PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-07-05, 01:16:08
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The Lindemann Inductive Resistor circuit---does it produce OU or not...?  (Read 19424 times)
Group: Guest
Temporary Announcement:
Because my daily and monthly schedule(s) are becoming hectic, I may not post to these threads for an indefinite period of time.  I can occasionally take time on some borrowed computers to post Replies here and elsewhere. I do have an active thread that I started on OU.com that requires a lot less time than the preparation this Forum does.  However, I realize that that site isn't this site, obviously.
     I take less time and then spend no money to do my usual research with other electronic engineering subjects.


http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html
(Look at the second, simpler schematic attributed to Peter Lindemann referred to in posted Reply #5)

This is the question I'm asking:  Lindemann's circuit is a lot simpler than the one attributed to Rosemary Ainslie.  I suspect there should already be a thread on this site for analysis of at least Lindemann's research efforts.   But I'm referring to that circuit, which was invented by Lindemann himself.   My focus is mofifying his circuit to add unusual coils to improve efficiency.
(I'm not getting into an exhaustive analysis of Ainslie's circuit, since it's more complicated and such a complication may lend itself to uncontrollably numerous variables which can defy accurate testing procedures.   Lindemann's circuit on Energetic Forum's site, or others, can suffice for a concept demonstration.

An expose' of relevant patents on induction heating of furnaces and things like personal heating pads can be found in the next post, immediately below.



This thread will be generally archived and "sticky" to the top of the page until I have the money and enough time to address the subject properly with experiments and posted results.

--Lee

Reedit, 31 Aug '11:  Added a test modification involving a patent reference for an inductively heated battery that has heater panels removed to test heat output at room temperature.
Reedit, 30 Sept '11:  Moved the patent reference in this post to the post dedicated to related patents involving induction heating coils, as such, immediately below.  Additional text editing as well.
« Last Edit: 2013-05-30, 19:43:21 by the_big_m_in_ok »
   
Group: Guest
In regards to the initial post, my patent research gives the following research results with respect to induction heating:

#7,443,278
"Coil Device, Composite Coil device, and Transformer Device"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qOivAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=7443278&hl=en&ei=4JKHTpHLO-XiiAKs9KGlDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
(Dual level, bifilar, counter-wound Tesla pancake coils.)

#6,542,545
"Induction Furnace with Improved Efficiency Coil System"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=xM4OAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
(This one already has what amounts to a counter-wound Mobius coil as a heating element.)

#4,311,977
Output Transformer"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=u_APAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=patent:4311977&hl=en&ei=UJCLTs3EKe_HsQLM3rWuBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
(This patent number should also be on another thread: 
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1082.0    involving high voltage generators.  This transformer can also be used in heat induction applications, since the main selling point of the invention is that winding capacitance is reduced; presumably increasing efficiency.)

#4,081,737
"Secondary Battery Charger and heater"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=EfsuAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=patent:4081737&hl=en&ei=vD2GTqWVN8XiiAKplcGzDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
(For room temperature tests or applications, power can be measured as heat generated away from the sides of the battery generating input voltage and current.)

#2,626,971
"Battery Heater"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=H6VqAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=patent:4081737&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Look at Fig's 9 & 10.
I'd say, as an improvement, a counter-wound set of coils can be built into the inner and outer walls of the battery case.  They might be connected in series or separate in parallel.)

#2,141,933
"Cathode"
(Look at Figs. 2, 8, 6, 10, & 11.   These are filaments designed for incandescent bulbs, but they get hot enough to be usable in theory with an induction heater.   Also, Fig. 6 is a parallel, 3-level unit.)

#1795,136
"Electric Induction Furnace"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_StKAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=5940427&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

#1,762,775
"Inductance Device"
(This can be used as a heater element, since more power will equal more heat in inductance, even in a heating element.)

#1,631,667
"Electric Furnace System"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wCh5AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=5940427&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

#1,157,995
"Incandescent Lamp"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=43RHAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=1157995&hl=en&ei=OJGHTsSGIeLniALT3PmfDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
(Mobius-wound lamp filament which can be incorporated into a heater arrangement.)






