PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-12-07, 21:38:54
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 ... 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 157937 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2602
What is the difference in measuring across the FGs 50 ohm resistor,and the next resistor in the series-being the 1 ohm NI precision  resistor,when an inductor is the load?
Besides the value, the difference is that you have an access to signals at both sides of the external 1Ω resistor and you don't have an access to both sides of the internal 50Ω resistor.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
What would be the correct way?
Would you like to forego measuring the input current altogether or measure it in another manner ?
That is unusual in an RL circuit but in RLC the distance between windings and thier capacitance can shift the current in the coil to be out of phase with the voltage appearing at their terminals..

Im not sure you understood verpies,despite the attached scope shots.

The pickup /sense coil,is sitting on top of the BPC.
The first scope shot shows the voltage across both the pickup/sense coil,and the BPC.
In order for a voltage to appear across the sense coil,a changing magnetic field in time must be being produced by the BPC-and this can only happen when current starts to flow through the BPC.

But as you can see from the scope shots below,the voltage is appearing across the sense coil at the same time as it appears across the BPC.

So,is this voltage across the sense coil, a result of the electric field,and not the magnetic field?.

As far as i know,it is the electric field that produces an EMF across a secondary coil-not the magnetic field.


Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
What don't you mean besides the typo?

Some rocket science going on here  C.C

Besides the fact my question was directed to PW,what i was wanting to know,is why would the 50ohm resistor within the FG,show a more accurate P/in value than an external CVR attached to the DUT?.

The 50 ohm resistor within the FG ,would be just as susceptible to inductance,phase shift,and the like's,just as much as an external CVR.
What you would be doing in this case,is also adding the voltage drop from the FG lead's into the equation.

So in the end,it would actually show a more incorrect measurement than that of the way we have been doing it.


Brad
« Last Edit: 2017-05-09, 10:24:16 by TinMan »


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

Posts: 289
Besides the value, the difference is that you have an access to signals at both sides of the external 1Ω resistor and you don't have an access to both sides of the internal 50Ω resistor.

Verpies,

You are of course correct.

A mind is a terrible thing to lose...

PW
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270
Itsu,

Your coil's mount does look pretty good from a cap leakage stand point, so likely it is not related to that  But still, raising it up a bit with a plastic spacer (grab an empty parts drawer) and repeating your measurements might be worthwhile (around here even dry wood is considered a decent conductor).  I understand that disconnecting probes will preclude making any measurements, but by disconnecting all but the FG leads and repeating the FG Vdrop measurement, it might help determine if there are any unintended leakage paths.

PW

PW,

i redid this  FG Vdrop measurement and raised the TBP coil 22cm from the bench using a paper towl roll while connected to the FG via a thick (RG8) short (30cm) coax cable.
No voltage difference noted, open circuit (bnc tee) 7.195V rms, while connected to the dut 5.041V rms and no change in this while raising.

So i to think there could be a phase shift responsable for this high input value.


Regards Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
Perhaps all is not lost with the MEI research.  I have been thoroughly examining all the various iterations of coil designs and circuits with my new measurement protocol and nothing came up positive except for the variation using my interpretation of Arie DeGues patent NL1032750 NL1032759.  The test levels are low but stable and are consistently repeatable.  I am curious what the results would be using the TBP wired as shown in the schematic below.

Regarding the schematic, a voltage differential measurement is required across the load resistor RL but these voltage levels are high enough for accurate scope measurements.  This circuit was not optimized other than to seek a reasonable COP>1 so much improvement can be made here IMO.  I am using a 1Meg 1x probe for the CSR measurement which gives the most accurate results at this point in time.

AD1 shows the basic measurements primarily the Pin = 4.38mw mean.

AD2 shows primarily CH1-CH3 = 738.9mv rms which results in a Pout = .7389^2/100 = 5.46mw for a COP = 1.25.  This is meager but present IMO.

AD3,4 show snapshots of CH1 and CH2 for cos calcs.

