PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-22, 11:02:16
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Author Topic: Investigating "anomalies" in Bifilar coils  (Read 155515 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
This is a really good illustration of how tiny inductances can really screw up measurements. I had my two probes CH1 and CH4 on either side of the R2b resistor, but the CH1 probe was separated from the resistor by about 2 inches of wiring and connectors. SO I moved both probes to be right up against the body of the resistor where the lead wires go in, and I made sure the probe ground clips were symmetrical and to the exact same ground point, and I got a lot better result. Only needed -4 ns on CH4 to align phase, and the Math trace went way down. So I'm saying at this point that I see actually no significant difference in the current between the values read at the two resistors.

That is, if I am correct about the effect of phase of the differential measurement across R2b.

So,here is the next problem TK--you still have not found your !red herring!

No matter what you look for-no matter how hard i look,we both cannot find why the OU result exist's.

Could it be that we have truly found one of Tesla's secrets"

Is anyone going to have a go at picking the measurement error's ?,as we have just eliminated MHs theory.

Where is Poynt when you need him?-maybe even PW ?

I am 2/3rd's through winding a rather long tube bifilar coil,but it is time consuming getting the second layer wire to sit perfectly between two turns of the first layer--but worth the effort-i hope :)

This !effect! dosnt seem to be limited to the BPC,although it would seem that the BPC gives the best result's?

I think it is more due to the voltage difference between the windings of the two coils--but we shall see.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
The way i checked,was simply to swap the polarities of the FG leads across the circuit.
I also seen no difference at all.

Brad

I'm not sure that is actually a valid way to test.

Instead of swapping FG leads, better might be to put the R2b resistor in, and then remove all probes, and just measure with one probe first directly across R2a and then move the probe and ground clip to R2b and measure there.  This is assuming isolated FG.

When I do it this way I get the same values in both resistors. So I think that settles the issue.

In the scopeshot below I first connected the CH2 probe across the R2b resistor and stored the trace across R2B as the Green reference waveform. Then I moved the CH2 probe to the R2a resistor and displayed the live trace so it could be compared to the stored trace. I moved the Green trace up a bit for visibility, because the two traces overlap nearly perfectly.

EDIT: This program has really made me learn and use some of the more advanced features of the Z-box ! I appreciate it more and more every day. Another great bunch of thanks goes out to the friends who contributed to the purchase of this instrument.    O0
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 928
Hi ION,

The proposed schema looks good I think, as long as the power transfer to the DUT is as efficient via the single wire as is using the normal two wire transfer i.e. using the connection of the bottom leg of L2 to the LC tank's bottom leg to complete the circuit. I assume Partzman have done such tests, otherwise tests are needed to confirm transfer equality between the single wire feed (aka Avramenko plug-like power transfer) and the normal two wire power transfer via this DUT.

Thanks,
Gyula

Attached is another version using a current fed push pull oscillator similar to Mazzilli and some others. It uses Gyula's idea of the oscillator feed and the doubler.

Could possibly also use a bridge in place of doubler, if the output voltage is a bit higher than input.

I have included an LED surge load that becomes active should the voltage begin to soar much above the PP3 9 volt level. Also has a momentary push to start switch.

The next variation will have fail proof limiter and a crowbar shutdown circuit.

partzman and I were discussing the possibility of building the primary coil as part of the oscillator circuit by adding some taps, This would eliminate external transformer losses.

Values of components will be defined when other parameters are nailed down.

Comments / critiques welcome
   
Group: Guest
So,here is the next problem TK--you still have not found your !red herring!

No matter what you look for-no matter how hard i look,we both cannot find why the OU result exist's.

Could it be that we have truly found one of Tesla's secrets"

Is anyone going to have a go at picking the measurement error's ?,as we have just eliminated MHs theory.

Where is Poynt when you need him?-maybe even PW ?

I am 2/3rd's through winding a rather long tube bifilar coil,but it is time consuming getting the second layer wire to sit perfectly between two turns of the first layer--but worth the effort-i hope :)

This !effect! dosnt seem to be limited to the BPC,although it would seem that the BPC gives the best result's?

