PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-12-10, 11:03:58
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Author Topic: Graham Gunderson Energy conference High COP demonstration  (Read 154501 times)
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
Can anyone take a guess at a timing diagram that matches up (lines up) with the attached Gunderson scope shot, perhaps graphically just below it?

Dear ION,

During the presentation Graham made a comment about the waveform. He said (something to the effect) that the Hz notation only applies to pure sine waves. The CPS designation applies to periodic non-sine wave functions. This reference was to the yellow tank voltage trace that he describe as the input voltage. This was 50k CPS or a period of 20 microseconds. The sine wave part of this forcing function is running at about 78 kHz (since it is a sine wave - or close to it). This makes each third of the voltage form about 6.666 microseconds in duration.

At his shop he said that he was going to make another bridge that only used two switches, perhaps this is to be a half H-Bridge. This makes sense since the logic circuit only provides ne timing signal and its complement. There presently appears to be no logic signal provided for the other half of the H-Bridge. Maybe he used the full H-Bridge at one time.

This would be nice since it would reduce the cost of the H-Bridge by 50%.

For starters in my simulation I'm only using one current pulse to excite the input circuit tank. The value of the parallel capacitor is 0.008 uF (8X .001 uF capacitors in parallel). I'm pretty sure that the inductance of the various coils are non-linear The input choke has a gap (about 0.020") as does the transformer (0.010"). This means that the K factor (coupling factor) is less than 0.99. I'm using k=.8553 since I read somewhere that this was the optimal coupling for a coupled coil (as in induction coil) to achieve 3rd harmonic ringing. So far I haven't seen any higher harmonics appear, just lower frequency beats.

For 99% of the time the transformer output is effectively shorted. As I have said the back end capacitor is not there since the applied currents cancel out each other due to the topology of the split secondary. From my count there are about 144 turns on the primary and 24 turns on each of the secondary coils that is a 6:1 ratio (step down) for each secondary coil. That would imply that the backend peak voltage would be about 800/6 = 133 VAC. Yet somehow he is still blowing 1.2 KV rated FETS. Probably because the body diodes take a dump on the account of excessive current. After all those huge secondary conductors are there for a reason.

I would not recommend lumping the two secondary's into one circuit element for a simulation, at least not yet.

As Graham visualizes it the energy sloshes back and fourth through the transformer. At the proper moment he just briefly opens the gate at the right time to take a tiny snip of the huge reactive oscillation power. He also said that the H-Bridge gives each cycle a little push to maintain the steady state. I visualize it like push a playground swing - which is probably a gross over simplification. Graham said that there was about 1.6kVA of reactive power circulating in his apparatus. Classical rough calculations would yield about 2A of circulating current at 800 VAC. The actual values would have to be done with RMS data.

Maybe the presentation will cover some of this tomorrow (or the next day)

Spokane1

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
Spokane1

Thank you for the response. Have you posted your sim anywhere or a rough schematic of the transformer input /output and capacitor placement?

I would be very interested in this.

BTW, it seems to me that hitting a parallel resonant tank circuit that is "discharged" will put huge stresses on the semiconductors in the H bridge due to the peak currents generated by driving into a capacitor. There is nothing to limit or absorb the peak currents except for the semiconductor junctions and tiny inductance of the connecting wires.


If the tank was ringing and hit at the right time in the cycle e.g ZVS or ZCS or if the tank was series resonant the semi's could enjoy a long life.

Thanks, ION


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

Posts: 79
Dear ION,

Here is my perception of how the circuit is wired and one possible implementation of an attempted simulation. I've only been into this a few hours. Also attached are some response traces to single and double current pulses.

Spokane1
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
Thanks for that Spokane1.

Good to see that there is an inductor in series with the tank, that should reduce inrush current.

Now the input (yellow) waveform makes sense, it is the input to the tank, not the output of the H bridge.
« Last Edit: 2016-08-03, 20:14:50 by ION »


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

Posts: 29
Dear ION,

Here is my perception of how the circuit is wired and one possible implementation of an attempted simulation. I've only been into this a few hours. Also attached are some response traces to single and double current pulses.