#2007/0241101 ,or, 20070241101 when used as a search argument  
"Induction Heating Circuit"
http://www.google.com/patents?id=DPCkAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=20070241101&hl=en&ei=go-HTuqcOfDciAKLkuHSDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
(A spiral coil on the bottom and a 3-turn oppositely-wound coil above that with the turns orientation at 90deg. to each other.)

Download copies at:   http://www.pat2pdf.org

The question I'm still asking is:  Can toroids or Caduceus and Mobius coils be used to improve the efficiency of these circuits?  Experimentation may resolve the issue.  Battery chargers as such may also be incorporated into the circuit's design.

--Lee
« Last Edit: 2011-10-05, 00:07:10 by the_big_m_in_ok »
   
Group: Guest
@ION
I downloaded a printoff of another copy and I see you're correct.  Crossing the capacitor leads coming from a transformer essentially bucks the voltage and reduces efficiency.  As an inexpensive replacement for a heating element, I might suggect a very long roll of fairly fine wire wound onto a cylindrical form.  Specially dedicated heating elements like a stove burner can be expensive if money's tight.

My question---do you know the answer offhand, ION?---is still:  How much OU is this potential setup?  If at all?  Does anyone have any experience?

--Lee
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3539
It's turtles all the way down
I deleted my earlier post because it smacked of "Lindemann bashing".

I know of no OU produced by the "Ainslie" circuit. A few especially POYNT99 have replicated and analysed it in great detai, and to my knowledge find no OU in the spurious oscillations.

Here is the schematic of Lindemann's version. Can anyone guess what is wrong with it? How many diodes do nothing but waste power?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2198
@Ion
Quote
Here is the schematic of Lindemann's version. Can anyone guess what is wrong with it? How many diodes do nothing but waste power?

I guess that depends on our perspective, if the circuit is designed to produce heat then the diodes could hardly "waste" power as power cannot be wasted only transformed.
As well I have found there are benefits to producing a "balanced" circuit which utilizes symmetrical components such as shunt1/D2 and D1/shunt2 which mirror one another. I have also found that the quality of switching in relation to an inductive discharge can produce fast transient effects whereby a single diode can produce a voltage rise well above 300v. This is because the rate of change of potential is magnitudes higher than the rate of conduction across the diode. In this case a simple diode can be utilized to bias the direction of current flow, dictate the voltage rise, act as a timing function, produce independent oscillations near it's threshold or act as a shunt when a extreme rate of change of potential causes the current to travel over the surface of the diode prior to conducting through it.
You see our perspective and experience plays a role here, is this a simplistic current wasting circuit which acts no different than a light bulb connected to a battery or is this a current limiting circuit which produces fast transient effects relating more to the laws of electrostatics. I state this from experience as I can have the circuit you have posted, which I have built, produce effects which are quite normal or I can change not the components but there qualities and have this circuit wipe out your DSO with standard probes in a few milliseconds.

This is the same mistake everyone makes with Tesla's circuits and if we build his patents our way then we can expect them to operate exactly as we would expect however this does not imply it was Tesla's way. It's funny that Tesla understood this problem all too well when he said -- I cannot help it if they cannot produce the desired effects, I have never had an issue with it. The question which remains is then how can anyone prove or disprove anything when they do not understand it and have never had it operating correctly. Any half-wit can throw anything together and have it not work as expected however having the skill and understanding to exceed our own expectations is quite another matter.
Do more with less, be precise in thought and practice, consider every aspect of every component from every perspective, consider the opposite of what logic suggests to see a different perspective.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 951
Hi Ion,