I think it is more due to the voltage difference between the windings of the two coils--but we shall see.


Brad

Well, we have apparently eliminated the objection about the location of the CVR at least. However I think we still don't know if the whole probing scheme is the proper way to test this circuit.  Does the Vrms2/Rtotal calculation accurately give a real output value? Do the resistors heat up enough?
Mine do feel slightly warm but remember I'm using the F43 at over 20 v p-p input.

It's a great puzzler all right. But so far in my testing with the Gyula Doubler on the output, the "ou" effect goes away when that is connected.

   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
OK,carried out the test as you stated TK,and once again,no difference in current value.

Took some pics,instead of doing a short video--hope there clear enough to see the value on the scope.


Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
OK,carried out the test as you stated TK,and once again,no difference in current value.

Took some pics,instead of doing a short video--hope there clear enough to see the value on the scope.


Brad

Looks like it not.

Try again

Agh-anyway,both values are 1.88VRMS


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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 742
Do the resistors heat up enough?

When resistor heat up its resistance change and you can't use Vrms2/Rtotal anymore because you don't know R.

http://www.resistorguide.com/temperature-coefficient-of-resistance/


---------------------------
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
Group: Guest
When resistor heat up its resistance change and you can't use Vrms2/Rtotal anymore because you don't know R.

http://www.resistorguide.com/temperature-coefficient-of-resistance/
You are right of course but we are talking here about "heating up" of maybe one or two degrees above ambient, if that much. That isn't going to change the R of these precision resistors very much.

From the Data Sheet for the Ohmite resistors I am using:
Quote
Temperature Coefficient (ppm/°C) ±90 for 0.100Ω-0.99Ω, ±50 for1.00Ω-10.00Ω, ±20 for >10.00Ω
So 50 parts per million per degree C for the 1.00 ohm that I am using. Good luck measuring that over even a 10 degree temperature increase.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1362
Thanks PM,   Thanks TK,   

I will take another thorough look at my resistors inductance and measurement methods (like TK mentioning using a RF probe tip, which i do not have on my Tek probes, but do on the Owon probes)
Mind you, concerning the use of my current probe/amp combo, i also did the same power calculations with same results using the R2 current, but only at 190Khz, so i will use that further up in frequency too


Itsu

Itsu,

Yes please re-check the results in and around 1-2MHz using R2 only as I really don't think you will see any gain at 190kHz.  Plus the deskew differential becomes more effective in producing errors as the frequency increases.

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Well, we have apparently eliminated the objection about the location of the CVR at least. However I think we still don't know if the whole probing scheme is the proper way to test this circuit.  Does the Vrms2/Rtotal calculation accurately give a real output value? Do the resistors heat up enough?
Mine do feel slightly warm but remember I'm using the F43 at over 20 v p-p input.

It's a great puzzler all right. But so far in my testing with the Gyula Doubler on the output, the "ou" effect goes away when that is connected.

Well,it's one of two things,when measuring a voltage drop across a pure resistance.
1-ohms law stand's,and the results are correct
2-ohms law fails in this situation.

So,am i correct to say that -when the phase angle between input voltage,and input current are at 90*,the circuit is purely reactive,and no real power is being consumed?
So,i can change the frequency to a point where the voltage and current are 90* out of phase,and yet still dissipate 53.8mW from the R2 resistor in my circuit.

Changing the frequency up or down,to sweep across either side of the 90* phase angle,shows no drop in dissipated power from R2.

I still think there is something to this current transfer between coil's,where it is both inductive and capacitive.

Is there a chance that the extra energy being seen,is in some way related to electron stripping,via dielectric stress.


Brad


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

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
When resistor heat up its resistance change and you can't use Vrms2/Rtotal anymore because you don't know R.

http://www.resistorguide.com/temperature-coefficient-of-resistance/

Hi Vasik
This is very true, however as TK pointed out,  don't think we have to worry about the level of heat that would skew measurements too far for a good quality Manganin or better low TC resistor. Thus far you would be lucky to get a few degrees change in temperature, better if insulated, but not enough to be outside the  tolerance versus temperature band, if e.g. a 1% resistor were used. You could also use a quality 0.1% resistor or better with good TC.