Spokane1

Bunch of work there Spokane1,
Wow.

Ben K4ZEP
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
Dear ION,

Here is my perception of how the circuit is wired and one possible implementation of an attempted simulation. I've only been into this a few hours. Also attached are some response traces to single and double current pulses.

Spokane1

I would add some high speed diodes or synchronized switches to the output circuit. Presently there is no rectification of any sort, just a near dead short and this will adversely affect the input waveform.


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

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
To add another dimension to the argument of whether the H bridge can be replaced with a power function generator, it would only be true if the function generator could provide an open condition to the tank circuit during the 33% dead time. Normally, AFAIK, a FG will present a low impedance output to a DUT when programmed for zero output e.g. during the dead time. So the H bridge may be unique by "letting go" of the tank during this period.

  I am not familiar with power function generators capabilities, or whether it can provide the open condition so I tried driving the tank from a Voltage source executing a PWL (piece wise linear function)using a PWF file in LTSpice. The results do not match up with the same  pulse sequence driving an H bridge.

I used the same values and timing as Spokane1's sim except only 5 cycles at +/-200 volts. The 200 volts was so that I could get some juice into the rectifiers 1N5817. I realize I may need more than 5 cycles.

So this is a single ended drive from a pseudo FG. Next I'll show an actual  FET H bridge.

This is a first rough shot at it. I'll post all my results and more detail as time permits. forgive the errors.


green =drive
blue = tank voltage
red =tank current


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

Posts: 79
I would add some high speed diodes or synchronized switches to the output circuit. Presently there is no rectification of any sort, just a near dead short and this will adversely affect the input waveform.

Dear ION,

Good that you noticed. The intent was to get a feel for the shorted state operation before attempting to harvest some energy on the back end. It is my understanding that the shorted condition is what is going on 99% of the time, but I may be incorrect.

Good work on you own simulation. Using a controlled forcing function (wave generator) is a good approach.

Attached is a system schematic that we can all Bleed on (make changes with red markings)

Spokane1
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
Thanks for the schematic, it looks fine.

Spokane 1 said:

Quote
Good work on you own simulation. Using a controlled forcing function (wave generator) is a good approach.

Yes but I think I need to add at least one switch to open and release the FG during the dead time to simulate the H bridge, and add the output synchronous switches. Working on that.

Looks like not much activity on this transformer anymore except for a very few.



Regards, ION


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

Posts: 947
I have finished watching Graham's MIT video and IMO, he really does give enough info to replicate.

Several points of note, when the input current as shown on CH2 (blue) reaches the negative peak, the primary core is saturated. At the flat top portion of the waveform, the primary core is at a higher permeability.  The core bias is set of course by the PMs.

During the negative half cycle of the input voltage on CH1, the first pair of opposite H bridge switches are on and during the positive half cycle the second switch pair are used which is already known. However, during the remaining part of the input cycle when the core is in a high perm state, the second pair is left on and conduction is thru primarily the mosfet reverse conduction.

The synchronous mosfet switching uses both normal and reverse conduction and may have already been pointed out but not that I recall. While current is flowing thru the mosfet in the normal mode that is, when conventional current flow is from drain to source, the gate is switched off for a short period producing a large positive going voltage spike on the secondary. Also during this time, the secondary current and flux reverses
direction as is seen in the green channel and when the peak reverse is reached, gate voltage is again applied to the mosfet which now conducts in the reverse conduction mode that is, from source to drain with very low resistance. This action is what results in the output caps being charged negatively as shown. Graham also stated that the output current phasing is 180' from that shown.

Regarding the issue of the current connections on the input Clark/Hess power analyzer, he removed the original connections well after he had explained the operation of the device and all the input/output measurements. He made the change during a time he was explaining another aspect of the device.

The secondary core half is operated in a mostly linear mode while the primary core half is operating around the saturation knee. This seems to be a key prerequisite in the appropriate flux flows (or magnetic vector potential) along with the proper output synchronous timing.