Back in 2009 I followed the Ainslie topic at energetic forum and can recall a test that a member, Skywatcher did on the original Ainslie circuit, see here: http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html#post56144  and see the correction too just under his post.
Of course, calorimetric tests ought to be performed and heat energy should be compared to the input energy.  Until this is done I also consider the COP>1 claim to be no more than a claim.
Peter Lindemann's schematic includes indeed some 'unnecessary' diodes. Normally the only diode needed seems to be D4 if we are to utilize the energy of the collapsing field just after the switch-off of coil current. However, at least one more diode, D1 may have a role too, namely it isolates the capacitor C from the power supply for the time the inductive spike gets collected in it, this way the DC voltage level can be higher than the supply voltage and at next switch-on the heater can start from a highe supply voltage until gets disharged to supply voltage level.  I assume this diode was inserted on purpose to prevent the captured energy dissipating in the inner impedance of the power supply (Lindemann spoke of 60V or higher supply voltages where COP>17 or even COP>20 starts to manifest...see here:  http://www.energeticforum.com/inductive-resistor/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie.html#post56081 )
Regarding the role of D2, it seems indeed redundant, although allcanadian's post on a balanced circuit utilizing symmetrical components sounds interesting  I do not think the shunt1-D2 and shunt2-D1 are really needed in a finalized circuit (they may be good under the test periods).
There remains the role of D3:  well it can bypass the voltage drop created across D1 and D2, reducing the double diode loss to only one diode drop during the capture time (if there is no D2 then D3 is not needed of course).
It is not known whether Lindemann himself or anybody else has tested his proposed schematic,  and on the other hand at supply voltages higher than 60V the loss in the 3 "extra" diodes are negligable I think.

rgds,  Gyula

I deleted my earlier post because it smacked of "Lindemann bashing".

I know of no OU produced by the "Ainslie" circuit. A few especially POYNT99 have replicated and analysed it in great detai, and to my knowledge find no OU in the spurious oscillations.

Here is the schematic of Lindemann's version. Can anyone guess what is wrong with it? How many diodes do nothing but waste power?
« Last Edit: 2011-10-02, 12:13:08 by gyula »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2198
@Gyula
I think it's important to understand exactly what is being debated here, in my opinion there is little or no debate concerning the actual facts nor reality but moreso a debate concerning  normalcy. That is no abnormal effects can ever occur so long as we constrain the circuit to what we consider as normal operation which is always defined by us. Which of course raises the ultimate question, how can one expect to think outside the box when they refuse to leave it?, how can one produce extraordinary effects when everything they do and everything about them is ordinary in every respect?. It is like a man imprisoned for life in his own tiny little jail cell who never thinks to check if the damn door is actually locked, lol, and if it wasn't locked who would he blame for all the time he spent imprisoned?.
I think we should distinguish the difference between what is normal and what is possible because we know as a fact normal people usually do nothing of consequence while extraordinary people usually do extraordinary things. In the end we have nobody to blame but ourselves and if we refuse to think outside the box then inside is where we will stay, it is not a fact it is a choice we have made.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2011-10-03, 03:55:28 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
Normally, shunt2 should be replaced with a jumper as it does nothing and the gate connection to the FET should be through a voltage divider network with a protective zener.

'Normally', all of the shown diodes are a waste of energy.

So, what possible abnormal conditions shown could be beneficial to the operation of the circuit - toward COP>1?
 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2198
@Wavewatcher
Quote
So, what possible abnormal conditions shown could be beneficial to the operation of the circuit - toward COP>1?

Wavewatcher we all know how this ends don't we?, there is nothing I could possibly tell you that would make you believe anything I would have to say, you have already decided. I believe it was T.H.Moray who once said --- We cannot prove anything to anyone who will not prove the matter for themselves, as such I seldom get involved in such nonsense. If what I say makes sense then use it, if not I would simply ignore my posts.
Regards
AC



---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
OK, AC.

So you don't know either.

At least I didn't call for a litany of reasons for the circuit to fail.
That would be the easy, boring and already very well know path well worn by many others.

I would like to know how could it work? There is certainly no magic in inductive heating. I work with that every day. It is a very inefficient process.

Are the multiple useless diodes added to create some effect of electronic noise?
Is the second shunt and somewhat poor gate circuit design added to create the possibility of noisy or incorrect FET switching?

Isn't this just another flavor from Bedini?
   
Group: Guest
allcanadian,
As to your posted Reply #6:

David Pomerlau is an autistic savant who can produce electrical power from uniquely positioned coils...

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Daniel_Pomerleau_Free_Energy_Coils

...and, as those who've seen his demonstrations, only he---as far as I know---can reproduce his experimental results.  He's autistic and doesn't know what's impossible.  He does it anyway.   (I realize his subconscious mind is most likely operating on a level like that of an low-functioning Asperger's Syndrome sufferer.)