I have some ideas on my bench here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2029.msg29983#msg29983

There are other problems making exacting fractional degree temperature near MHz operating devices that can skew measurements. Eddy current heating of thermocouple junctions and series and common mode filtering of measuring instrument may not be adequate to reject MHz coupling into instrument.

All of these problems can be worked around with a some skill in the art.

One important thing we should be looking very closely at is techniques for efficient looping because that would make very high output power due to power regeneration  become possible. e.g. even a COP of 1.1 or less when efficiently looped would yield enormous power build up due to regenerative effect. The "fire that feeds itself" per SM.

This would then get all power levels well out of the noise and make measurement easy. It would also be the ultimate proof of the device.

Thus far I think the direct feedback with phase control network holds the most promise as it could be the lowest loss and presents a linear load on the output unlike rectification / conversion schemes.

Such a device would need a limiting scheme for the regenerative feedback to prevent thermal runaway and destruction. It could be as simple as a tungsten filament bulb limiter which has non-linear resistance characteristic in the feedback loop along with  crowbar circuit and fuse for ultimate safety.

Brad said:
Quote
Is there a chance that the extra energy being seen,is in some way related to electron stripping,via dielectric stress.

Interesting idea, since the bifilar pancake is designed to have maximum dielectric stress due to maximum voltage created between turns. And there are other ways to do this without a pancake constructed coil. A cylindrical bifilar coil connected in the same way should have large voltage between turns.

Regards
« Last Edit: 2017-05-03, 15:23:20 by ION »


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

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 532
Hi Vasik
This is very true, however as TK pointed out,  don't think we have to worry about the level of heat that would skew measurements too far for a good quality Manganin or better low TC resistor. Thus far you would be lucky to get a few degrees change in temperature, better if insulated, but not enough to be outside the  tolerance versus temperature band, if e.g. a 1% resistor were used. You could also use a quality 0.1% resistor or better with good TC.

I have some ideas on my bench here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2029.msg29983#msg29983

There are other problems making exacting fractional degree temperature near MHz operating devices that can skew measurements. Eddy current heating of thermocouple junctions and series and common mode filtering of measuring instrument may not be adequate to reject MHz coupling into instrument.

All of these problems can be worked around with a some skill in the art.

One important thing we should be looking very closely at is techniques for efficient looping because that would make very high output power due to power regeneration  become possible. e.g. even a COP of 1.1 or less when efficiently looped would yield enormous power build up due to regenerative effect. The "fire that feeds itself" per SM.

This would then get all power levels well out of the noise and make measurement easy. It would also be the ultimate proof of the device.

Thus far I think the direct feedback with phase control network holds the most promise as it presents a linear load on the output unlike rectification / conversion schemes.

Such a device would need a limiting scheme for the regenerative feedback to prevent thermal runaway and destruction. It could be as simple as a tungsten filament bulb limiter which has non-linear resistance characteristic in the feedback loop along with  crowbar circuit and fuse for ultimate safety.

Brad said:
Interesting idea, since the bifilar pancake is designed to have maximum dielectric stress due to maximum voltage created between turns. And there are other ways to do this without a pancake constructed coil. A cylindrical bifilar coil connected in the same way should have large voltage between turns.

Regards

Hey Ion

Been thinking about the looping...   

If we have more currents between the coils, what if we have a transformer primary of very low ohms and inductance and a step up secondary.  My thinking is if the primary is very low ohm and as low in inductance as one is comfortable, then a heavily loaded secondary should reduce the pri inductance even further.  Like when we plug a transformer into the wall outlet, it has min current due to inductance, but as we add and increase the load on the sec the primary is able to take on currents very easily. A problem we wish we didnt have when we think about it.  But here it may work to our advantage. The harder the load, the easier the currents can flow through the primary, of which powers the sec.  Just a thought.

