PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2026-01-29, 10:10:49
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 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 29 ... 31
Author Topic: partzmans board ATL  (Read 36303 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
The previous test seems too good to be true so as a double check, this is the same charge test but with the charging current being measured which allows confirmation or not of the charge voltage.

CH1(yel) is the cap voltage and CH4(grn) is the cap current.  Since dE=di*t/C, we have 10.55*552e-6/212e-6 = 27.47v.  This is within 2.6% of the measured 28.2v on the scope.  Note that the charge current reaches ~17 amps peak.  The only inductance other than the U8 stator would be the connecting leads which are short.

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

Posts: 2232
I have speculated that with the proper induction source for a constant current inductor, OU may be possible.  I also reasoned that a good source would be a coreless axial flux generator that has no cogging with no load.  As it turns out, there are no small low cost axial flux generators available that I can find so one must build his own.  This is OK except it is very time consuming and it must be properly designed for maximum efficiency.

So, as I was proceeding ahead with the design and build, I remembered a previous device I had created call the Pulsed Saturating Oscillator or PSO, and with one special configuration just so happens to make a unique induction source.

The attached scope pix show the typical operation.  The device consists of two 1/4" E cores that hold P1 and S1 and an added E core that holds S2 and is located on the S1 end of the main core assembly.  There are no appreciable core gaps.

P1 and S1 when driven properly with a capacitive load across S1. functions as the original PSO.  That is, the core under P1 and S1 saturates during the alternate current transitions in S1 creating a core permeability change from relatively high to low values during this time.  S2 and it's core are exposed to this permeability variation which via parametric means, creates a current in S2.  The first scope pix below shows this current with S2 shorted.

If a synchronized short is used on S2 during the proper phase of the current in S2, then the core flux retention creates a rather large peak current in S2 that is perfect for driving a CC inductor.  This is seen in the 2nd scope pix below.  M2 operates in a reverse conduction mode in this case.

The 3rd scope pix shows the open circuit voltage of S2.

So, this unipolar current pulse is ideal for this application and S2 is mostly isolated from the input energy required for P1 and S1 during core saturation.

Regards,
Pm

   
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 603
Howdy Partzman, just stepping into this thread. :)

I see our focus is quite aligned with regard to parametric variation as a mathematical tool for what would appear as 'OU'.   It'll take some time for me to digest everything, I hope I can eventually contribute something useful as well :P

I did come across a working Alexanderson Amplidyne earlier this year on Ebay that I planned on using to attempt parametric variation of inductance in a rotary machine.  Only 1/3hp but should be more than plenty to demonstrate a principle.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Howdy Partzman, just stepping into this thread. :)

I see our focus is quite aligned with regard to parametric variation as a mathematical tool for what would appear as 'OU'.   It'll take some time for me to digest everything, I hope I can eventually contribute something useful as well :P

I did come across a working Alexanderson Amplidyne earlier this year on Ebay that I planned on using to attempt parametric variation of inductance in a rotary machine.  Only 1/3hp but should be more than plenty to demonstrate a principle.

Welcome!

I have more to add to the above but I want to run more tests before coming to a solid conclusion.

Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman, Hakasays,

I haven't checked in here in a while. I'm interested to see a return to an old favorite of mine, parametric amplification. When we were discussing your constant current system before, I did think it could be used in the secondary leg of a parametric transformer, for instance the old mag amp two core type.
In terms of eliminating parametric loading, this would be an additional variable inductance that was out of phase with the others so that the net L of the secondaries didn't change.

Fred
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 603
Hi Partzman, Hakasays,

I haven't checked in here in a while. I'm interested to see a return to an old favorite of mine, parametric amplification. When we were discussing your constant current system before, I did think it could be used in the secondary leg of a parametric transformer, for instance the old mag amp two core type.
In terms of eliminating parametric loading, this would be an additional variable inductance that was out of phase with the others so that the net L of the secondaries didn't change.

Fred

The good news is because DC is actually an infinite sum of frequency components, you could probably get away biasing the output winding with a constant current source.   Then you can use the DC as both an output and to get the core saturated near the knee of the BH curve.   Need a diode or low-impedance transformer to keep reflections to a minimum.

The parametric version I'd like to build is using a short iron-wire core and applying HVDC impulses to saturate directly via the core. And automatically orthogonal to the output windings.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
The good news is because DC is actually an infinite sum of frequency components, you could probably get away biasing the output winding with a constant current source.   Then you can use the DC as both an output and to get the core saturated near the knee of the BH curve.   Need a diode or low-impedance transformer to keep reflections to a minimum.

The parametric version I'd like to build is using a short iron-wire core and applying HVDC impulses to saturate directly via the core. And automatically orthogonal to the output windings.