We would all be really lucky to find someone---anyone--who can get results like these and still be able to describe what he or she did to the average person.  I encourage everyone to try as hard as it takes.  We're here for a reason, you know.

--Lee

   
Group: Guest
Normally, shunt2 should be replaced with a jumper as it does nothing and the gate connection to the FET should be through a voltage divider network with a protective zener.

'Normally', all of the shown diodes are a waste of energy.

So, what possible abnormal conditions shown could be beneficial to the operation of the circuit - toward COP>1?
 
A question or two comes to my mind:

With the diode on the positive side of the capacitor, voltage spikes from BEMF/CEMF would definitely be carried to the capacitor for capture, right?  That would make at least that diode useful, yes?

"So, what possible abnormal conditions shown could be beneficial to the operation of the circuit - toward COP>1?"
        Harvesting and storing BEMF is, to me, is the abnormal condition here in the circuit.  Tuning the circuit to optimal working condition would be the greatest challenge, as I see it.  To solve the problem:
Precise component selection and adequate tuning to resonance, while using whatever book math or software is available can make the job easier.  (I assume that's what Rosemary Ainslie did to claim her assertions of such a high COP.

Her circuit can be tuned, as you can see from this public research paper written by she and her co-workers...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems
...but I considered it highly variable with numerous components to complicate things further.   Hence, my choice of the Lindemann circuit for a representative proof-of-concept demonstration.

Lindemann's circuit may not actually give COP>1, but until one experiments, one can't say for sure.   The project will be open for discussion in the meantime.

--Lee
   
Group: Guest
A question or two comes to my mind:

With the diode on the positive side of the capacitor, voltage spikes from BEMF/CEMF would definitely be carried to the capacitor for capture, right?  That would make at least that diode useful, yes?

If you remove all the diodes the Back EMF will go back to the battery anyway.
Quote
"So, what possible abnormal conditions shown could be beneficial to the operation of the circuit - toward COP>1?"
        Harvesting and storing BEMF is, to me, is the abnormal condition here in the circuit. 

 CEMF (in the most liberal definition) is the counter force created when you apply or remove a current.

It can't be harvested and isn't extra anyway you define it. Back EMF is normally wasted and also isn't extra. So, harvesting all this EMF is just a means of improving efficiency never to exceed 100%.

In the end CEMF/BEMF under any definition is the energy in the swing coming back to hit you after you gave it a push. A pushed swing doesn't return because there is a unknown being on the other side pushing it back with extra energy.

I won't comment on the Ainsley work as there have been plenty of comments on this forum already. Lets just say her project isn't a good reference for anything related to engineering or electronics.

   
Group: Guest
If you remove all the diodes the Back EMF will go back to the battery anyway. ...
I can mentally see that now; you're right.
Quote
In the end CEMF/BEMF under any definition is the energy in the swing coming back to hit you after you gave it a push. A pushed swing doesn't return because there is a unknown being on the other side pushing it back with extra energy.
I was under the impression, from what I'd read in the past, that some researchers attributed the extra power to a theory of some kind of Einstein's?  I'd read that the power spike originated a few microseconds before, say, a charged coil was to have been shorted.  Not before.  That's what the article said.  Whether or not it's true should be something for more investigation and research.
Quote
I won't comment on the Ainsley work as there have been plenty of comments on this forum already. Lets just say her project isn't a good reference for anything related to engineering or electronics.
Yes, exactly.  Harsh invective came out of threads on OU.com and OUR.com, which is why I stayed away from the arguments.

--Lee
   
Group: Guest
If you ever find that reference to Einstein the time delay and back EMF please post it.

To be perfectly clear and so you don't wind up with egg on your face..... In virtually any conventional technology conversation BEMF and CEMF are the same thing.

Most folks don't differentiate between the fly back pulse from a coil when you break the circuit and the countering force induced in coils and rotor coils of certain motors. I get into trouble all the time even though my definitions are that as taught at Fort Meade Maryland and Fort Huachuca Arizona.

I did have a look at some old training notes after my last argument about this. I realized my military training was also at odds with the lower end classes dealing only with electronics, power, motors and generators.

