parallel capacitors.
I excite the coil using my FG with a single turn around one of the coils (loosely coupled).
Scope uses a 3pF probe, which was taken into account.
The following caps showed the following results:
Capacitor resonance frequency calculated inductance (https://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm)
450nF 462Hz 263mH
100nF 1000Hz 253mH
45nF 1470Hz 260mH
3nF 5130Hz 320mH
23pF 14130Hz 5H
3pF (probe only) 14230Hz 41H
The graph below shows the result.
So this shows me that the resonance shown by Fighter his setup of around 600kHz cannot be caused by any parallel capacitance with his coil.
Itsu
To compare how a simple air coil responds to a vna sweep, i have this simple air coil measured:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46818;image)
The resulting "series inductance" plot (10kHz to 10MHz) shows a steady increase in inductance till its self-resonance point, then continue as a capacitor.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46822;image)
Itsu
Itsu, Thanks for reminding me of all the things you can do with a nanoVNA. I use it in radio for antennas, and I always forget to use it when I'm tinkering around the FE! :(
But as I'm in the process of redesigning my current gradient device, now I'll use it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023.01.07, 13:12:26
Itsu, Thanks for reminding me of all the things you can do with a nanoVNA. I use it in radio for antennas, and I always forget to use it when I'm tinkering around the FE! :(
But as I'm in the process of redesigning my current gradient device, now I'll use it.
F6,
you are welcome.
I think it is a nice tool to visualize the behavior of some abstracts like inductance or capacitance versus frequency IMO.
Itsu
So, if we concluded here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4374.msg103052#msg103052 that the resonance we see in Fighter his setup around 600kHz is NOT caused by a parallel capacitance with the opposing coils, i was looking for another source of resonance in the circuit.
I tried a resonance LC circuit of a 163uH air coil with a 3nF capacitor (resonance around 204kHz) both in series as in parallel on several places in the circuit, mainly near the PS, see diagram:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4374.0;attach=46826;image)
But only some slight resonance effects were seen (204kHz) causing a slight dimming of the bulbs.
I will retry using not an air coil, but a coil on ferrite to see if the resonance effect can be enhanced.
Itsu
As mentioned above, I have tried to use coils on ferrite formers in a series- / parallel LC configuration on several places in the ZPM circuit as i did with the air coils, but similar results were seen being:
A slight resonance (sine wave like signal on the feeding voltage / current) in some cases (positions) causing the input current to decrease slightly, but it also causes the load bulbs to dim, which is understandable and expected.
So i think i have exhausted almost all possibilities to create the "effect" as shown by Fighter his ZPM being 2x 12V 55W bulbs (100W) brightly on at a certain high frequency (600kHz) while the input current drops to almost zero mA (creating the illusion of an almost infinite COP).
The closest i came to this "effect" was to have resonance in the circuit (by using an external filter to the PS) showing the PS decreasing its current to almost zero O0
But it also showed the load bulbs going off due to less or no input power :(
The issues i have with Fighter his ZPM are that:
# no one of the several replicators has been able to replicate the above-mentioned "effect". (sure there are replicators showing decreasing input current like me, but not with the load bulbs staying brightly on)
# Although Fighter has documented his ZMP experiments rather well, the key measurements and data are not provided or are deemed inconclusive, like the alternative input power measurements.
# there are strong indications of an instable environment (grounding?) or even feedback / oscillations in his circuit by looking at the fluctuating current on the PS amp. meter and the slow oscillating (few Hz) of
the bulbs in some cases.
# a very big problem could be the used FG (feeltech-fy3224s) who seems to have a problem in that it is not very well isolated from mains power see here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/feeltech-fy3224s-24mhz-2-channel-dds-aw-function-signal-generator/225/ and a video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqxA4HRYjVg
This last problem (possible 115V AC on the BNC plug) could very well also cause the reported quick heating of the MOSFET.
Anyway, Fighter himself is the only one able to address these raised concerns by using an alternative power source (batteries preferable), a different FG and proper alternative input power measurements.
But due to time constraints he seems to have, i do not see that happening any time soon.
So i officially declare my ZPM replication attempt as failed and i will shelve my ZPM device next to all my other failed attempts to replicate a claimed overunity device until new insights become available.
All these failed replications sounds not very positive, but if they were not failing, that would mean i had succeeded in replicating an overunity device, but as we all know, such overunity devices are not existing
yet in the public domain.
That's why we are here for.
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu,
Regarding the input power measurement on Fighter's ZPM setup, the most ununderstandable thing for me is that everybody on Fighter's forum has disregarded the result of the Math function of your digital oscilloscope whereby the instanteneous input voltage and current were multiplied on your working setup. Why has been a deep silence on this measurement method and on your results in connection with the ZPM?