I can now understand how a small capacitance added to the gates of the output synchronous mosfets could destroy the OU effect.

pm

 
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 29
I have finished watching Graham's MIT video and IMO, he really does give enough info to replicate.

Several points of note, when the input current as shown on CH2 (blue) reaches the negative peak, the primary core is saturated. At the flat top portion of the waveform, the primary core is at a higher permeability.  The core bias is set of course by the PMs.

During the negative half cycle of the input voltage on CH1, the first pair of opposite H bridge switches are on and during the positive half cycle the second switch pair are used which is already known. However, during the remaining part of the input cycle when the core is in a high perm state, the second pair is left on and conduction is thru primarily the mosfet reverse conduction.

The synchronous mosfet switching uses both normal and reverse conduction and may have already been pointed out but not that I recall. While current is flowing thru the mosfet in the normal mode that is, when conventional current flow is from drain to source, the gate is switched off for a short period producing a large positive going voltage spike on the secondary. Also during this time, the secondary current and flux reverses
direction as is seen in the green channel and when the peak reverse is reached, gate voltage is again applied to the mosfet which now conducts in the reverse conduction mode that is, from source to drain with very low resistance. This action is what results in the output caps being charged negatively as shown. Graham also stated that the output current phasing is 180' from that shown.

Regarding the issue of the current connections on the input Clark/Hess power analyzer, he removed the original connections well after he had explained the operation of the device and all the input/output measurements. He made the change during a time he was explaining another aspect of the device.

The secondary core half is operated in a mostly linear mode while the primary core half is operating around the saturation knee. This seems to be a key prerequisite in the appropriate flux flows (or magnetic vector potential) along with the proper output synchronous timing.

I can now understand how a small capacitance added to the gates of the output synchronous mosfets could destroy the OU effect.

pm

Excellent, where did you get your copy so fast and when is it available?  I usually get an email on new "DVD's".....

Ben K4ZEP
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 947
Excellent, where did you get your copy so fast and when is it available?  I usually get an email on new "DVD's".....

Ben K4ZEP

I purchased it online as a download from Aaron's sticky on EF.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20547-magnetic-implosion-transformer-graham-gunderson.html

They have a special price of $27.00 now thru 8/5 (tomorrow) and IMO, it is well worth the price!

pm
   
Group: Guest
Free energy! Only 27 dollars, get yours today, before the price goes up !     :D


Yes, it's your money to spend as you like, I just really hate to see it going to those people. 
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2486
Everyman decries immorality
I purchased it online as a download from Aaron's sticky on EF.

They have a special price of $27.00 now thru 8/5 (tomorrow) and IMO, it is well worth the price!

pm

Are you not concerned with your credibility on this forum pm ?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 947
Are you not concerned with your credibility on this forum pm ?

I am not quite sure what you mean EA? If my comments and purchase of G's video thru EF affects my credibility here, then no, I don't really care and each would be better off without the other!!!

pm

   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3269
There are many fellows who have strong opinions about "selling" _free energy_
Here I would appreciate you discuss that topic elsewhere and leave this thread for an investigation
of Graham's claim.

and  Honestly at this point the video is quite important for a proper investigation!

as far as Partzman's credibility at this forum , In my book it will never be in question.
he is a most valued asset to the open source community and is striving to be of service to this cause in any way he can.
and I must add ...
he can do a lot !!!

with respect and gratitude
Chet K
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 947
Free energy! Only 27 dollars, get yours today, before the price goes up !     :D


Yes, it's your money to spend as you like, I just really hate to see it going to those people.

IMO, Graham's device works as advertised but there is a major issue which will reveal itself as time goes on. That issue is the high ratio of reactive input power to real output power as I've stated previously.  I'm sure Graham is aware of this and I believe he will overcome this problem as he is more than capable but it must be solved before the device can operate OU in a closed loop.  This could possible if the operating frequency is lowered, the VAR/real power ratio is reduced, and the complexity perhaps simplified. All this of course is just my opinion!

pm

   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2486
Everyman decries immorality
It appears that Graham has no claim, the COP>1 violation claim came from Spokane 1, a proxy.