No wonder why I sound like an idiot to other engineers and they like idiots to me  :D
   
Group: Guest
If you ever find that reference to Einstein the time delay and back EMF please post it. ...
Quote
Well, it was a long time ago.  It was either the 'Web or a book.
...To be perfectly clear and so you don't wind up with egg on your face..... In virtually any conventional technology conversation BEMF and CEMF are the same thing.
Yep, I heard that as well.  One correspondent I spoke to (strongly!)   >:(   indicated "CEMF is correct!"   C.C
Quote
Most folks don't differentiate between the fly back pulse from a coil when you break the circuit and the countering force induced in coils and rotor coils of certain motors. I get into trouble all the time even though my definitions are that as taught at Fort Meade Maryland and Fort Huachuca Arizona.

I did have a look at some old training notes after my last argument about this. I realized my military training was also at odds with the lower end classes dealing only with electronics, power, motors and generators.
Yes, interesting; I'm a Vet as well.  I did my electronic experience after I left the military.  (My Dad was an engineer who needed to know some electronic engineering to design instruments for his job.  I myself did some R&D electronic engineering professionally for a burglar alarm service provider.)
Quote
No wonder why I sound like an idiot to other engineers and they like idiots to me  :D
Yeah!  Just because they have a degree, it doesn't mean they have common sense or they use their creative instincts to advantage.   ;D

--Lee
   
Group: Guest
If you ever find that reference to Einstein the time delay and back EMF please post it.

To be perfectly clear and so you don't wind up with egg on your face..... In virtually any conventional technology conversation BEMF and CEMF are the same thing.

Most folks don't differentiate between the fly back pulse from a coil when you break the circuit and the countering force induced in coils and rotor coils of certain motors. I get into trouble all the time even though my definitions are that as taught at Fort Meade Maryland and Fort Huachuca Arizona.

I did have a look at some old training notes after my last argument about this. I realized my military training was also at odds with the lower end classes dealing only with electronics, power, motors and generators.

No wonder why I sound like an idiot to other engineers and they like idiots to me  :D

PLEASE NOTE:
       This uploaded Post #15.
Post #16 was an exact duplicate of this one, so I deleted it.
       We only need single, original posts.   I don't know why it was duplicated and read as #16.

--Lee
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Well i was board,so i had to go and look  C.C

Anyway,it is a simple circuit,and i have all the gear needed to build and test it--so why not.

I took Lindermanns circuit,and made a change or two  O0 --see diagram below.

I see ION made mention of diodes that do not need to be there,so i ask--which ones?,as they all seem to be needed to me,so as the circuit can do what it is suppose to do--as far as i can tell.
P.S--I did remove the diode on the negative rail ,as that one is not needed.

The change i made is to shift the position of D1,so as the inductive kickback cannot be absorbed by the battery.
This is so i can see if the cap voltage dose indeed go higher than that of the supply voltage.

I will be driving the transistor with my FG--easiest way to go for adjustments.

Some questions,and ideas as to how to make it even more efficient.

1-would it be better to use a mosfet as per Lindermanns schematic?
2-should we remove diodes 2 and 3,and try to make it a tank circuit,so as it operates at resonance ?
3-I have added a ferrite core to the LR to increase the inductance value--would this make it better or worse?

Any ideas would be great.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 63
Looks like, to me anyway, that C1 won't charge in this arrangement or receive very little charge.  At the point Q1 turns off the current will pass through D2 and return to the coil ( path of the least resistance ).    If you placed a second transistor between D2/D1 and operated them both simultaneously, breaking that link, the cap would have a chance to charge.   

Ed
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Looks like, to me anyway, that C1 won't charge in this arrangement or receive very little charge.  At the point Q1 turns off the current will pass through D2 and return to the coil ( path of the least resistance ).    If you placed a second transistor between D2/D1 and operated them both simultaneously, breaking that link, the cap would have a chance to charge.   

Ed

One would think,but i have often found that not to be the case.

And current following the path of least resistance is misleading,as current will follow every path regardless of resistance.
If we look at the circuit below,current will be flowing through every resistor,as they all have a voltage across them.

Only one way to find out  O0


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 63
Quite right but if the goal is to "recycle" the energy then removing the shared links to return the maximum possible charge to the cap would seem to make the most sense...