Pm

Edit: Corrected the patent number.
« Last Edit: 2017-05-09, 22:29:20 by partzman »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270

PM,

thanks for looking into this further, but there seems to be some typo in the called patent, its not NL1032750, but NL1032759, i guess the mistake was made during our (Peterae and me) translations.

Anyway, there was an entire thread on this patent, see here:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2897.msg47499#msg47499

Both Peterae, me, Smudge and others and even you participated.

I still have my massive bifilar coil somewhere in the room.

Concerning your above circuit, i am trying to use my TBP coil to make some measurements, but am lost about how to connect the csr.
These 150pF caps are they real caps or do you mean they are the interwinding capacitance (2.3nF in my case) between the 2 coils.
If they are real caps, then i understand, but should they be similar as the measured interwinding capacitance (2.3nF) or different?
If no real caps, how should i connect the csr??

Thanks,  Itsu
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270

When using 2 x 2.2nF caps for C1 and C2 and using a x1 probe for CH2 (Blue) i get this screenshot.

Notice that my blue current signal is lagging CH1 and CH3
Math trace is Ch1 - Ch3.

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
PM,

thanks for looking into this further, but there seems to be some typo in the called patent, its not NL1032750, but NL1032759, i guess the mistake was made during our (Peterae and me) translations.

Anyway, there was an entire thread on this patent, see here:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2897.msg47499#msg47499

Both Peterae, me, Smudge and others and even you participated.

I still have my massive bifilar coil somewhere in the room.

Concerning your above circuit, i am trying to use my TBP coil to make some measurements, but am lost about how to connect the csr.
These 150pF caps are they real caps or do you mean they are the interwinding capacitance (2.3nF in my case) between the 2 coils.
If they are real caps, then i understand, but should they be similar as the measured interwinding capacitance (2.3nF) or different?
If no real caps, how should i connect the csr??

Thanks,  Itsu

Itsu,

Thanks for the heads up on the patent number, it is now correct.

The caps in the circuit are real and external to the coil's distributed capacitance.  I don't have a recommendation for the cap values in relation to the capacitance between the coils, but smaller values do seem to perform better in my setup at this point in time.  I'm sure there is an optimum relationship that is yet to be determined.

I have also found that the COP is frequency dependent.  It may be relative to wavelength and velocity in regards to the equivalent transmission line characteristics of the coil.

Pm

 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
When using 2 x 2.2nF caps for C1 and C2 and using a x1 probe for CH2 (Blue) i get this screenshot.

Notice that my blue current signal is lagging CH1 and CH3
Math trace is Ch1 - Ch3.

Itsu

Itsu,

When the current lags the input voltage, your frequency is above the resonant point of your circuit with the caps you are using.  Try using much lower value say ~470pf or lower, find the resonance point and scan below that frequency and watch for the largest phase angle between the input voltage and current that still produces a reasonable output power level.

You could also try lowering the frequency with the caps you presently are using.  I roughly calculate the Pin ~ 50mw and Pout ~ 2mw assuming a 100 ohm load and a phase angle of ~72 degrees from your scope pix.

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270


PM,

ok,  the measured capacitance between the windings was 2.3nF, but the calculated capacitance when using its resonance frequency comes to 533pF, so close to your 470pF.
The scope measured the Pin to be 83mW, and Pout 1.08mW  O0

I will find me some 533pF caps to use, the load resistor is a 100 Ohm non inductive caddock.

Itsu
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270

I used 470pF ceramic caps for C1 and C2

I lowered the frequency to below resonance which is 300KHz and aimed for a phase shift between blue input current and yellow input voltage of 87.28° like PM had.
The frequency used this way was 285KHz.

The calculated input was as shown (red math) 7.3mW, see screenshot 1

Manual calculation of the input values show:
7.033V rms x 0.01976mA rms x 0.04867 = 0.0067W  = 6.7mW


Ch1 - Ch3 shows 860mV rms, see red math in screenshot 2
Calculated output with this value shows 0.860² / 100 =  0.00739A  = 7.39mW

This points to a COP = 1

I will do some frequency variations to see if i can improve on this.
I have all 3 probes ground leads to the same point at the FG ground lead.