What is left is Graham's data, and is being examined by qualified and interested minds of this forum.

G's machine has not done a Watt of work demonstrated and there is no solid theory to suggest it could be so.

What is left is the system itself and the challenge in understanding, a goal to which qualified and talented minds of this forum seem to have applied themselves, for reasons known only to them..

So what's the problem ?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3269
I will let Spokane1 address/qualify that.
I was not present at the conference ,I have not seen the video
and anything from my mouth [or keyboard] would be hearsay .


respectfully
Chet K
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2486
Everyman decries immorality
I will let Spokane1 address/qualify that.

Smart move.

I was not present at the conference ,I have not seen the video
and anything from my mouth [or keyboard] would be hearsay .

That's the information environment these day's, it takes committed hard work to verify sources and build a credible model of reality.



---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 79
It appears that Graham has no claim, the COP>1 violation claim came from Spokane 1, a proxy.


Dear evolingape,

I made the over unity and COP>1 claims last July 10 at the end of the convention. Graham didn't make such a claim during his presentation at the conference. When he presented the operation of his machine and I could see the numbers (with the probes connected to the input C-H analyzer) I asked him from the front row "That looks like a COP of 6" he replied "Somewhere around there" and that is about as much as he said on the subject of OU or COP. However Graham did talk a lot more about the performance of his equipment in his shop.

I thought that making measurements with two independent expensive measurement systems that agreed is a far greater burden of proof than I have seen in this community - ever. 

I was expecting his machine this year to produce a COP of 1.05 or so. A COP of 5 is something to write home about and so I did.

I take full creditably responsibility should this new technology fall on its nose and turn out to be some kind of exotic instrument error, or an error in how the measurements were taken. So be it.

Extraordinary claims (which this is) require extraordinary proof (which we don't have).  We as a community are only going to get to the bottom of this is by building similar apparatus and exploring the measurements for our selves.  There is absolutely no requirement that you do this. Personally I think there is real merit in this technology based upon my years of research in a similar field.

I find your comments relevant and to the point. If this technology is to have half a chance at becoming mainstream then it will have to face all of this forums critical analysis and more.

Thank you for your input and keep those perspectives coming.

Spokane1
Mark McKay, PE



   
Newbie
*

Posts: 29
Dear evolingape,

I made the over unity and COP>1 claims last July 10 at the end of the convention. Graham didn't make such a claim during his presentation at the conference. When he presented the operation of his machine and I could see the numbers (with the probes connected to the input C-H analyzer) I asked him from the front row "That looks like a COP of 6" he replied "Somewhere around there" and that is about as much as he said on the subject of OU or COP. However Graham did talk a lot more about the performance of his equipment in his shop.

I thought that making measurements with two independent expensive measurement systems that agreed is a far greater burden of proof than I have seen in this community - ever. 

I was expecting his machine this year to produce a COP of 1.05 or so. A COP of 5 is something to write home about and so I did.

I take full creditably responsibility should this new technology fall on its nose and turn out to be some kind of exotic instrument error, or an error in how the measurements were taken. So be it.

Extraordinary claims (which this is) require extraordinary proof (which we don't have).  We as a community are only going to get to the bottom of this is by building similar apparatus and exploring the measurements for our selves.  There is absolutely no requirement that you do this. Personally I think there is real merit in this technology based upon my years of research in a similar field.

I find your comments relevant and to the point. If this technology is to have half a chance at becoming mainstream then it will have to face all of this forums critical analysis and more.

Thank you for your input and keep those perspectives coming.

Spokane1
Mark McKay, PE

Hi Mark,

I spent the bucks, downloaded it, just watched it, will have to watch it many more times and all BS aside,
well worth the money in my simple opinion!  My head is spinning, got a lot to digest!  Cleared up a lot of
misconceptions, cleared up waveforms, Tesla would sure like the switches we have now!!!!!!

