PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-20, 23:01:33
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
Author Topic: Dr. Stiffler returns with a new device: SFM  (Read 25043 times)
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2590
    Dr Stiffler shows his device charging a capacitor, giving the voltage rise on a meter.  From this, we can calculate the output energy Eout and the output power Pout:

Eout = 1/2 C V^2, from comments we find that C = 440 uF,
so
Eout = 220 *V^2 and we can divide this by the time interval T (from V=0 when he discharged the cap) to find Pout = Eout/T.

Looking at the video which I posted above, we find:
V = 0 at 1m37s and V= 66V at 1m57s, so 20 seconds later.

Plugging in these data in the equations above yields:
Eout = 220uF*66^2 = 0.96J in 20 seconds, so
Pout = 48 mW.

Later, we find:
 V= 94V at 2m19s, so 42 seconds after shorting out the cap.

Plugging in these data in the equations above yields:
Eout = 220uF*94^2 = 1.94J in 42 seconds, so
Pout = 46 mW, in reasonable agreement.

The next step would be to measure Pin... I'd rather do that with a simple DC source driving a crystal oscillator, rather than using a signal generator for the input.

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
I have run several tests of Dr. Stiffler's 14 diode loop using one of his inductors (25.2uH) that I had received years ago in one of his devices and one of my own of 374uH.  The capacitor used was a 209uf (measured) 160v electrolytic with 14 1N4148 diodes.  The voltage across the cap was measured with a Fluke 87 DMM and the Rigol generator had a 10v p-p output.


Test #1)  Using the 25.2uH inductor with a flying clip lead surrounding the diode loop, the resonant frequency was 11.96MHz which gave the maximum rate of voltage rise across the 209uf capacitor.  Over a 10 second period, the cap voltage reached 54vdc and the average input power taken with Tek scope math using a 50MHz current probe was ~195mw.  Therefore, the output energy was (54^2)*209e-6/2 = .305J while the input energy was .195*10 = 1.95J for a COP = .305/1.95 = .156 .


Test #2)  Using the same setup with the 374uH inductor, the resonant frequency was 2.69MHz for the maximum rate of voltage rise across the 209uf capacitor.  Over a 10 second period, the cap voltage reached 50.2vdc and the average input power taken with Tek scope math using a 50MHz current probe was ~118mw.  Therefore, the output energy was (50.2^2)*209e-6/2 = .263J while the input energy was .118*10 = 1.18J for a COP = .263/1.18 = .222 .

As Dr. Stiffler stated, these tests are subject to lead and meter placement, etc, so these results are not conclusive.  In general, he COPs did appear to slightly increase with increased duration and decrease with reduced duration.

Regards,
Pm 

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2590
Very good thank you for posting results and Analysis, p.m.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2407
At the moment the V and I are out of phase, I have a feeling Ron is going to place another full diode loop on top of the other and feed from another L3 using the same input from the SG

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
At the moment the V and I are out of phase, I have a feeling Ron is going to place another full diode loop on top of the other and feed from another L3 using the same input from the SG

Regards

Mike

Mike,

Actually at resonance where the rate of voltage rise on the cap is the greatest, the V and I are in phase.  Setting the generator frequency so the V and I phase either leads or lags, lower COPs are seen.

Interestingly, if only two diodes are used with one placed on the positive lead and the other on the negative lead of the cap and then using a length of wire to complete the loop, slightly higher COPs are seen.  Using just one diode in the wire loop does not work at all!

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2407
Mike,

Actually at resonance where the rate of voltage rise on the cap is the greatest, the V and I are in phase.  Setting the generator frequency so the V and I phase either leads or lags, lower COPs are seen.

Interestingly, if only two diodes are used with one placed on the positive lead and the other on the negative lead of the cap and then using a length of wire to complete the loop, slightly higher COPs are seen.  Using just one diode in the wire loop does not work at all!