I have to chuckle at your statement highlighted above because this is exactly what I am doing with this device.  O0

Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Partzman, Hakasays,

I haven't checked in here in a while. I'm interested to see a return to an old favorite of mine, parametric amplification. When we were discussing your constant current system before, I did think it could be used in the secondary leg of a parametric transformer, for instance the old mag amp two core type.
In terms of eliminating parametric loading, this would be an additional variable inductance that was out of phase with the others so that the net L of the secondaries didn't change.

Fred

Welcome back Fred!

Lots to try here and your idea of complimentary parametric inductances could be interesting!

Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman, Hakasys,

OK, now I understand your PSO a bit better. Nice to get both inductive output from S1 and parametric output from S2. I wonder what the effect is on P1, and especially S1, when S2 is loaded? (Before applying the CC invention). I'm not sure but I think S2 would tend to take S1 out of saturation, possibly leading to more inductive output.
I think parametric devices are extremely interesting per se, but I don't believe they can be OU without something like your constant current device. Or variations like constant net L or C.
I always liked the CC concept but the need to have a constant current in an output that is naturally AC makes it difficult to do completely. There is always a polarity switch to contend with. One idea I had before was to use two secondaries with diodes so that half the output current appears on one and half on the other.  Then simply add varying current from a source (which can be from the device itself) so that both halves are static DC, with opposite polarities, throughout the cycle.

Fred
 
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Partzman, Hakasys,

OK, now I understand your PSO a bit better. Nice to get both inductive output from S1 and parametric output from S2. I wonder what the effect is on P1, and especially S1, when S2 is loaded? (Before applying the CC invention). I'm not sure but I think S2 would tend to take S1 out of saturation, possibly leading to more inductive output.
I think parametric devices are extremely interesting per se, but I don't believe they can be OU without something like your constant current device. Or variations like constant net L or C.
I always liked the CC concept but the need to have a constant current in an output that is naturally AC makes it difficult to do completely. There is always a polarity switch to contend with. One idea I had before was to use two secondaries with diodes so that half the output current appears on one and half on the other.  Then simply add varying current from a source (which can be from the device itself) so that both halves are static DC, with opposite polarities, throughout the cycle.

Fred

Hi Fred,

Well, my original idea using the PSO isn't panning out like I hoped as even with the separately saturated cores, the results are all conservative at this time.  I still have some avenues to try and will report if anything turns up positive!

regards,
Pm
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 603
Well, my original idea using the PSO isn't panning out like I hoped as even with the separately saturated cores, the results are all conservative at this time.  I still have some avenues to try and will report if anything turns up positive!

One tentative conclusion I came to regarding parametrics was the self-inductance of the control coil had to be lower than the output coil for a given core (1/2 or smaller).  The motive being that the parametric change had to happen faster than the output coil could keep up with.
This causes issues as it means much larger voltage input is required to modulate the output

Another note was that you probably cannot use 'switched' inductance/capacitance such as with relays.  Because production would be based on change in impedance per-second, which is infinite/undefined in a switched circuit.
« Last Edit: 2022-10-30, 16:30:36 by Hakasays »


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 603
Also posting a couple diagrams I had made/saved a while back. ;)
The people that took parametrics the furthest in the 19th-20th century seem to be Ernst Alexanderson and Charles Steinmetz.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Hakasys,

You've made some intriguing comments. I've also thought that that a difference in time rate between the change of parameter in output and input could be productive. But I went in the other direction. A patent by Gunn of Gunn diode fame (attached) has a change of parameter over many cycles of the output waveform, so the varactor pair (in this case) sees multiple swings of C over one ramping bias voltage. As the C changes in the main oscillator the frequency changes and the energy is dumped into a tank tuned to the new frequency. He reports "surges of energy". Roberto Notte did some experiments with this circuit and it did show energy gains, but he wasn't able to get self running.

INDUCTIVE parametric amplification was widely used in Parametrons for early computers, but inductive rotating devices were mostly the province of the Russians. You can read the major papers by Mandelshtam and Papaleksi on the site here, in a forum containing their names.

There is a huge body of fascinating patents in this area. I've reviewed many hundreds.

I've been interested in switched parametric changes for a long time. One of the first experiments was done by Jean-Louis Naudin at my suggestion, using switched inductors and did show mV level oscillations. In the papers mentioned above, M&P critique the idea of switched parametric oscillation as done by Barrow at MIT. Barrow's papers are in the forum mentioned above. Those papers use a rotating switched capacitor and do show energy gains with switching in certain regimes. But they also use a regenerative circuit to eliminate dissipation in the oscillator so the jury is still out on this subject. Certainly, if you switch a capacitor OUT of one circuit, you need to switch it INTO another one, or the energy will be lost.

Fred

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Also posting a couple diagrams I had made/saved a while back. ;)
The people that took parametrics the furthest in the 19th-20th century seem to be Ernst Alexanderson and Charles Steinmetz.

