PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-04-25, 01:56:17
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26
Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils  (Read 363213 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1856
Here are some musings on magnetization.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1856
And here is another experiment for people to try.  All you need is a collection of ferrite ring cores and some capacitors to create a form of transformer with a phase delay between input and output.  Then you could get some interesting results with reactive loads.

Smudge
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4607


Buy me some coffee
Thanks Smudge for all your time and effort on this.

Here is a test MH wanted me to carry out--i think i have it right?.

Quote MH :Here is a simple test:  I am going to make an assumption that you will get accurate voltage readings at high frequency for this test.  Only scope the direct function generator output (I am assuming that it is 50 ohms output impedance) and the far end of a one ohm non-inductive current sensing resistor that is in series with the signal line of the function generator.  You can do a (Ch1 - Ch2) subtraction to only see the waveform across the one-ohm resistor if you want.  Now, depending on how much current the setup is drawing, you should see a voltage drop on the far side of the current sensing resistor.  If the load is reactive, presumably you will see the current change direction back and forth.  What will you see at the sweet spot frequency?  The scope trace in Smudge's report shows power always being returned to the function generator.  Will you really see that with this simple test, power always being returned to the function generator?  I suspect that at the sweet spot frequency it will still look like a reactive load with the current changing direction back and forth over a cycle.  If you see that, that will invalidate your measurement that is always showing power going back into the function generator.

Below are the results of that test. Scope shot one shows the circuit and scope probe placements.
The effect is there between 700KHz,and 9MHz-where the phase relationship begins to shift--the transformer/inductors phase begins to lag. At 10MHz,the voltage on either side of the 1 ohm CVR are equal,but with around a 50* phase lag.

I will be doing a video tomorrow after work to show this test,and to show the math trace as well. I will also be placing a 3 ohm resistor across the transformer primary,so as we can see the change in the math trace and the power consumption-->this is just to show that what the scope is telling us is correct.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1856
Hi Brad,

I think that's pretty definitive, you are getting more voltage after the "voltage drop" from the resistor, so the "voltage drop" is actually a voltage rise, indicating current going the other way through the resistor.  I presume you set your FG to be 50 ohms output impedance?

Here is a suggested experiment you could try.  Assuming my analysis gave correct values for the negative R and the C, if you create the tank circuit I show it should drive a significant amount of current through the 7 ohm load.  Power into that load should exceed the power actually coming out of the FG by a large amount.  Your latest set of measurements show the negative R to be present over a wide frequency range so use whatever external inductor you can find that will give a resonance you can use.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1856
Brad,

Here are the phase vectors for your latest set of runs done for MH.  The phase you are getting at the higher frequencies is to be expected, you can see that channel 2 leads channel 1 (all vectors rotate CCW with time).  So everything fits the negative resistance hypothesis.

Smudge
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3207
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Forgive me for asking Brad, but did you resolve the issue of why your simple resistive divider wasn't measuring properly?

Also, what CVR are you using now, and has it been verified to be non-inductive?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4607


Buy me some coffee



Quote
Forgive me for asking Brad, but did you resolve the issue of why your simple resistive divider wasn't measuring properly?

Yes-highly inductive resistors at that frequency.

Quote
Also, what CVR are you using now, and has it been verified to be non-inductive?

I went hunting through my dad's stuff i got after he died,and i found a small box of 1 and 3 watt carbon composition resistors out of old tube radio's. The numbers seem to add up now,but it looks like i may have a small capacitive issue,as the current now lead's the voltage(slightly),but the numbers seem to add up correctly.

Below is a scope shot with a .9ohm CVR(as it reads on my DMM),and a 15.4 ohm(as it reads on my DMM) load resistor in series with my FG across them-->these are the carbon composition resistors being used.

P.S-sorry-blue trace is across the CVR,as im guessing you would have worked out anyway.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1121
Hi Brad,

What is it like at the lower than 5 MHz frequencies? 

Gyula
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4607


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

I think that's pretty definitive, you are getting more voltage after the "voltage drop" from the resistor, so the "voltage drop" is actually a voltage rise, indicating current going the other way through the resistor.  I presume you set your FG to be 50 ohms output impedance?

Here is a suggested experiment you could try.  Assuming my analysis gave correct values for the negative R and the C, if you create the tank circuit I show it should drive a significant amount of current through the 7 ohm load.  Power into that load should exceed the power actually coming out of the FG by a large amount.  Your latest set of measurements show the negative R to be present over a wide frequency range so use whatever external inductor you can find that will give a resonance you can use.

Smudge

I will give that a go Smudge-->if i can find an inductor around that value.