Regards,
Pm

PM

OK,
 I was looking at what Itsu was showing where it was 180º out of phase on OU.com, not the cap charge. With Ron you never know what he is thinking, it was a big problem in the past and why things sort of break up.

He is an expert at creating high voltage at unusual junctions or "apparent" single electrodes, his burning water was one, not the diode HV electrolysis, that is another thing but still revolves around his interest.

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
Mike, you will like the following experimental test. 

The measurements taken on the setup as pictured below are interesting and warrant further investigation IMO.

The loop is iron wire (baling wire) with 48 turns of 22ga insulated copper wire wound as shown.  The inductance of the overwind is 0.56uH.  Two 1N4148 diodes are connected to the 209uf cap and the main inductor is 330uh. 

The generator frequency is set off-resonance to the high side (inductive side) or IOW, the voltage leads the current.  In general, the COPs are now quite high in the order of 0.9 to 1+ owing to the higher coupling IMO.    One caveat is that the signal levels are low and so measurements are difficult but interesting anyway!

This simple circuit appears to be non-linear as the overall inductance capacitance decreases as the capacitor charges thus the current increases and tends to approach in-phase resonance over an increase in time.  This also makes measurement more difficult.

Regards,
Pm

Edit: Correction
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2407
Mike, you will like the following experimental test. 

The measurements taken on the setup as pictured below are interesting and warrant further investigation IMO.

The loop is iron wire (baling wire) with 48 turns of 22ga insulated copper wire wound as shown.  The inductance of the overwind is 0.56uH.  Two 1N4148 diodes are connected to the 209uf cap and the main inductor is 330uh. 

The generator frequency is set off-resonance to the high side (inductive side) or IOW, the voltage leads the current.  In general, the COPs are now quite high in the order of 0.9 to 1+ owing to the higher coupling IMO.    One caveat is that the signal levels are low and so measurements are difficult but interesting anyway!

This simple circuit appears to be non-linear as the overall inductance decreases as the capacitor charges thus the current increases and tends to approach in-phase resonance over an increase in time.  This also makes measurement more difficult.

Regards,
Pm
[/quote

Now your talking my language 8)

I'm just about to send you an update, replace the fist with this ;)

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1375
... .-.. .. -.. . .-.
partzman, I like the 1+ for COP statement !
So, could the cap be dumped periodically, reusing that dumped energy as well ?
Such that it never does reach that state of increasing the current demand.
A Zener to a heavy inductive load perhaps?


---------------------------
ʎɐqǝ from pɹɐoqʎǝʞ a ʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
partzman, I like the 1+ for COP statement !
So, could the cap be dumped periodically, reusing that dumped energy as well ?
Such that it never does reach that state of increasing the current demand.
A Zener to a heavy inductive load perhaps?

Yes, if the 1+ COP is real!  Math power measurements on my Tek MDO3034 are proving to be inconsistent over a long sweep periods such as 10 seconds so I'm working on what I'm missing or perhaps the scope is not capable.

Regards,
Pm   
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
After more investigation of Dr. Stiffler's loop and his variations, I'm convinced that the circuitry reduces to an Avramenko plug equivalent with no ability for COP >1 IMO.  In my previous measurement attempts I used manual counting, averaging of power input, and measurement of the output capacitor voltage.  All of this yielded questionable results.

So, I managed to use my scope pushed to it's limits by changing the output capacitance to 3.94uf while still using 330uH inductor at 2MHz allowing a resonable level of energy to be reached in the output cap.  Therefore, the time period measured is 100ms with the scope sweep set at 10ms/div with the horizontal resolution set to the max of 100M samples/s.  This sweep time and resolution allows the scope's internal math to give accurate results on any computation.  Any longer sweep begins to reduce the input power calculation and will give incorrect COP>1 results.  The output voltage across the cap is measured differentially using CH2(blu) and CH3(pnk).