If the goal was to increase the BTU output of the coil it would make more sense to attempt to charge the cap to a much higher voltage than the supply so the discharge through the coil would yield a higher current even if only briefly. 

One of my goals is to find a more efficient way of heating so these types of circuits are interesting to play around with.   Probably the most efficient way I've found, so far, is to pulse 2 or more heating elements one at a time in rapid sequence.   This way the input see's only one load at a time.  There is a time frame you have to work with between heating the element and its natural cooling cycle.   A circuit similar to this that might possibly recover some of the input energy or improve current flow could be interesting...

Ed
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3539
It's turtles all the way down
Quite right but if the goal is to "recycle" the energy then removing the shared links to return the maximum possible charge to the cap would seem to make the most sense...

If the goal was to increase the BTU output of the coil it would make more sense to attempt to charge the cap to a much higher voltage than the supply so the discharge through the coil would yield a higher current even if only briefly. 

One of my goals is to find a more efficient way of heating so these types of circuits are interesting to play around with.   Probably the most efficient way I've found, so far, is to pulse 2 or more heating elements one at a time in rapid sequence.   This way the input see's only one load at a time.  There is a time frame you have to work with between heating the element and its natural cooling cycle.   A circuit similar to this that might possibly recover some of the input energy or improve current flow could be interesting...

Ed

If I were interested in testing this, I would use a small incandescent lamp or resistor placed into a thermos. Also in the thermos would be a thermocouple painted flat black to absorb all the direct and reflected thermal radiation. Then i would compare the heating effects after the system stabilizes, using either pulsed signals or pure DC.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 63
If I were interested in testing this, I would use a small incandescent lamp or resistor placed into a thermos. Also in the thermos would be a thermocouple painted flat black to absorb all the direct and reflected thermal radiation. Then i would compare the heating effects after the system stabilizes, using either pulsed signals or pure DC.

I've been using a box with the elements, monitor the cfm flow and in/out temp difference which allows me a calculation that's close enough to see if I'm improving or not.   I'm currently only interested in the infrared frequencies and how it interacts with different materials. As well as bringing the elements to temp with the least amount of input energy possible. 

I'm curious about to many things... not enough time in a day to do all I'd like to... I do what I can and leave the rest in a pile of someday...

Ed
   
Group: Guest
Well i was board,so i had to go and look  C.C

Anyway,it is a simple circuit,and i have all the gear needed to build and test it--so why not.

I took Lindermanns circuit,and made a change or two  O0 --see diagram below.

I see ION made mention of diodes that do not need to be there,so i ask--which ones?,as they all seem to be needed to me,so as the circuit can do what it is suppose to do--as far as i can tell.
P.S--I did remove the diode on the negative rail ,as that one is not needed.

The change i made is to shift the position of D1,so as the inductive kickback cannot be absorbed by the battery.
This is so i can see if the cap voltage dose indeed go higher than that of the supply voltage.

I will be driving the transistor with my FG--easiest way to go for adjustments.

Some questions,and ideas as to how to make it even more efficient.

1-would it be better to use a mosfet as per Lindermanns schematic?
2-should we remove diodes 2 and 3,and try to make it a tank circuit,so as it operates at resonance ?
3-I have added a ferrite core to the LR to increase the inductance value--would this make it better or worse?

Any ideas would be great.


Brad

1. Yes, I think so.
2. See my schematic
3. I dunno, test and see. The core will likely add some losses, though.

So here's a comparison circuit. You can make identical coils, and test this circuit against the full Lindemann monty.   I presume that heat output (from the coil) per watt of electrical input is your output measure of interest?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
1. Yes, I think so.
2. See my schematic
3. I dunno, test and see. The core will likely add some losses, though.

So here's a comparison circuit. You can make identical coils, and test this circuit against the full Lindemann monty.   I presume that heat output (from the coil) per watt of electrical input is your output measure of interest?

Thanks TK

Yes,heat output for watts input is the test.
I will be heating a volume of water in both straight DC and the inductive circuit to see if there is any difference in energy used to raise each volume by 10*.

I will try all three methods .


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-07-05, 01:16:08