I have a paper somewhere that shows that the "toroid overlay" style is the most efficient. The book "Magnetic-Amplifier Circuits" by Geyger is an excellent resource on this subject.

Some time I drew up an 'asymmetrical' two toroid design, where one toroid incorporates a permanent magnet that saturates it. A DC pulse through a control winding run through both toroids will take one toroid closer to saturation, and one toroid away from saturation. Each toroid has additional windings and capacitors to create parametric oscillations based on its L change, but the effect of those oscillations on the two toroids is to increase L of one and decrease L of the other-- thus eliminating any parametric loading on the control current supply.

Fred
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
These tests are not conclusive by any means however the results are interesting.  The caveat to this test is whether the energy in C1 and C2 can be transferred to a load rather than shorted to ground as is being done in this experiment.

This is a double ended PSO as described in the paper below and the actual schematic is also shown below.

At the appropriate time, M2 is turned "ON" by V3 and shorts C2 directly to ground and C1 via the saturated L2 to ground thus discharging their stored energies during their peak voltage waveforms.  The PSO input circuitry then restores the voltage levels in C1 and C2 and this process then repeats itself for 4 consecutive cycles within the 30 cycle burst.

The first scope pix shows the 30 cycle burst waveforms.

The second scope pix shows the discharge of C1 and the resultant re-charging of C1 over a 298us period.  During this period we see that 6.862 watts is consumed from the 64v DC supplying resulting is an energy consumption of 6.862*298e-6 = 2.045mJ.  The peak voltage in C1 at the time of discharge is 244.5v resulting in an energy in C1 of 244.5^2*.0464e-6/2 = 1.386mJ.

The third scope pix shows the discharge of C2.  The peak voltage in C2 at the time of discharge is 244.3v resulting in an energy in C2 of 244.3^2*.0464e-6/2 = 1.385mJ.

So we have what appears to be an energy gain or COP = (1.386+1.385)/2.045 = 1.35 .   This gain is nearly equal over all 4 consecutive cycles.

Regards,
Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

So if I understand correctly, the double ended config. is L1 on the center leg, and L2 with the two caps on one outer leg, with the other  leg free?

L1 saturates both outer legs, and then the caps are dumped to ground during saturation, when L2's changing flux will have little impact on L1?

Why not put another coil and cap pair on the free leg? Isn't the saturation of this leg 'wasted' now?

Have you tried a load on the caps yet?

Fred

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Partzman,

So if I understand correctly, the double ended config. is L1 on the center leg, and L2 with the two caps on one outer leg, with the other  leg free?

L1 saturates both outer legs, and then the caps are dumped to ground during saturation, when L2's changing flux will have little impact on L1?

Why not put another coil and cap pair on the free leg? Isn't the saturation of this leg 'wasted' now?

Have you tried a load on the caps yet?

Fred

Hi Fred,

In this setup, one set of E cores is used with both L1 and L2 placed on the center leg.  L2 saturates the entire core in this case and there is no physical space left for any additional coils.  I could place an external core on the end of the setup but haven't tried this so far.

The caps are discharged just prior to saturation of L2 and the timing is critical.

I haven't tried to dump the cap energy into a useful load yet because of the complicated switching required.

Regards,
Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

Thanks for the clarification. I looked but didn't see a prior document about the PSO, so I was just guessing.

Fred

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Also posting a couple diagrams I had made/saved a while back. ;)
The people that took parametrics the furthest in the 19th-20th century seem to be Ernst Alexanderson and Charles Steinmetz.

I happened to run across the article comparing parallel flux (two toroid) mag amps with orthogonal flux type. It's attached.

Fred
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
I happened to run across the article comparing parallel flux (two toroid) mag amps with orthogonal flux type. It's attached.

Fred

Fred,

Thanks for the link, interesting paper!

Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

Yes, that paper, although very useful in terms of making choices in topology, certainly doesn't exhaust the subject of orthogonal fields. The attached patent shows experiments in which fields actually INCREASED the L and reduced saturation in fields at right angles. When two DC fields are used at right angles to a third one, the third one cannot be saturated, no matter the flux density. The patent proposes to use this discovery to make three independent transformers on the same core, but it seems more useful as a magnetic control device. If flux in direction X and Y can increase L in direction Z with little impact on the L in the first two directions, then there seems to be a possibility of a one way parametric transformer.