Cheers

Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4607


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

What is it like at the lower than 5 MHz frequencies? 

Gyula

The trace/phases start lining back up. At 900KHz and below,they are in phase.


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

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3207
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Yes-highly inductive resistors at that frequency.

I went hunting through my dad's stuff i got after he died,and i found a small box of 1 and 3 watt carbon composition resistors out of old tube radio's. The numbers seem to add up now,but it looks like i may have a small capacitive issue,as the current now lead's the voltage(slightly),but the numbers seem to add up correctly.

Below is a scope shot with a .9ohm CVR(as it reads on my DMM),and a 15.4 ohm(as it reads on my DMM) load resistor in series with my FG across them-->these are the carbon composition resistors being used.

P.S-sorry-blue trace is across the CVR,as im guessing you would have worked out anyway.
Why not run a test with two resistors of the same value, or at least close to the same value?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Tinman, thanks for all your hard work running all these tests.

Foe latecomers perhaps you could point again to the page with the complete build instructions, type of steel putty, core material etc. This information should always be on the first page of a new thread describing the device, and revisions should also be noted on the first page, so the information is not buried somewhere in the 25 pages of posts and 600+ replies.

 This would make for easy reference for builders.

Since this device has now become intermingled and tacked on to the original EMJunkie partnered coils thread, I think it is long since worthy of it's own thread.

IMHO, it wold be good to have a "control" experiment with an identical 1:1 transformer without the steel putty, but wound on an identical toroidal core, just to see how that behaves for comparison.

Regards
ION


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4607


Buy me some coffee
Tinman, thanks for all your hard work running all these tests.

 This information should always be on the first page of a new thread describing the device, and revisions should also be noted on the first page, so the information is not buried somewhere in the 25 pages of posts and 600+ replies.

 This would make for easy reference for builders.




Regards
ION

Quote
Since this device has now become intermingled and tacked on to the original EMJunkie partnered coils thread, I think it is long since worthy of it's own thread.

I agree it would be easier having a separate thread for this. If everyone agree's,then by all means,open a thread for it. I will be sticking this one out right until the end results are concrete -->be it a good or bad outcome.

Quote
IMHO, it wold be good to have a "control" experiment with an identical 1:1 transformer without the steel putty, but wound on an identical toroidal core, just to see how that behaves for comparison.

I did just that some time back using the same ferrite core that i used in my first HTT. I could not get the math trace to show a negative result,it always showed power being consumed--normal situation,and that was using that inductive 1 ohm resistor as my CVR.
The best i could do was to get the math trace very close to a zero value,but never a negative value.

Quote
Foe latecomers perhaps you could point again to the page with the complete build instructions, type of steel putty, core material etc.

I would have to go back and find it,as i too would have to look. If a new thread is opened,i will post all the info,and would also be happy to do a build instructional video--make a new transformer from scratch.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1671
And here is another experiment for people to try.  All you need is a collection of ferrite ring cores and some capacitors to create a form of transformer with a phase delay between input and output.  Then you could get some interesting results with reactive loads.

Smudge

Smudge,

I would be willing to try this experiment as I have hundreds of a rather small toroids that are large enough to work for this IMO.

The toroid is a Magnetics part #XG41003TC which I could not find on their website as they have discontinued the "G" material. In their old data book, the uo = 2300 and Bmax= .4T.  The dims are OD=.375 (9.53mm), ID=.187 (4.75mm), and HT=.125 (3.18mm).  One could place 25 of these in an ~1" (25.4mm) diameter circle which would be physically workable.

My thot on the caps would be to use smd ceramics connected together with pre-tinned tab wire used for solar cell/panel assembly. This would make a chain which should fit well within the toroid assembly.  If this was done with a properly sized smd package, each cap could be positioned within the toroid's core center.

So, if and when you might find time, what would you recommend for starting cap values, etc.

partzman

 
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4607


Buy me some coffee
Why not run a test with two resistors of the same value, or at least close to the same value?

The reason i use a higher value load resistor is because MarkE once told me that the CVR should be at most 1/10th that of the value of the loads resistance.


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

Posts: 520
@Smudge and @tinman

1st: The coil you mentioned I will call a @tinman coil or TC. I see ION needs some links as well.

Thanks @smudge for your synopsis. I did not see a video or formal diagram cause that thread at OU is 400 pages but based on your synopsis+image and your circuit test above, I again modified your test to show an alternative test I would really like to see how the inner TC secondary will output. Notice I use the same external inductor but it is actually a primary of a second transformer or toroid. That new secondary can load up a holding cap as long as the proper diode is hunted down and light up an LED or trickle return to source.