Ben K4ZEP
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 311
I guess in a year or two we will have a better idea if the video is a 27 dollar instruction in OU, or a 27 dollar guide of distraction. Time will tell. From Thane Heins to UFO politics ect. one thing holds true, time proves them all to be full of it. And mucho dollars get wasted.

Good luck to those who investigate it and bad juju to those who deceive. So many similar past claims and not one single claim has been legit.

..
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3269
FarmHand

Been watching the same claims come and go for years, mostly claims which don't survive the Rigors of a proper investigation
or unsubstantiated claims which were never allowed a proper investigation.

although there have been a few claims which drifted into obscurity and remain as an itch which just can't be scratched ......

here however,  we have a fellow doing his absolute best to clear the air around his claim with a very good test protocol , in a public venue
 along with a tutorial ....

this is a first for me !!

it is true , a proper investigation of any such claim Begs further investigation and qualification by Peers ...[at the very least]
I hope Graham decides to go this route !

respectfully
Chet K
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
Gentlemen,

Now we are getting down to the challenging aspect of this reverse engineering effort.  How does an H-Bridge switch control a parallel resonate tank circuit to dead line an oscillatory process and then start it up again 180 degrees out of phase?

I thought there would be some novel timing trick found in the logic controller, such is not the case. So far we only have a simple pulse train and its complement. When you hit a tank circuit with a single saw tooth current pulse it does just what it is suppose to do. It rings like a bell. Even the application of a second pulse of reversed polarity only complicates the response (at least so far).  This leads me to consider two situations:

1. There is additional control logic to be found on the H-Bridge card (I doubt it because experimental tuning and adjustment would be difficult)

2. The response of the secondary tank on the primary tank circuit is more profound than we are generally exposed to. This is complicated by the novel magnetic circuit.

The syntheses of the proper waveform from multiple signal generators is probably not going to offer much of a solution. We need to have the forcing function develop inside the transformer.

Any Ideas?

Spokane1

This is all I've come up with so far

This is still a very good question. If anyone has purchased the MIT video, are there any hints regarding how this is done?

To me the transformer design has very high leakage inductance primary to secondary due to the topology (magnetically a widely separated primary and secondary, gaps etc.)therefore, even if the secondary were shorted during the dead time it would not quench the oscillation on the primary so effectively, we should see a ringdown due to the leakage inductance.

 This leads me to believe that there is nothing happening on the secondary that can quench the oscillation so effectively. It may assist, but would not alone produce the tiny damped oscillation we see in the scope shots.

Could it be the H bridge that is shorting the tank + swinging choke with a third cycle on the timing diagram where both the grounding Fets in the H bridge are kept on during the dead time cycle?

It is my belief that the basic circuit can be back engineered from a very careful analysis of the scope shots. Additional circuit info is a bonus and fills in some missing pieces. The elusive factors will be the exact magnetic circuit and materials.

Your important observation and question needs a good answer.

I might add that the DC output from a uniquely wound transformer is what Steve Marks achieved in several stand alone units of very high power.

Consider this: The ordinary magneto ignition system on a old style gas engine lawn mower motor uses a fly by magnet to induce a current into a coil which remains shorted by the points. At the appropriate moment, the points open and a HV DC pulse appears on the secondary. Normally this pulse rings with the distributed capacitance and the capacitor across the points to turn the DC output pulse into an HV oscillatory damped wave,  but the DC  could also be captured with a flyback diode and dumped into a capacitor. Some folks used a DC restorer circuit on the primary to present a single DC burst on the HV coil output rather than an damped ringing wave. This supposedly created a hotter spark from a unidirectional pulse.

In GG's device it seems  (in comparison) that the fly by magnet is replaced with a primary tank  circuit to charge the magnetics. GG opens the (points aka FET's) on the secondary at the appropriate time to release some, but not all of the stored current flowing in the coils of the magnetic circuit.

Regards, ION


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-12-10, 11:03:58