Even member Jagau did not use this measurement method, though his digital oscilloscope is also capable of multiplying two channels like yours. Instead, he used a different method (I refresh the link here https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=&order=all#comment-95fc8b64-5d6a-4928-9a0e-af660031c7de (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=&order=all#comment-95fc8b64-5d6a-4928-9a0e-af660031c7de) ) which gave him around 2.5 W input power while his power supply built-in meter showed 4.3 W and the output power was correctly measured to be around 4 W across his bulb load.
Of course anyone can use formulas he considers fit for the job but somehow the calculation results should be checked and this is why I suggested the use of an isolated DC-DC converter to loop the output back to the input here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4374.msg102602#msg102602 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4374.msg102602#msg102602) A successful looping could be a best answer for any doubts on measurement or calculation issues posed.
It also strange that the switching MOSFET gets so much hot in Fighter's circuit that it needs extensive heat sink, yet the meter on his power supply shows near zero or zero supply current. Strange because it is supposed to operate as a switch controlled by <50% duty cycle square wave pulses.
Member Atti nicely mentioned these issues at Fighter's forum. https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/atti-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=5&order=all#comment-766d5ae8-95ac-4353-941c-af8a00647efc (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/atti-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=5&order=all#comment-766d5ae8-95ac-4353-941c-af8a00647efc)
Thank you for taking the time and efforts to test the ZPM device. Hopefully we can hear about the true performance sooner or later. I certainly wish success to everyone.
Gyula
Gyula,
QuoteRegarding the input power measurement on Fighter's ZPM setup, the most ununderstandable thing for me is that everybody on Fighter's forum has disregarded the result of the Math function of your digital oscilloscope whereby
the instanteneous input voltage and current were multiplied on your working setup.
Why has been a deep silence on this measurement method and on your results in connection with the ZPM?
Well, the reason for that silence on my results seems to be that i was not having the "effect" (being resonance, zero amps on my input meter and 100W bulbs fully on, meaning COP > 100 or overunity) thus my in- output measurements supposed to be pointless.
Other members did not use this scope measurement method because they also did not have the "effect" or they did not reach their claimed COP > 2 or so results using that method, so stuck to their own single method.
Also, your suggested isolated DC-DC converter to loop the output back to the input method was ignored, as that also would compromise the claimed COP results.
The heating up (seconds) of the MOSFET in Fighter his setup is a giveaway that something is very wrong in his setup.
Member Atti indeed did mention this briefly but at the same time he mentions to forget about it (
But let's not look at these problems) which is a wise thing to do as any criticism on the ZPM results or measurements used will be swiftly dealt with like new member "EEng" experienced who was banned hours after questioning the used measurement method / calculations there.
I hope that the remaining ZPM replicators will show their results being positive or negative, despite the risk of being banned there when it turns out to be negative.
Itsu
Hi Itsu,
As there are new attempts to replicate member Fighter's ZPM device at beyondunity.org forum we can hope some new insights come up from the results.
You may have noticed a comment in such new thread here https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a) where this is written in connection with the reliability of built-in meters of power supplies:
"Simplest possible example with a linear resistor with 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50 % your PS will indicate 26 watts of consumption of the 10 ohm resistor, which is not correct. The correct answer is 13 watts which can be verified in various ways with well-known formulas."
Well, I agree that the built-in power meters in Power Supplies can display false power consumption taken out but I find the 13 W power in the 10 Ohm resistor too low when pulsed with 24 V pulses at 50 % duty cyle.
It remains to be seen how Jagau arrived at the 13 W instead of the 28.8 W. Because this calculator gives 28.8 W average power for one T cycle. The peak power comes out as 57.6 W and the peak current is 2.4 A.
Here is the link https://www.vishay.com/en/resistors/pulse-energy-calculator/ (https://www.vishay.com/en/resistors/pulse-energy-calculator/)
I entered 50 us for pulse width, 24V for voltage and 10 Ohm for the resistance. The 50 us can be chosen arbitrary of course, only the pulse energy varies with it which in this example is 2.88 mJ.
For the Variables on the right hand side I entered 100 us to have one full cycle for the 50 us pulse width (i.e. 50% duty cycle).
I also did an LTSpice simulation with the given data and it confirms the results of the online calculator. The simulator also gives 57.6 W peak power, also 2.88 mJ pulse energy, 2.4 A peak current and 28.8 W average power.
I attached the simulation results from LTSpice.
I wonder how the 13 W power was calculated from the formulas.
Addition: if we multiply the RMS values of the peak voltage and peak current calculated by the simulator, we get 16.97 V x 1.69 A = 28.67 W power (V and I are in phase).
Gyula
Gyula,
yes, i was following these new replications too, and was confused by that same 13W result.
Member AlteredUnity mentioned that his PS showed 7W input (which i agree can be deceiving especially with pulsed loads), so was this mentioned 13W in response to that 7W input statement or was it
in relation to the mentioned 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50 % duty cycle example.