Also @tinman, if you add a 2.5 turn coil over your present primaries and connect it to your FG where only one lead on the TC secondary goes to one scope probe and one lead from any TC primary goes to the other scope probe only. No ground. Then play with FG frequency (can you go up to 50Mhz) and duty (I'd say not more then 30% but most likely around 11% will be best). I need to know which frequencies create the spikes on which coils and if there is one frequency that can spike all three at once.  Zat iz de questiun.

Then let's say you can consider that you want to have output from all three coils of the TC. So you wind a new primary over the existing TC. You wind over the existing TC primaries three or six or nine or twelve 2.5 turn coils equally spaced (I think 3 or 6 max will do it for your small toroid), connect them in parallel and use this as the pulsed primary coil that will still have an outer primary in series as well just like in the diagram. hehehe This is what I want to see. Pulse the new primary with the outer primary in series and output from all three TCs.

Hint: In your present TC design, I gather you wound the inner secondary all the way around. One coil all around is not the best, I mean, did Tesla ever wind a primary and a secondary all around a toroid core. Can't think of any off hand. He usually thinks in quads around the wheel. Secondary or primary, they should never be wound in on shot, You should always take out one or more taps, one for halves, two for thirds, three for quads, etc.

The object of the primary in the virtual function of the transformer is to mimic the rotating magnet. Full north, no north no south, full south, no south no north and back to full north. The word "full" here designates the total primary winding surface area but as my video shows, you cannot get full in the standard AC or DC method. You can get very close if the primary has a second outer transformer primary in series before ground because this doubles the "physical" coil length so the half syndrome point is now totally off the first coil hence now providing more of a kick throughout the prime real estate that is the main core surface, hence it shifts the primary coils center point to its end and not its traditional center. Now the total length of the TC primary will be fully active changing polarity and this should produce the best output chance. This also doubles the inductance in the primary circuit so you can play around with this same design with heavier transformer primaries and have double the flyback to play with. hehehe

I foresee that the best best will be when a core design needs two primaries, one like above and a second same set but 180 degrees out of phase. So if you had two 10 turn primaries, each would pulse full positive and full negative at the same time but on their own ends and continuously alternate. That would be the closest to a spinning magnet relative to the normal vectors of influence. Dual AC 0/180 that will be the future for super pounding cores. Then when we get to using flat copper wire primaries and secondaries where a greater surface area of each turn is in contact with the core, we will get even more output because coupling is atom close. To be coupled all you really need is to go one atom left or one atom right from where you started and have your secondary one atom from those points. We see these nice drawings showing "magnetic flux movement". Bull man. It's only one influence left or right, up or down as a chain reaction of spin conveyance. That's what makes conductive materials (atoms) so special.

For those in the SM read (hic hic), this would be the closest analogy to a simplified FTPU (the only real original TPU). The center toroid, two coils on one core, each coil acts like the outer primary in the circuit and in series each have one of two outer rings as the TC primaries (one at 180 off phase) and a third outer ring wound around the first two as the secondary output. If the toroid coil length is the same as the two rings (one top one bottom) this makes two toroid coils and four rings, two top, two bottom. One toroid coil goes to one top and one bottom and the other toroid coil goes to the other one top and one bottom. Both rings are insides the top and bottom outer secondary will alternate and the rings will completely change polarity inside the secondary creating a rotating magnet inside the full length of the secondary.  

Notice I did not need to use the overused words "fields" or "electrons". Oh shucks, I did it again. hahaha

Anyways, good luck.

wattsup

PS: What you see in the your scope shots is not what occurs throughout the primary. It is a differential that cannot show the true progressive decline in the pulse strength as you physically go along the primary surface area. It's like having 100 feet of shoreline but the general hidden rule is you can only access the wave energy on only 50 feet of it, so if you want 100 full feet of wave energy access, you need 200 feet of total shoreline.


---------------------------
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3207
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
The reason i use a higher value load resistor is because MarkE once told me that the CVR should be at most 1/10th that of the value of the loads resistance.
Of course that is true.

We are however trying to establish where the problem is with the measurements, which is why I proposed that series of tests that you said you were going to perform. I have not seen the results of those tests yet. So this is a separate test, related to but not conforming with actual pin pout testing.

Perhaps you know better, it was only a suggestion.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4607


Buy me some coffee
Of course that is true.

We are however trying to establish where the problem is with the measurements, which is why I proposed that series of tests that you said you were going to perform. I have not seen the results of those tests yet. So this is a separate test, related to but not conforming with actual pin pout testing.

Perhaps you know better, it was only a suggestion.