Pg. 9:
"Specific examples of, and results of experiments with inductive devices having two and three orthogonal magnetic fields are set forth in the following Description of the Preferred Embodiments. The experimental results are: truly astonishing and were not predicted with the known spin theory of magnetism. From this theory one would assume that saturation of ferromagnetic material in one direction would have little effect, or possibly would increase the rate of fall-off of inductance due to saturation in another, orthogonal direction. To the contrary, the experimental results demonstrate that the maintenance of a magnetic field in one direction reduces the rate of fall-off of inductance in a winding producing a field in an orthogonal direction. In fact, if two orthogonal fields are maintained in the material, the inductance of a winding producing a field in a third orthogonal direction is increased substantially,"

 Fred

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Fred,

Yes, that is an interesting patent and in fact I have constructed a somewhat similar device in the past using a pot core with the outside winding passing thru the center as shown, but on the inside of the core, I placed a toroid core that was wound conventionally and fit inside the pot core.  This device had some unusual characteristics and needs to be re-visited.  It was parametric but it has been awhile so I don't remember the details.  I think now I would have better methods for analysis than I did then.

Regards,
Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

This topic is a ways away from your CC invention. As I understand it, you originally tried the PSO so you wouldn't have to build and align a reluctance generator. How is the CC work going?
I had suggested using two secondaries with diodes so the CC source doesn't have to deal with the zero crossing, but now I return to an earlier idea I had, which is to simply supply a DC bias current to the secondaries, from the output power, or even a battery. I hope this makes sense to you.

Fred
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Partzman,

This topic is a ways away from your CC invention. As I understand it, you originally tried the PSO so you wouldn't have to build and align a reluctance generator. How is the CC work going?
I had suggested using two secondaries with diodes so the CC source doesn't have to deal with the zero crossing, but now I return to an earlier idea I had, which is to simply supply a DC bias current to the secondaries, from the output power, or even a battery. I hope this makes sense to you.

Fred

Hi Fred,

Yes, you are correct but I always seemed to have this intuitive urge to continue to examine the PSO.  I've had the feeling that I was missing something!

In regards to your CC idea, I did run some sims back when and I'll have to look them up to see the results.  I don't recall however the exact scheme you suggested at that time.

I have also been slightly detained from any CC work due to my discovery of the high voltage pulse generator devices shown on the "Controller No5 with Protection" thread.  I couldn't leave that alone without trying a CC load and I was quite surprised at the result.  I will be posting some results of that on this thread later today.

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

Posts: 2232
As promised, here is a special pulse generator with RLE or constant current load applied.

At start up, two bias currents are applied, 200ma to L2 and 100ma to L4.  D3 is disconnected allowing the AC waveform at VL2 to oscillate at ~1.5kv peak to peak until the end of the cycle at 16.385us .  At the 10us point in time, S4 is turned "off" and VL2 is connected to L4.  S5 for this example is never turned off over the full cycle.  The skin effect of L1 and L2 would need to be low by using Litz wire for the windings.

The 100ma bias current in L4 is increased by the positive voltage swing on VL2 to a peak of 154ma at the zero crossing of VL2 at the end of the cycle.  This represent an energy gain of 171.5uJ . 

At the end of the cycle, we see that IL2 is essentially 0ma and IL1 is 154ma.  So, IL1 started at 0ma and ends with 154ma and IL2 started with 200ma and ends with 0ma.  This current swap represents an energy  loss of (.2^2-.154^2)*.005/2 = 40.7uJ .

We also see from the plot math that the input energy consumed from Vs for the complete cycle is 75.54uJ .  Therefore, the apparent COP = 171.5/(75.54+40.7) = 1.48 .

Note that the VL2 voltage ends with three complete cycles and that the current in L2 is essentially zero volts.  This is critical timing and the self capacitance of L1 and L2 was fudged to 21pf to accomplish this timing.  Depending on the self capacitance of L1 and L2, it should be possible to have a single cycle for minimum core and coil loss in the device.

Also note that there can be no effective self capacitance in L4 for this device to work as shown.  We all know this is impossible right, but here is where thinking outside the box is fruitful.  If on a common core two identical windings are operated in a buck configuration, the individual self capacitance's will effectively cancel.  So, all we need to do is to choose the individual winding inductance's along with the appropriate coupling or k factor to reach our final required net inductance.

For example, using the buck equation on the schematic, we could make each winding 25mh with a k=.5 and we end up with a net 25mh inductance with no effective parallel capacitance.  Or, we can solve for the inductance of each winding knowing the final net buck inductance verses differing k factors.  For example, Lpri = Lbuck/(1-k)*2 or for k=.4, Lpri = .025/(1-.4)*2 = 20.83mh .

How do we make such a transformer?  Use an E-core like the EC series where the outside leg area is nearly equal to the center leg area and place the windings on the outside legs.  The k factor is then adjusted with the center leg gap such that the smaller the gap the lower the coupling or k factor.  There would possibly be gaps needed in the outer legs to linearize the BH curve for the current levels needed so all  these gaps would need to be adjusted for the final inductance and k factor required.

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 29 ... 31
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2026-01-29, 10:10:49