Itsu
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee

PM,

ok,  the measured capacitance between the windings was 2.3nF, but the calculated capacitance when using its resonance frequency comes to 533pF, so close to your 470pF.
The scope measured the Pin to be 83mW, and Pout 1.08mW  O0

I will find me some 533pF caps to use, the load resistor is a 100 Ohm non inductive caddock.

Itsu

So where did the rest of the power go?


Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270
it went into "the ambient background", waiting for us to get it back  ;)

Itsu
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
it went into "the ambient background", waiting for us to get it back  ;)

Itsu

Ah,so it's power lost,not power loss  :D


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

Posts: 2050
I always found it strange that many say they believe that energy is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed and yet use terms like wasted or consumed as if it simply vanished into thin air. As such the argument is always one sided in their mind. They say they believe energy is conserved then in the next breath say every star radiates energy but space is empty or energy is radiated away into nothing but we cannot get something from nothing. As such it is always a one sided argument which contradicts itself.

I found the easiest way to understand all Free Energy devices is to truly believe the Conservation of Energy holds in every case universally and in no way can it ever be created or destroyed only transformed. If they truly believed Energy must be conserved in every case then the only reasonable answer is that we must be swimming in a sea of energy.
There may be no free lunch but we are swimming in food.


---------------------------
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: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270
To visualize the Pin versus Pout, i have taken a measurement every 10Khz from Pin and Pout of my TBP coil in the latest PM circuit (100 Ohm / 1 Ohm / 2x 470pF caps)

Pin is the calculated value shown by the scope as Ch1 (yellow / voltage) x CH2 (blue / current) to get mW
Pout is the calculated value shown by the scope as Ch1 (yellow / voltage) minus CH3 (purple / voltage) in Vrms, then squared and divided by 100 (ohm) to get mW

Start Frequency was 450Khz which was where CH1 (yellow / voltage) and CH2 (blue / current) were in phase pointing to resonance.
Ending Frequency was 150Khz as there was almost no change in data points.

Below picture is from the excel sheet with the Frequency, Pin and Pout data points and a graph from this data.

Using short leads and short/thick coax (RG8 / 30cm) for connecting the FG there is no COP>1 to be seen.

Regards Itsu
   
Group: Guest
Nicely done!   O0
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
To visualize the Pin versus Pout, i have taken a measurement every 10Khz from Pin and Pout of my TBP coil in the latest PM circuit (100 Ohm / 1 Ohm / 2x 470pF caps)

Pin is the calculated value shown by the scope as Ch1 (yellow / voltage) x CH2 (blue / current) to get mW
Pout is the calculated value shown by the scope as Ch1 (yellow / voltage) minus CH3 (purple / voltage) in Vrms, then squared and divided by 100 (ohm) to get mW

Start Frequency was 450Khz which was where CH1 (yellow / voltage) and CH2 (blue / current) were in phase pointing to resonance.
Ending Frequency was 150Khz as there was almost no change in data points.

Below picture is from the excel sheet with the Frequency, Pin and Pout data points and a graph from this data.

Using short leads and short/thick coax (RG8 / 30cm) for connecting the FG there is no COP>1 to be seen.

Regards Itsu

Itsu,

Thanks for running all the tests on your TBP coil and posting these results.

Pm
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
I agree, very nice work  O0


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

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2602
To visualize the Pin versus Pout, i have taken a measurement every 10Khz from Pin and Pout of my TBP coil in the latest PM circuit (100 Ohm / 1 Ohm / 2x 470pF caps
Very good and laborious endeavor!
The monotonicity of these functions is a real show killer :(
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
Itsu,

If you wouldn't mind, could you give me the model numbers of your scope probes, current probe, and the current probe amplifier.  The reason I ask is to determine the phase errors using the comparative delays and deskew values at your test frequencies.  Some of the current probe/amp combos have delays >100ns.  I see that the TDS series scopes show a deskew value of 0.0ns for the P6139A (10x 10Meg 8pf) while the MDO has +5.3ns for the TPP0500B (10x 10Meg 3.9pf). 