For the test documented below, I used Dr. Stiffler's latest configuration as seen in his video here-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VRqf8E8VIM&t=0s

He claims to be using diode connections that provide full wave power to the load rather than half wave as previously shown.  However, I would ask that you study his schematic carefully and notice that if his C1 and C2 have a relatively low reactance at the frequency used, then the diode arrays are in parallel.  In fact, they are in parallel even if his C1 and C2 have appreciable reactance but this would decrease the overall circuit capacitance and by divider action thus reducing the efficiency.  If one simplifies the circuit by removing all the diodes except four to create an apparent full wave bridge, the circuit would appear as in the attached schematic below.

This schematic was used  to create the two scope shots below except with wires replacing C2 and C3. 

The first scope pix shows the measured input of 23.62mw resulting in an energy of 23.62e-3 * 100e-3 = 2.362mJ.  The second pix shows the output voltage across C1 to be 33.26v for an energy of (33.26^2) *3.94e-6/2 = 2.18mJ.  The resulting COP = 2.18/2.362 = .923.  This is the highest accurately documented COP I was able to achieve of any circuit configuration I have tested over the past few days.  I might add that these measurements were taken in the hi-res mode which in this case should have 12-16 bit vertical resolution.

Regards,
Pm

   
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 447
Hi PM,

Thanks for your kind and devoted analysis on these circuits. In his latest video the Doc spoke about where the current comes from that makes any of the LEDs light: it is the 'potential' and LED current is driven not from the loop current but from the inter-LED capacity (probably charged up by the potential from the near field) if I understand him correctly (from video time 3:45). While this is not a 100% clear for me yet, if I suppose this is correct, than a circuit simulator cannot simulate this correctly, right?
I understand you concluded the circuit reduces to an AV plug equivalent but if you attempt to consider his reasoning, then the simplification may not hold. Could you comment this.

Thanks,
Gyula
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
Hi PM,

Thanks for your kind and devoted analysis on these circuits. In his latest video the Doc spoke about where the current comes from that makes any of the LEDs light: it is the 'potential' and LED current is driven not from the loop current but from the inter-LED capacity (probably charged up by the potential from the near field) if I understand him correctly (from video time 3:45). While this is not a 100% clear for me yet, if I suppose this is correct, than a circuit simulator cannot simulate this correctly, right?
I understand you concluded the circuit reduces to an AV plug equivalent but if you attempt to consider his reasoning, then the simplification may not hold. Could you comment this.

Thanks,
Gyula

Gyula,

I did try to understand his reasoning as you describe above but I really don't get it at this point.  If the led "energy" is coming from the near field, this should be eliminated by the use of shielding I would think.  If the energy is coming from some other field than the input, then where is all the resonant energy at the input going?  No, I don't think this would simulate.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2407
Mike, you will like the following experimental test. 

The measurements taken on the setup as pictured below are interesting and warrant further investigation IMO.

The loop is iron wire (baling wire) with 48 turns of 22ga insulated copper wire wound as shown.  The inductance of the overwind is 0.56uH.  Two 1N4148 diodes are connected to the 209uf cap and the main inductor is 330uh. 

The generator frequency is set off-resonance to the high side (inductive side) or IOW, the voltage leads the current.  In general, the COPs are now quite high in the order of 0.9 to 1+ owing to the higher coupling IMO.    One caveat is that the signal levels are low and so measurements are difficult but interesting anyway!

This simple circuit appears to be non-linear as the overall inductance capacitance decreases as the capacitor charges thus the current increases and tends to approach in-phase resonance over an increase in time.  This also makes measurement more difficult.

Regards,
Pm

Edit: Correction

PM

If you remove the diodes and use a non electrolytic cap and place a second coil around the iron loop like the first one, but connect the diodes and cap to this second coil, I think it will work the same but without the capacitance interference as it will be an AC in the iron loop.

The problem will be how you place the second coil around the loop so as to be as inphase as possible to gain max power on the output.