Poynt
After many request of differing test from many people,i have a hard time trying to keep up with them all. I believe my resistors are good now,and the math all seems to add up. Although the first 1 ohm 10 watt resistor was inductive(or so it seems),after replacing that with one of these carbon one's near the same value,the results are much the same.

If you could jolt my memory about the test you had in mind for P/in P/out, and how to check the inductive values of my new resisotrs,then i will carry out those test next.

Thanks.

Brad.


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1856
Smudge,

I would be willing to try this experiment as I have hundreds of a rather small toroids that are large enough to work for this IMO.

The toroid is a Magnetics part #XG41003TC which I could not find on their website as they have discontinued the "G" material. In their old data book, the uo = 2300 and Bmax= .4T.  The dims are OD=.375 (9.53mm), ID=.187 (4.75mm), and HT=.125 (3.18mm).  One could place 25 of these in an ~1" (25.4mm) diameter circle which would be physically workable.

My thot on the caps would be to use smd ceramics connected together with pre-tinned tab wire used for solar cell/panel assembly. This would make a chain which should fit well within the toroid assembly.  If this was done with a properly sized smd package, each cap could be positioned within the toroid's core center.

So, if and when you might find time, what would you recommend for starting cap values, etc.

partzman 

I would be inclined to get each section (wire through one core plus capacitor) to resonate at 1MHz then you can see what happens either side of that frequency.  That works out at 25nF per capacitor.

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1856
@Smudge and @tinman

1st: The coil you mentioned I will call a @tinman coil or TC. I see ION needs some links as well.

Thanks @smudge for your synopsis. I did not see a video or formal diagram cause that thread at OU is 400 pages but based on your synopsis+image and your circuit test above, I again modified your test to show an alternative test I would really like to see how the inner TC secondary will output. Notice I use the same external inductor but it is actually a primary of a second transformer or toroid. That new secondary can load up a holding cap as long as the proper diode is hunted down and light up an LED or trickle return to source.

Reply snipped for brevity


Hi WU,

I think we should let Brad continue with his simple tests for now and not muddy the waters by going off at a tangent.  What you are suggesting with different types of windings perhaps needs its own thread.  BTW you show the external inductor (now an external transformer primary) connected to a single point by those red lines so there is no input to that additional transformer.  That's crazy!

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@Smudge

WADR please look again at the mod. The outer coil goes to each side of that point which is an open point, so the outer coil is in series with the TC primary. No mud there ma'man. Also, adding a 2.5 turn coil to the build is not a big deal, is non intrusive and takes a very short time to test out.

But I get it and as usual will just stand by and observe some more. Sorry for the intrusion.

wattsup


---------------------------
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1856
@Smudge

WADR please look again at the mod. The outer coil goes to each side of that point which is an open point, so the outer coil is in series with the TC primary. No mud there ma'man. Also, adding a 2.5 turn coil to the build is not a big deal, is non intrusive and takes a very short time to test out.

But I get it and as usual will just stand by and observe some more. Sorry for the intrusion.

wattsup

 :-[  Sorry, didn't notice you had blanked out the connection to create an open point.  Must be more observant in future.  I don't understand your half a turn in your 2.5 turns, in my book its either 2 turns or 3 turns.  Each conductor that goes through the hole in the donut is a turn.  But I get your gist.  Ill leave it to Brad to decide how he proceeds.

Smudge
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4607


Buy me some coffee
:-[  Sorry, didn't notice you had blanked out the connection to create an open point.  Must be more observant in future.  I don't understand your half a turn in your 2.5 turns, in my book its either 2 turns or 3 turns.  Each conductor that goes through the hole in the donut is a turn.  But I get your gist. 
Quote
Ill leave it to Brad to decide how he proceeds.

Smudge

I will be doing a more precise coil build of the same configuration first,as i wish to keep experimenting with this one until we have some solid answers.
There was talk of opening a new thread just for the HTT,so once im ready to start the new build,i will open a thread so all have the needed information.


Brad


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1856
Brad,

In your recent tests with the CVR between the FG and the HTT you are using CH1 across the HTT and CH2 across the HTT+CVR.  CH1 is always greater than CH2.  Have you tried the obvious check and swapped channels so that CH2 should now be the greater?  And if so did it pan out OK?

Smudge
   
Group: Guest
There was talk of opening a new thread just for the HTT,so once im ready to start the new build,i will open a thread so all have the needed information.

So as to not disturb the main line of discussion, I'll will be posting a build in my workbench.  Hopefully my results will be suitable as backing reference for your work.
   
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-04-25, 01:56:17