Also with making a cylinder style layered coil, for the same amount of wire you can get increased induction and capacitance.  Was wondering if say we used round wire like we do if we were to immerse the coil in a dielectric liquid that didnt affect the enamel/insulation to fill in the air cavities along the wires if we could increase the capacitance.

Mags
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 532
Hey Ion

Been thinking about the looping...   

If we have more currents between the coils, what if we have a transformer primary of very low ohms and inductance and a step up secondary.  My thinking is if the primary is very low ohm and as low in inductance as one is comfortable, then a heavily loaded secondary should reduce the pri inductance even further.  Like when we plug a transformer into the wall outlet, it has min current due to inductance, but as we add and increase the load on the sec the primary is able to take on currents very easily. A problem we wish we didnt have when we think about it.  But here it may work to our advantage. The harder the load, the easier the currents can flow through the primary, of which powers the sec.  Just a thought.



Mags

Sorry, forgot this part.   The goal would be to have the primary act as much as a piece of wire as possible as to not disturb the bfc while it is operating.

Mags
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3194
Itsu,

Yes please re-check the results in and around 1-2MHz using R2 only as I really don't think you will see any gain at 190kHz.  Plus the deskew differential becomes more effective in producing errors as the frequency increases.

Pm

Spot on PM, back in business.....?  COP=1.2 @ 1MHz   


Paralleling the both used 51 Ohm metal film and metal oxyde resistors with a 1nF silver mica cap shows resonances at 18MHz, see SA screenshot.
This equates to 0.078uH inductance for both 51 Ohm resistors used.


When omitting the current probe, and more important.... to ignore the -80° phase shift..... i redid my measurements using the blue R2 (1 Ohm) csr trace as current value.
I started at 1MHz and this caused the phase shift to lower to -64.5°, and calculating the input (both by the scope math function as by hand) shows a 143mW input.
Using the CH3 purple probe value in the output calculation i now get 3.005² / 52 = 173.6mW so a COP of 1.2
EDIT i calculated the output power via the math trace CH2 (Blue) x CH3 (purple) and it confirmed a COP 1.2 with respect to the input power

See scope screenshot which shows:

yellow; voltage across the FG
blue; voltage (= current) across the 1 Ohm csr
purple; voltage across the 51 plus 1 Ohm resistors
red; math of yellow x blue is averaged power input


At 500KHz i see a COP = 1.18      phase shift yellow/blue -75°
At 1MHz    i see a COP = 1.2       phase shift yellow/blue -64°
At 1.5MHz i see a COP = 1.125     phase shift yellow/blue -51°
At 2MHz    i see a COP = 1.04      phase shift yellow/blue -45° 

The current probe deskew function (thanks PM) is to limited (±10ns) to correct the skew, so cannot be used to double check.
I know these COP values are only marginal, but its a start.
Are we sure that what we are using is the correct way to calculate the output thus the COP?

Regards Itsu
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2433


Buy me a cigar
Dear Gyula.

Many thanks for your reply.

I was suggesting that pure Copper cable as a quadfilar arrangement, as PM seems to have used what we call " bell wire " over here, you call it " hookup wire " ?

Slightly changing the subject what's needed to wind a coil that can resonate in the 10/100 of kHz range? I would like to join in but my gear is out of puff at 1 MHz.

Kind regards, Graham.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Hey Ion

Been thinking about the looping...   

If we have more currents between the coils, what if we have a transformer primary of very low ohms and inductance and a step up secondary.  My thinking is if the primary is very low ohm and as low in inductance as one is comfortable, then a heavily loaded secondary should reduce the pri inductance even further.  Like when we plug a transformer into the wall outlet, it has min current due to inductance, but as we add and increase the load on the sec the primary is able to take on currents very easily. A problem we wish we didnt have when we think about it.  But here it may work to our advantage. The harder the load, the easier the currents can flow through the primary, of which powers the sec.  Just a thought.