If the end of the loop coil was connected to the iron you basicly have a gamma match with capacitance to floating ground via the coil. Moving that coil end connection around the loop will tune it to resonance.

Placing another exact coil setup on top of the other and connected to a second channel of SG, just might prove interesting.

I think it is the iron that would be interesting as it acts as both current loop and transformer core ;)

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
PM

If you remove the diodes and use a non electrolytic cap and place a second coil around the iron loop like the first one, but connect the diodes and cap to this second coil, I think it will work the same but without the capacitance interference as it will be an AC in the iron loop.

The problem will be how you place the second coil around the loop so as to be as inphase as possible to gain max power on the output.

If the end of the loop coil was connected to the iron you basicly have a gamma match with capacitance to floating ground via the coil. Moving that coil end connection around the loop will tune it to resonance.

Placing another exact coil setup on top of the other and connected to a second channel of SG, just might prove interesting.

I think it is the iron that would be interesting as it acts as both current loop and transformer core ;)

Regards

Mike 8)

Mike,

I will give your suggested circuitry above a try but you might be interested in my previous un-posted results that led me to believe this all reduces to an Avramenko plug or equivalent.

The schematic below is the circuit using the iron wire loop with the over wound coil.  Assuming there was an AC circular current in the wire, I attached a jumper across the input terminals of the two diodes to effectively short out any circular current to the input diodes.  Surprisingly, the circuit operated identically with or without this jumper which is depicted by S1 in the schematic.  IOW, there is no differential loop current but only common mode current via the capacitive coupling between the over wound winding and the iron loop. 

My analysis may be incorrect but this is how I view it at this point in time.

Regards,
Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
PM

If you remove the diodes and use a non electrolytic cap and place a second coil around the iron loop like the first one, but connect the diodes and cap to this second coil, I think it will work the same but without the capacitance interference as it will be an AC in the iron loop.

The problem will be how you place the second coil around the loop so as to be as inphase as possible to gain max power on the output.

If the end of the loop coil was connected to the iron you basicly have a gamma match with capacitance to floating ground via the coil. Moving that coil end connection around the loop will tune it to resonance.

Placing another exact coil setup on top of the other and connected to a second channel of SG, just might prove interesting.

I think it is the iron that would be interesting as it acts as both current loop and transformer core ;)

Regards

Mike 8)

Mike,

I tried the first part of your circuit above and the fact is, there is very little to no circulatory current developed in the shorted iron wire loop/core with a single connection to an over winding at resonance or at any frequency as far as I can tell.  Therefore, there is no differential voltage developed in a secondary connected thru diodes to a capacitor. 

So it appears this is not a direction that will be productive with your theories.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2407
PM

Did you connect the end of the coil to the Iron loop? This should work as a gamma match, you will need to move that connection to tune it. In antenna theory this works 100%

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2407
OK now on my computer

A gamma match is the following

A sort of folded dipole, performing an impedance step-up
A parallel shorted transmission line stub, adding shunt inductance
A series capacitance

Below is the equivalent electrical circuit.

Magnetic loops which is what part of my theory is based on, can be powered with a gamma match or another small loop or a coil wound on a ferrite core and the loop passing through the middle. There are also other ways such as using three capacitors were the two outer capacitors supply the impedance and the center cap is the LC resonator (the later you simulated for me and shows a large current in the loop).

I hope soon to have some new equipment and will be building again, not easy with no equipment.

The gamma match is more difficult to tune, it has a very narrow band width and will go out of tune easily.

What I suggested above is a bit of a hybrid because it has capacitance to earth ground plane via the coil wound around the loop, which in turn finds it's way to your SG ground I would expect which is sitting on the bench un connected.

If you had a magnetic loop antenna connected to a transmitter, and you put a single shorted loop of wire around the loop wire, the current in that wire would probably blow it if thin enough, or it would glow hot. The loop in this case could be COPPER and not iron, my dual theory on paper holds as a current loop and inductive core if it is iron. I have done tests on this and it holds correct.