I doubt there will be enough error at the lower frequencies but I would like to run the numbers anyway because with the high reactive to resistive power ratios, 1 degree can really affect the results.

I am working on an optical current probe based on a technology I developed years ago for an IR feedback potentiometer to replace the mechanical pot in servos.  It would extremely linear and should be good to 50MHz and perhaps higher.  We shall see.

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Itsu,

If you wouldn't mind, could you give me the model numbers of your scope probes, current probe, and the current probe amplifier.  The reason I ask is to determine the phase errors using the comparative delays and deskew values at your test frequencies.  Some of the current probe/amp combos have delays >100ns.  I see that the TDS series scopes show a deskew value of 0.0ns for the P6139A (10x 10Meg 8pf) while the MDO has +5.3ns for the TPP0500B (10x 10Meg 3.9pf). 

I doubt there will be enough error at the lower frequencies but I would like to run the numbers anyway because with the high reactive to resistive power ratios, 1 degree can really affect the results.

I am working on an optical current probe based on a technology I developed years ago for an IR feedback potentiometer to replace the mechanical pot in servos.  It would extremely linear and should be good to 50MHz and perhaps higher.  We shall see.

Pm

I'll have two please  O0

What would be good-->some one here with the smarts to design a plug and play,inline ground isolation thingy/me/bob for our scope leads.  ;)
A cheap way of having a 4 channel scope ,with isolated grounds--now that would be a hoot.


Brad


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

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270
Itsu,

If you wouldn't mind, could you give me the model numbers of your scope probes, current probe, and the current probe amplifier.  The reason I ask is to determine the phase errors using the comparative delays and deskew values at your test frequencies.  Some of the current probe/amp combos have delays >100ns.  I see that the TDS series scopes show a deskew value of 0.0ns for the P6139A (10x 10Meg 8pf) while the MDO has +5.3ns for the TPP0500B (10x 10Meg 3.9pf). 

I doubt there will be enough error at the lower frequencies but I would like to run the numbers anyway because with the high reactive to resistive power ratios, 1 degree can really affect the results.

I am working on an optical current probe based on a technology I developed years ago for an IR feedback potentiometer to replace the mechanical pot in servos.  It would extremely linear and should be good to 50MHz and perhaps higher.  We shall see.

Pm

PM,

i use 4x P6139A probes and an A6302 current probe (with DC Offset control pot) with an AM503B current controller.

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
PM,

i use 4x P6139A probes and an A6302 current probe (with DC Offset control pot) with an AM503B current controller.

Itsu

Itsu,

I have read the AM503B manual and find no reference to any delay specification.  The MDO scope gives the recommended deskew for various probe and amp combos but does not include yours.  My A6302/AM503 combo has a propagation delay of 30ns and my probes have a prop delay of 5.30ns requiring a net current probe deskew of 24.7ns.  We will assume two things, your A6302/AM503B combo also has a prop delay of 30ns and your deskew is set to 0.0ns on all probes.  This would mean your current trace lags your other scope traces by 30ns worst case.  If you have the current probe channel deskewed to the max of -15.0ns, then the lag would only be 15ns.

Your chart shows the peak COP = .66 at 300kHz where a 30ns delay will result in a lagging phase error of 3.24 degrees in reference to your other probes.  If you have the current probe channel deskewed the max of -15ns, the lag would be half or 1.62 degrees.   Not knowing all your measurements, it's difficult to say how much this would affect the overall COP.

Thanks for all your effort and work.

Pm         
   
Pages: 1 ... 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 2021-12-07, 21:38:54