PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2026-01-29, 10:11:39
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

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 25 26 27 28 ... 31
Author Topic: partzmans board ATL  (Read 36313 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Thank you Itsu and I will let you know on any improvements.

Regards,
Pm

Itsu,

I wouldn't put those EC-52 cores on the shelf quite yet!  I have been re-analyzing this device that uses the custom bobbin both on the  bench and in simulation and have found what appears to be substantial apparent OU.

I will be spending the next few days to confirm what I think I am seeing and will post info after that but I will say this now, the secondary as it is wound over both the center and one outer leg possesses one unique characteristic.  That is, for the number of turns it has, it exhibits a relative low inductance of 1.9mh which makes the constant current bias energy relatively low.  This is important in the final energy calcs in recovery.

Regards,
Pm     
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4695

PM,

sounds interesting,  O0       

Itsu
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
PM,

sounds interesting,  O0       

Itsu

Still working on it and the results look positive at this point!  I just want to be sure I'm not making some stupid mistake!!

Regards.
Pm
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
Itsu,

I wouldn't put those EC-52 cores on the shelf quite yet!  I have been re-analyzing this device that uses the custom bobbin both on the  bench and in simulation and have found what appears to be substantial apparent OU.

I will be spending the next few days to confirm what I think I am seeing and will post info after that but I will say this now, the secondary as it is wound over both the center and one outer leg possesses one unique characteristic.  That is, for the number of turns it has, it exhibits a relative low inductance of 1.9mh which makes the constant current bias energy relatively low.  This is important in the final energy calcs in recovery.

Regards,
Pm   

Looking forward to hearing from you on results - and thank you for sharing!
Steve
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Itsu and Steve,

Well, the recovery calculations on this device were extremely difficult and confusing due to the odd transformer topology and as a result, my initial results were not correct.  So, this means there are no positive results to report. 

However, this effort has lead to another topology which is more conventional and does show a solid gain mechanism.  I will be doing more work on this device now to confirm the current results. 

Regards,
Jon   
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Itsu and Steve,

For example, please review the attached simulation.  This involves a three winding transformer assembly whereby L1 is the primary wound on the center leg of an E-core and L2 and L3 are wound on the outer legs of the core.  An initial bias current of +/_100ma is applied to L2 and L3 respectively.  L2 and L3 are therefore in a buck condition with a net inductance of 3.5 mH.  This equates to an initial bias energy of .1^2*.0035/2 = 17.5uJ .  There is also a 100ma bias current applied to L4 the constant current inductor.

Normally with C2 out of the circuit,  VL2 and VL3 would be at ~90% 65% of VL1 and the currents in L2, L3, and L4 would remain nearly the same as the starting bias currents.  L1 would begin to ramp in current and if all the energies were totaled, the net result would be conservative.  However, if we now add C2, the voltage on VL2 rises much slower than the voltage on VL3 with the net result being an increase in L4 and this is the source of gain in the overall device.  There is also another potential gain source with this device and that is the resultant inductor currents at the end of a cycle but that is for a later date. 

We will also change the rise time on the applied voltage to L1 which gives us a better control means for more practical operation.  We can see that the total input energy from the ramped source V1 is 1.187uJ .  We will cover later how to produce the various signals used here along with the switching requirements but what is important here is to see that OU is possible using classical electrodynamics electromagnetics.

From the lower plot, we see the waveforms for the various components in the circuit.  From the plot data, we see that at the end of the 1.64us cycle, the currents in L3 and L4 are -/+110.7ma respectively.  We also see the ending currents in L1 and L2 are ~60ma.

The energy gain in L4 is (.1107^2-.100^2)*.025/2=28.2uJ .

We then have the energy recovery waveform analysis in the upper plot from the circuitry at the right side of the schematic which shows the voltage across C1 to be 50.4 volts when the currents in L1a, L2a, and L3a are all equaling ~5ma.  The energy recovered in C1 is 50.4^2*.01e-6/2=12.7uJ .  We will neglect the recovered energy in the inductors as it is small.

So we have a net input energy of 1.187uJ+17.5uJ=18.687uJ .  The recovered and generated energy is 28.2uJ+12.7uJ=40.9uJ for an apparent COP=40.9/18.687=2.18 .

This is just the tip of the iceberg!

Regards,
Pm

Edit: Oops, forgot the proper upper plot!

Edit: Corrected VL2 voltage percentage.