More needs to be done in this area, don't give up on the theory (antenna theory is also correct in practice, and more so).

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
OK now on my computer

A gamma match is the following

A sort of folded dipole, performing an impedance step-up
A parallel shorted transmission line stub, adding shunt inductance
A series capacitance

Below is the equivalent electrical circuit.

Magnetic loops which is what part of my theory is based on, can be powered with a gamma match or another small loop or a coil wound on a ferrite core and the loop passing through the middle. There are also other ways such as using three capacitors were the two outer capacitors supply the impedance and the center cap is the LC resonator (the later you simulated for me and shows a large current in the loop).

I hope soon to have some new equipment and will be building again, not easy with no equipment.

The gamma match is more difficult to tune, it has a very narrow band width and will go out of tune easily.

What I suggested above is a bit of a hybrid because it has capacitance to earth ground plane via the coil wound around the loop, which in turn finds it's way to your SG ground I would expect which is sitting on the bench un connected.

If you had a magnetic loop antenna connected to a transmitter, and you put a single shorted loop of wire around the loop wire, the current in that wire would probably blow it if thin enough, or it would glow hot. The loop in this case could be COPPER and not iron, my dual theory on paper holds as a current loop and inductive core if it is iron. I have done tests on this and it holds correct.

More needs to be done in this area, don't give up on the theory (antenna theory is also correct in practice, and more so).

Regards

Mike 8)

Mike,

After trying various combinations of gamma connections with the iron loop and the two over windings, there is now loop current but the best COPs are in the .55-.65 range.  The variations were the result of moving the windings on the loop and various frequencies and connections but no attempts were made to match impedances, etc. 

Unfortunately I have to stay in the =< 2MHz frequency range or the sweep time will have to shorten to maintain any measurement accuracy.  Any other ideas are welcome.

Regards,
Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
I was about to give up on the good Dr. Stiffler's circuit but then I had an idea.  Years ago I realized that the simple capacitor charge formula  delta E= I*dt/C really didn't care about the starting voltage across the cap as you would always see a given delta voltage change for a given current over a given time period.  IOW, it should be possible to achieve OU by simply charging a biased cap from a source and therein lies the problem.  The source normally needs to be at a voltage level higher than the bias in order to accomplish this and therefore the results were always conservative in the tests I made.

However, the Avramenko/Stiffler device offers the potential (pun intended) of accomplishing this due to the capacitive coupling of the single wire circuit as the following tests reveal.

The schematic below shows the addition of a bias source V2 which is 30v dc.  This places a 30v bias on C1 prior to the circuit being energized via the conduction path thru D2, L1, and V1.

The first scope pix shows the input of 5.911mw over the period of 60ms from the start of the input signal from the generator.  This equates to an input energy of 5.911e-3 * 60e-3 = 355uJ .

The second scope pix shows a differential voltage of 40.74v across C1 with the vertical cursor B at the 60ms time mark.  Considering the 30v starting bias on C1, the net energy on C1 is (40.74^2-30^2) * 3.94e-6/2 = 1497uJ .   Therefore the apparent COP = 1497/355 = 4.22 .

The third scope pix shows an expanded view of the event at the sig gen startup.  My Rigol DG4162 has protection circuitry that shuts down the output under fault conditions and that is why there is a dead time after the start.  In this case, the parasitic and diode capacitances are charged previous to the start and discharge on the first positive portion of the sinewave actually supplying -132.1mw to the signal generator over the first 1.5ms for an energy of 198uJ as can be seen.  This energy is ignored in the final COP calculation because in reality it would cancel itself when considering that the same amount of energy prior to the start would be required to charge these parasitic capacitances plus some small losses.

This is most interesting and I believe worth examining more closely.