Also with making a cylinder style layered coil, for the same amount of wire you can get increased induction and capacitance.  Was wondering if say we used round wire like we do if we were to immerse the coil in a dielectric liquid that didnt affect the enamel/insulation to fill in the air cavities along the wires if we could increase the capacitance.

Mags

Hi Mags

I have not built nor tested any pancake bifilar coils so I would direct your questions and suggestions to the experts here that have far more experience than I with these devices.
Maybe they can better explain why your first idea / observation would or wouldn't help.
The devices as being used  drive only one end of  primary with the other end driven by the  path of capacitance coupling to the secondary.

Regarding your idea re: increasing capacitance, transformer oil might help, as would flat foil conductors, a high grade dielectric and for that matter you could try a transmission line using discrete capacitors which would also fulfill the Tesla patent requirement of increasing voltage difference between turns / sections such that more energy can be stored in the dielectric.
 Partzman and others have experimented along these lines recently.

The reason I started the thread on the Tesla patent was to examine more fully the effects of neutralizing self inductance and try to understand the method so that we could optimize construction and topology, but there was not that much interest in it. Maybe it will be revived as the theoretical companion to the build it and measure thread. (this one).

Regards
« Last Edit: 2017-05-03, 17:47:54 by 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: 901
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1362
Spot on PM, back in business.....?  COP=1.2 @ 1MHz   


Paralleling the both used 51 Ohm metal film and metal oxyde resistors with a 1nF silver mica cap shows resonances at 18MHz, see SA screenshot.
This equates to 0.078uH inductance for both 51 Ohm resistors used.


When omitting the current probe, and more important.... to ignore the -80° phase shift..... i redid my measurements using the blue R2 (1 Ohm) csr trace as current value.
I started at 1MHz and this caused the phase shift to lower to -64.5°, and calculating the input (both by the scope math function as by hand) shows a 143mW input.
Using the CH3 purple probe value in the output calculation i now get 3.005² / 52 = 173.6mW so a COP of 1.2
See scope screenshot which shows:

yellow; voltage across the FG
blue; voltage (= current) across the 1 Ohm csr
purple; voltage across the 51 plus 1 Ohm resistors
red; math of yellow x blue is averaged power input


At 500KHz i see a COP = 1.18      phase shift yellow/blue -75°
At 1MHz    i see a COP = 1.2       phase shift yellow/blue -64°
At 1.5MHz i see a COP = 1.125     phase shift yellow/blue -51°
At 2MHz    i see a COP = 1.04      phase shift yellow/blue -45° 

The current probe deskew function (thanks PM) is to limited (±10ns) to correct the skew, so cannot be used to double check.
I know these COP values are only marginal, but its a start.
Are we sure that what we are using is the correct way to calculate the output thus the COP?

Regards Itsu

Itsu,

That's great O0!  Now you might give some thought on confirming the inductance of the resistors you are using. 

Regarding the output calculation, using Pout = Vout^2/(R1+R2) is not exactly correct but close enough for our current observations.  As we increase the power levels we will see that using this current formula understates the actual power output.

One other thing you might consider that should raise your COP levels is to shorten your leads wherever possible.  I use a chassis mount BNC male connector on the output of the coax from the signal generator and R2 connects directly to the shield with just enough wire to clip the scope probe leads to.  The coil leads are also as short as physically possible.

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3194
You've got to be kidding!

In scientific research, negative data is as much valuable as positive.

You've got plenty of things to try.  Such as:
- Using your TG + spectrum analyzer to sweep your resistors (and capacitors - if you use any).
- Putting a 1:1 ferrite isolation transformer on the output of your FG and measuring the input power this way.
- Calibrating the skew and amplitude difference of you current probe vs. CSRs. at various frequencies.
- Shielding /putting the device in a metal box (not the CSR though).

Ok, i got it  O0

- i sweeped the used 51 Ohm resistors with a 1nF cap (Fres @ 18Mhz) to calculate their inductance to be 0.078uH
- I used a cheapo Chinese FG with no ground to drive the circuit with your recommended ground points (blue channel reversed) and it gives similar COP = 1.2 @ 1MHz.
- The deskew function of the current probe is to little (+/- 10ns) to compensate the phase shift skew at 1MHz already.