Edit: See post #308 below.  These calcs are incorrect!!!
« Last Edit: 2022-08-19, 14:49:44 by partzman »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
Partzman,

I am interested in solving your circuit in the magnetic domain.  In the magnetic "circuit" where flux is magnetic current and mmf is magnetic voltage, a capacitor connected across a transformer coil appears as a component that we do not have in the electrical world.  This wierd component would behave something like an inductance (that obeys V = - L.di.dt) but instead it obeys V = -D.d2i/dt2, i.e. the second differential of the current.  I have used D as the component value as in my earlier paper on magnetic domain analysis I called this Ductance rather than Inductance.  My question is can Spice do magnetic domain analysis, can Spice model that D component seen as an electrical one?
Smudge 
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Partzman,

I am interested in solving your circuit in the magnetic domain.  In the magnetic "circuit" where flux is magnetic current and mmf is magnetic voltage, a capacitor connected across a transformer coil appears as a component that we do not have in the electrical world.  This wierd component would behave something like an inductance (that obeys V = - L.di.dt) but instead it obeys V = -D.d2i/dt2, i.e. the second differential of the current.  I have used D as the component value as in my earlier paper on magnetic domain analysis I called this Ductance rather than Inductance.  My question is can Spice do magnetic domain analysis, can Spice model that D component seen as an electrical one?
Smudge

Smudge,

I'm not sure if LtSpice can model the D component nor am I sure if I would know how.  I will look at your paper on magnetic domain analysis to get a better feel for what you are looking for and will also check the LtSpice forums for any possible solutions or ideas.

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

Posts: 2232
In my previous post #305, the calculations are invalid due to the fact that each inductor has an internal capacitance specified.  The displacement currents from these capacitances add to the induction currents thus creating incorrect resulting currents used in the display calculations.  This was proven by removing the internal capacitances and adding external caps of the same value to each inductor.  When this is done, the COPs>1 go away!

Regards,
Pm
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 915
Hi Pm,

I guess natural next step would be build something using displacement currents, use "negative" factors in our favor  :)

Regards,
Alexey
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Pm,

I guess natural next step would be build something using displacement currents, use "negative" factors in our favor  :)

Regards,
Alexey

Hi Alexey,

I just now read your post as I didn't think anybody would respond!

OK, I've tried to utilize displacement currents but have not had any success.  Do you have any ideas in mind?

Regards,
Pm 
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 915
Hi Pm,

From high level perspective it could be something like this:

It is known that different currents can co-exist in same wire. It could be currents of different nature e.g. conduction current and displacement current, also could be currents with different frequencies or with significantly different duration. Let’s assume that we have a source V1 powering load R. Current direction shown with red arrow.
Now if we manage add source V2 somehow separated from V1 (e.g. by frequency or different nature) producing opposite current (shown with blue arrow) we can reduce or even make load “invisible” to source V1.

Regards,
Alexey
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
@Vasik
What you show in your second image is achieved if the magnetic flux through the closed circuit of your first image is changing with time at the desired rate.  Then the generator is not seeing the load.

Smudge
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Alexey and Smudge,

Let me see if I understand.  If in both cases the generator does not see the load because of current or flux cancellation, then there would be no energy produced in the load, correct?

Regards,
Pm
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 915
Alexey and Smudge,

Let me see if I understand.  If in both cases the generator does not see the load because of current or flux cancellation, then there would be no energy produced in the load, correct?

Regards,
Pm
Pm,

No, energy supposed to be produced in the load :)
This concept assumes that there are two different types of currents coexist in a wire (currents of different physical nature, e.g. "normal" conduction current and "cold" displacement current).
It also assumes that source can convert charges brought by displacement current into charges for conduction current.
In other words idea is that displacement current will "compensate" charge loss in first power source.
I might say that we use voltage from one source and current from another, but that sounds even more confusing  :)

Regards,
Alexey
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
Alexey and Smudge,

Let me see if I understand.  If in both cases the generator does not see the load because of current or flux cancellation, then there would be no energy produced in the load, correct?

Regards,
Pm
With the changing magnetic flux through the closed loop it is voltage cancellation, hence zero current through the load.  This isn't quite what Alexey is saying, he is considering two types pf current.  I see two types of voltage, one from the generator and the other from the field induction via the A field (E=-dA/dt).  Of course with a DC generator the flux would have to keep changing and go to infinity.  With an AC generator the flux would have to be AC in the right phase.  Don't know what you gain from this.

Smudge
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Pm,

No, energy supposed to be produced in the load :)
This concept assumes that there are two different types of currents coexist in a wire (currents of different physical nature, e.g. "normal" conduction current and "cold" displacement current).
It also assumes that source can convert charges brought by displacement current into charges for conduction current.
In other words idea is that displacement current will "compensate" charge loss in first power source.
I might say that we use voltage from one source and current from another, but that sounds even more confusing  :)

Regards,
Alexey

Alexey,

OK, I've been experimenting with various methods in an attempt to achieve what you describe above and in general what I find is that the instant displacement current encounters anything that will conduct, it becomes conduction current.  So I can't "see" how displacement current can flow in a wire independent of conduction current!

I did try your highlighted comment above in various simulated circuitry but with all conservative results.