Regards,
Pm

Edit: I would add that energy taken from V2 during the conduction of D2 is returned to V2 via D1 on the alternate half cycle.  This is not correct so the COP above is incorrect but there is a work around that I will post tomorrow. 
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2407
Pm

Think of how the boost circuit works! The output cap is biased by the input before you start the switching, the stored coil current and voltage adds to this already in the cap and so increases the output (voltage not current of course).
Add a little current from somewhere else (with phase adjustments of course) and hepresto we have it.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
Mike and all,

After spending a full day on the bench carefully measuring various circuit combinations of the biased Stiffler circuit, I have concluded that the actual COP <1 when all energies are accounted for.

Regards,
Pm
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 9
Mike and all,

After spending a full day on the bench carefully measuring various circuit combinations of the biased Stiffler circuit, I have concluded that the actual COP <1 when all energies are accounted for.

Regards,
Pm
Does that include a second or third separate "circuit" that is also immersed in the field? 
Not doubting you, just wondering.
Itzon
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
Does that include a second or third separate "circuit" that is also immersed in the field? 
Not doubting you, just wondering.
Itzon

Itzon,

These recent tests were run as described with the sole purpose of hopefully finding a source of OU using a static charge in a capacitor aided by an additional charge from a single wire transmission and did not include multiple led loads or diode circuits within the "field" that Dr. Stiffler alludes to.

I would like to see others attempt to produce measurements of Dr. Stiffler's various circuits but like I say, my goal may be different from other experimenters in this area.

Regards,
Pm   

 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
Still not quite ready to give up on this at the moment so here is another test of the biased Stiffler circuit but with a different twist.  The difference is that the biased cap is now the input buffer C2 and not the output C1 as in the previous tests.

In reference to the schematic below, a DC buffer cap C2 was added that basically charges to the supply voltage from V2.  To guarantee this, C1 is shorted prior to each scope trigger.  This insures that when the signal generator starts, it starts at zero volts so no fault is initiated in the sg.  Also, a 1K precision non-inductive resistor R1 is added and used as a load in the final output calculations.  The circuit operation is not as simple as it might appear so I'll try to explain it the best I can.

The first scope pix shows the input power of 7.129mw supplied by the signal generator which equals an input energy level of 7.129e-3 * 100e-3 = 712.9uJ .  This is a product of the input voltage times the input current over time.

The second scope pix shows the start and finish voltages of 1.823 and 15.86 respectively across C1 which is an output.  The energy is then (15.86^2-1.823^2) * 3.94e-6/2 = 488.9uJ .

The third pix shows the voltage across R1 is both -85.5mv mean and 1.46v rms on the Math channel over the 100ms time period.  The rms output energy across R1 is (1.46^2/1e-3)*.1 = 213.2uJ .  The negative mean voltage across R1 actually indicates energy is fed back to the 20v power supply V2.  This negative energy is (-0.0855/1000) * 20 *.1 = -171uJ .  A test was run but not documented here that used a charged capacitor C3 to replace the V2 power supply and indeed the finish voltage on C3 was higher than the start voltage confirming that energy was being fed back to the dc supply. 

A not so obvious function is that energy is drawn from C2 during operation and the fourth scope pix measures this.  The start voltage across C2 is 19.17v and the finish voltage is 12.92v.  Therefore the energy consumed  in C2 is (19.17^2-12.92^2) * 0.22e-6/2 = 22.1uJ .  This energy is considered as an input to the circuit function.   

The energy totals are as follows: Input = 712.9uJ + 22.1uJ +(-171uJ) = 564uJ and output = 488.9uJ + 213.2uJ = 702.1uJ .  The apparent COP = 702.1/488.9 = 1.24 .  If one considers the negative energy as an output,  then the COP = 488.9 + 213.2uJ +171uJ/712.9uJ + 22.1uJ = 873.1/735 = 1.19 .

Regards,
Pm 
« Last Edit: 2018-08-07, 15:36:52 by partzman »
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-20, 23:01:33