In both cases the 13W does not make sense, as you showed for the 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50 % duty cycle case by using the Vishay calculator and the LTspice simulation.
It seems AlteredUnity is also confused about this.
Also, the wrong statement IMO that a modern digital scope is not able to do simple multiplication of 2 channels and display the result in mean (average) without any additional software has him left confused.
It is easy to do (input) power measurements this way by measuring the (input) voltage on one channel and (input) current on another channel and use the math function to multiply these instantaneous values of the both channels and have the resulting power trace displayed in mean (average) over several (the more, the better) cycles on the screen, see f.i.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKftVD0fAts
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2023.01.19, 10:46:36
...
Member AlteredUnity mentioned that his PS showed 7W input (which i agree can be deceiving especially with pulsed loads), so was this mentioned 13W in response to that 7W input statement or was it
in relation to the mentioned 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50 % duty cycle example.
In both cases the 13W does not make sense,
...
Hi Itsu,
The example sounds to mean the 13 W power is dissipated in a 10 Ohm resistor load pulsed with a 50% duty cycle square wave with a changing amplitude between zero and 24V. The meaning of the example is the 7 W power taken by the DUT reported cannot be correct because it was measured by the power supply, ergo the power supply would measure 26 W for the example on the 10 Ohm load instead of the calculated 13 W. :o
This is written :
"
Simplest possible example with a linear resistor with 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50% your PS will indicate 26 watts of consumption of the 10 ohm resistor, which is not correct. The correct answer is 13 watts which can be verified in various ways with well-known formulas. " https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a)
The 26 W consumption is close to the reality (i.e. to 28.8 W) but the calculated 13 W is not an acceptable result, hopefully Jagau will explain how he arrived at the 13 W.
Gyula
Hi Itsu,
I have received answer from a Tektronix Support Engineer to my question whether the Math feature / channel in the Tektronix TBS1000 digital oscilloscope family can calculate and display the Mean value of the product of two waveforms displayed on CH1 and CH2 inputs.
Here it is (I omitted some personal data):
" Dear ...,
Thank you for contacting Tektronix.
I just tested it on our old TBS1152, you can use the math channel to calculate CH1(V) x CH2(A) and use a math function to measure the mean value of the math channel. You will get the results in VA.
These are all standard functions.
Kind regards,
Timo Neuenstein
Technical Support Engineer EMEA - COE"
I asked this from the Tektronix Tech Support because Jagau has got the TBS1104 oscilloscope (see it in his post here: https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=&order=all#comment-95fc8b64-5d6a-4928-9a0e-af660031c7de (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=&order=all#comment-95fc8b64-5d6a-4928-9a0e-af660031c7de) ) but he does not use it to measure input power to his circuits.
And a few days ago he wrote the reason why and I found it rather odd so this is why I asked about it.
This was his reason, I quote from his post (addressed to another member) https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a) :
Quote
"For an oscilloscope like yours (Rigol DS1054z), the calculation is done in IRMS and Vrms, but if you do not have integrated software or purchased separately from your math menu, your oscilloscope cannot interpret the average power, you will not yet have the right answer, it will give you instant power.
An oscilloscope without this software calculates the instantaneous power not the average power, don't worry I have the same problem with mine, that's why you have to use the standard formulas."
Unquote
There are several false statements in the quoted text:
- calculations are not done from the IRMS and VRMS values but from many small samples (taken instanteneously) of the two full waveforms as they are being displayed on CH1 and CH2.
- for the TBS1000 scope family there is no need to purchase any extra software to do the multiplication between the two channels, and then the averaging, it is a standard feature, this is just confirmed by the Tektronix engineer. I do assume that the Rigol DS 1054z digital scope can do the same when its Math menu is switched on and the CH1 x CH2 is chosen (I have not confirmed this for Rigol).
- so the result of the multiplication can be chosen and displayed in Mean value in the Math channel.
Side Note: the TBS1000 digital oscilloscope family (by now discontinued) include types TBS1022 TBS1042 TBS1062 TBS1102 TBS1104 TBS1152 (this list is not complete). The TBS1104 is a 100 MHz scope with 4 inputs, the TBS1151 is a 150 MHz scope with 2 inputs, Sample rates are 1 GS/s (giga Sample / second) for both and all members of the family have the same Math features i.e. they are all capable of computing the product of the instantaneous voltage and current values and displaying the mean of the result.
Gyula
Gyula,
thanks for asking Tektronix about the math function, it seems to be a standard function on Tektronix and other modern digital scopes, so i have wondered for a long time why it is not more used.
Of course, such wrong statements won't help, as a lot of new members will accept what is written there and not use that function on their scopes now.
Hopefully this kind of correction will help those new members to try it out for themselves by starting with measuring simple things using this scope math function.
Itsu