Thanks  Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1362
@partzman

Here is the link to woopy's test and video demo: http://overunity.com/17119/pulling-energy-from-the-ambient-energy-field-using-a-coil-capacitor/msg504400/#msg504400

Luc,

Thanks for the link.  More on this later-

Pm
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 742
Hi Partzman,

Could you please confirm - how you feeding power into the coils ?
Do you take any special measures to match impedance or just connect to signal generator ?

I think this is important part of circuit (power source) left without much attention.

Thanks,
Vasik

PS I also don't understand why not use setup like this ? (attached)
« Last Edit: 2017-05-03, 19:03:47 by Vasik041 »


---------------------------
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1362
Well,it's one of two things,when measuring a voltage drop across a pure resistance.
1-ohms law stand's,and the results are correct
2-ohms law fails in this situation.

So,am i correct to say that -when the phase angle between input voltage,and input current are at 90*,the circuit is purely reactive,and no real power is being consumed?
So,i can change the frequency to a point where the voltage and current are 90* out of phase,and yet still dissipate 53.8mW from the R2 resistor in my circuit.

Changing the frequency up or down,to sweep across either side of the 90* phase angle,shows no drop in dissipated power from R2.

I still think there is something to this current transfer between coil's,where it is both inductive and capacitive.

Is there a chance that the extra energy being seen,is in some way related to electron stripping,via dielectric stress.


Brad

Brad,

Very good thought there!  It is difficult to say exactly what is occurring in this coil topology at this point but one thing I do know, simulation will not produce the same results seen on the bench.  So, we have 2 choices here, either we all have measurement errors or energy is entering the coil assembly from an external source.

I'm leaning towards the theory of Arie DeGues in his patent NL1932750, attached below.  In general it is an "increase of electrical energy by means of absorption of zero point energy".  In the past I tried to justify his theory with the MEI devices but could never see 1/2 wavelengths at the frequencies involved with the short wire lengths in the coils.  However at that time, I did not consider the transmission line aspect of the devices with the attendant lower velocities which might possibly allow a "fit".  More work and research needs to be done in this regard.

Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1362
Hi Partzman,

Could you please confirm - how you feeding power into the coils ?
Do you take any special measures to match impedance or just connect to signal generator ?

I think this is important part of circuit (power source) left without much attention.

Thanks,
Vasik

Vasik,

The generator is set for a 50 ohm output impedance and is connected directly to the primary of the coil assembly under test.  No attempt is made at impedance matching at the input at this point in time.  Do you have any suggestions for this?  Perhaps this is not what you are intending!

Pm
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 742
Vasik,

The generator is set for a 50 ohm output impedance and is connected directly to the primary of the coil assembly under test.  No attempt is made at impedance matching at the input at this point in time.  Do you have any suggestions for this?  Perhaps this is not what you are intending!

Pm

I just want bring attention to the fact that coils (or transmission line formed by coils) have significantly different impedance and this could cause some unexpected problems.


---------------------------
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3194
Itsu,

That's great O0!  Now you might give some thought on confirming the inductance of the resistors you are using. 

Regarding the output calculation, using Pout = Vout^2/(R1+R2) is not exactly correct but close enough for our current observations.  As we increase the power levels we will see that using this current formula understates the actual power output.

One other thing you might consider that should raise your COP levels is to shorten your leads wherever possible.  I use a chassis mount BNC male connector on the output of the coax from the signal generator and R2 connects directly to the shield with just enough wire to clip the scope probe leads to.  The coil leads are also as short as physically possible.

Pm

PM,  i understand you are doubting the inductance values i found, so i will double check.
I have however ordered some Caddock non inductive resistors (50 ohm, 1 Ohm ect.) so will be using those shortly.

Looking at the lead lengths and will shorten them when possible, i also am setting up my 2th coil so i can link them.

Itsu
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-22, 11:02:16