At my age, stuff takes longer to soak in!!!

regards,
Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Distinti on displacement current.

Pm
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 915
Alexey,

OK, I've been experimenting with various methods in an attempt to achieve what you describe above and in general what I find is that the instant displacement current encounters anything that will conduct, it becomes conduction current.  So I can't "see" how displacement current can flow in a wire independent of conduction current!

I did try your highlighted comment above in various simulated circuitry but with all conservative results.

At my age, stuff takes longer to soak in!!!

regards,
Pm

Pm,

There are different types of currents (conduction, convection, displacement etc) but nowadays they all treated as "current". This unification might be useful, but as side effect we probably lose some important properties.

Experiments suggest that there are "displacement like" current. If seems to behave like sound wave and propagate through conductor surface. You can even hear it or it's harmonic. Some might call it Tesla waves. Because of different nature it has different properties and we can't apply simulators without better understanding of its properties.

Regards,
Alexey
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 915
Distinti on displacement current.

Pm

More than 100 years ago it was shown experimentally that displacement current produce magnetic field.
(http://www.shadetreephysics.com/crit2/1908-2h.htm)
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 915
I don't remember if I posted this on OUR... it is sarcastic, but illustrate situation quite well
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Alexey,

Thank you for your most informative posts!  I can see that I have much studying and research to do!!

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

Posts: 2232
all,

Going to take a different direction at this time and will attempt to build or utilize a PM 3-phase motor as a generator using a constant current/voltage load.  While pondering on this device, I see that Floodrod on OUdotcom posted a link to a video where the poster claims OU in a flywheel.  I find this analysis very interesting so the link is below-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYw6tScZ7t8

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

Posts: 2232
Well, the first test as mentioned above is a disappointment but understandable.  The device tested consisted of a U8 Pro 3-phase drone motor as the generator and an XD-3420 30W brush type DC PM motor as the driver.  The XD-3420 runs at ~5.7 watts at 12 volts and no load but with the U8 Pro attached, the no-load power of the pair is ~24 watts!  Poor choice of design for the generator as it is radial flux with the PM's on the inside of the outer rim with iron cored stator so the drag is normally high.  What I need is an axial flux, air-cored generator for a lower no-load power on the motor.  Unfortunately small axial flux motors are not available that I can see so I will have to 3-D print one.

I ran some tests anyway which show some promise even with this poor initial design.  The scope pix below show the results of attaching a 3.47H coil to the rectified 3-phase output of the U8 Pro for a 50ms period.

The first pix shows the power supply voltage in CH2(yel) and current in CH4(grn) feeding the XD-3420 with no load on the output resulting in a power input of 23.48 watts over 50ms on the Math(red) channel.  This agreed closely with the 23.7 watts shown on the Rigol power supply.

The second pix shows the power input over 50ms after triggering on the current rise with the load connected of 25.56 watts.

The third pix is the current rise in the 3.47H inductor over 50ms when connected to the rectified 3-phase output of the U8 Pro.  The peak current of 402ma equates to an energy of .28J and a power equivalent level of 5.6 watts over 50ms.

So it is somewhat interesting that the input power change is 2.08 watts for an output change of 5.6 watts!

I also ran a constant voltage test of 24v DC [not shown] on the rectified 3-phase output of the U8 Pro.  The U8 supplied ~17.5 watts to the 24v DC supply while the input power remained at ~13.7 23.7 watts!  This test reveals what may be the result when an efficient generator is found and also proved that Lenz is greatly reduced when using a constant voltage load.

Regards,
Pm 

Edit: Correction.
« Last Edit: 2022-09-17, 14:29:28 by partzman »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
From the same device setup as above where the XD3420 is driving the U8 Pro at 1:1, below is a scope shot of a 212uf 'lytic cap that is suddenly connected across the rectified 3-phase output of the U8.  CH1(yel) is the output across the 212uf cap, CH2(blu) is the voltage and CH4(grn) is the current for the XD3420 motor.

It is clearly seen that the 212uf cap quickly charges to 28.26v dc in 552us.  Doing the calcs on this event we have the energy build up in the cap to be 28.26^2*212e-6/2 = 84.65mJ.  The equivalent power of this stored energy is 84.65e-3/552e-6 = 153 watts!

Now look at the input voltage and current levels for the XD3420 over this 552us period and we see very little if any change!  I find this quite interesting.

Considering any mo-gen setup, the mass of both the armature and rotor must be considered even without any added flywheel.  I have not run any calcs for this setup simply because I do not wish to disassemble either one of the devices.

However, considering that the continuous power to drive the XD3420 for this test is 24.7w typical, it would seem to me that a pulsing charge/discharge scheme with the capacitive load should produce somewhat of a gain, no?

Regards,
Pm   
   
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 25 26 27 28 ... 31
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2026-01-29, 10:11:39