PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2026-01-29, 10:10:52
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 29 30 31
Author Topic: partzmans board ATL  (Read 36309 times)
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Here is a special version of the previously posted pulse generator that has several changes both in circuitry and function.  The current summing junction at VL2 is now switched via a mosfet that presents a real world output capacitance to this junction plus the capacitance of D4.  L1 and L2 are now 6mh with each having a 200pf self capacitance.  The coupling between L1 and L2 is now .5 which makes the buck inductance 6mH and the aid inductance 18mH.  L1 also now has a bias current of -200ma with L2 at 400ma and L4 at 200ma.  The voltage pulse starting at 10us initially goes neg and then positive and the cycle stops at the zero crossing of VL2 at 14.418us.

Viewing the sim plot and data, we see that the input energy from the 100v DC supply V4 is -127.11uJ .  IOW, 127.11uJ is supplied to V4 during the complete cycle.

The bias energy in L1 and L2 is calculated as follows- For the buck mode, the energy is (([IL1]+[IL2])*.5)^2 * .006/2 = 270uJ .  For the aid mode the energy is (([IL2]-[IL1])*.5)^2 * .018 = 90uJ .  Therefore, the total starting bias energy for L1 and L2 is 360uJ . 

L4 has an ending current of 194.9ma that results in an energy loss in L4 of (.2^2-.1949^2) * .025/2 = 25.18uJ .

The ending currents in L1 and L2 are 381.7ma and -188.8ma respectively.  These numbers result in a remaining buck energy of (([IL1]+[IL2])*.5)^2 * .006/2 = 244.1uJ .  For the aid mode the remaining energy is (([IL2]-[IL1])*.5)^2 * .018 = 83.7uJ .  The total remaining energy in L1 and L2 therefore is 327.8uJ .

So, the energy loss in L1 and L2 is 360uJ - 327.8uJ = 32.2uJ .  The total system energy loss is then 32.2uJ + 25.18uJ = 57.38uJ .

The apparent COP therefore is [127.11]/57.38 = 2.215 .

Some detailed explanations are left out for clarity.

Regards,
Pm



   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
Here is a special version of the previously posted pulse generator that has several changes both in circuitry and function.  The current summing junction at VL2 is now switched via a mosfet that presents a real world output capacitance to this junction plus the capacitance of D4.  L1 and L2 are now 6mh with each having a 200pf self capacitance.  The coupling between L1 and L2 is now .5 which makes the buck inductance 6mH and the aid inductance 18mH.  L1 also now has a bias current of -200ma with L2 at 400ma and L4 at 200ma.  The voltage pulse starting at 10us initially goes neg and then positive and the cycle stops at the zero crossing of VL2 at 14.418us.

Viewing the sim plot and data, we see that the input energy from the 100v DC supply V4 is -127.11uJ .  IOW, 127.11uJ is supplied to V4 during the complete cycle.

The bias energy in L1 and L2 is calculated as follows- For the buck mode, the energy is (([IL1]+[IL2])*.5)^2 * .006/2 = 270uJ .  For the aid mode the energy is (([IL2]-[IL1])*.5)^2 * .018 = 90uJ .  Therefore, the total starting bias energy for L1 and L2 is 360uJ . 

L4 has an ending current of 194.9ma that results in an energy loss in L4 of (.2^2-.1949^2) * .025/2 = 25.18uJ .

The ending currents in L1 and L2 are 381.7ma and -188.8ma respectively.  These numbers result in a remaining buck energy of (([IL1]+[IL2])*.5)^2 * .006/2 = 244.1uJ .  For the aid mode the remaining energy is (([IL2]-[IL1])*.5)^2 * .018 = 83.7uJ .  The total remaining energy in L1 and L2 therefore is 327.8uJ .

So, the energy loss in L1 and L2 is 360uJ - 327.8uJ = 32.2uJ .  The total system energy loss is then 32.2uJ + 25.18uJ = 57.38uJ .

The apparent COP therefore is [127.11]/57.38 = 2.215 .

Some detailed explanations are left out for clarity.

Regards,
Pm

Interesting!
"  The total system energy loss is then 32.2uJ + 25.18uJ = 57.38uJ .

The apparent COP therefore is [127.11]/57.38 = 2.215 ."

But can you explain why you divide by 57.38 (to evaluate the COP), which is not
input energy but rather "the total system energy loss"?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Interesting!
"  The total system energy loss is then 32.2uJ + 25.18uJ = 57.38uJ .

The apparent COP therefore is [127.11]/57.38 = 2.215 ."

But can you explain why you divide by 57.38 (to evaluate the COP), which is not
input energy but rather "the total system energy loss"?

As we know, COP = Pin/Pout or Uin/Uout.  In this case we are dealing in energy levels so we define first the Uin as -127.11uJ .  This is not energy taken from the supply but rather energy fed back into the supply V4 so we are allowed to qualify this as our Uin.

We then examine the lost energy in the circuit.  First L1 and L2.  Looking at the plot, we can see that the ending currents in L1 and L2 are nearly the same but swapped from the starting current levels.  When calculated as in the previous post, we have a starting energy in L1 and L2 of 360uJ and we have an ending energy level of 327.8uJ which we will recover we assume at 100%.  So, we have lost 32.2uJ in L1 and L2 during one cycle.

The same will apply for L4 which starts at 200ma and ends the cycle at 194.9ma which results in a loss of 25.18uJ .  So we have a total loss of 57.38uJ or energy spent and we again are allowed to qualify this as our Uout to use in our COP formula.  This may not be intuitive but what it boils down to is that we have a negative input energy gain and a positive output energy loss for use in our COP calculation.

Pm 

Edit: Please see corrected post #354 below!
« Last Edit: 2022-11-10, 20:31:04 by partzman »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
This version 3 of the RLE pulse generator has improved efficiency, lower supply voltage, and does not require bias currents in L2.  This is more ideally suited for a bench build and the only improvement would be to have IL2 at 0ma at the negative going zero crossing of VL2.  This can be accomplished with certain circuit parameters but will not be detailed now as the gain increase is slight.  It would however simplify the energy recovery as only L1 would need to be discharged.

With L1 and L2 both 5mH and the coupling at .5, the net buck and aid inductance's are 1mH and 18mH respectively.  This inductive asymmetry is used as part of the output energy calculations.

L1 and L2 start at zero bias but end with 250.4ma and 9.2ma respectively.  With both positive, the buck energy is ((.2504-.0092)*.5)^2 * .001/2 = 7.27uJ and the aid energy is ((.2504+.0092)*.5) * .018/2 = 151.63uJ for a total net recovery energy in L1 and L2 of 158.9uJ .

L4 starts with a current bias of 250ma and ends with 259.5ma for an energy gain of (.2595^2-.2^2)*.025/2 = 60.5uJ .

From the plot math we see the input energy consumed from V4 for the cycle is 90.74uJ .

With 100% efficiency in recovering the inductive energies, the apparent COP = (158.9+60.5)/90.74 = 2.42 .  Realistically, the inductive energy recovery would probably be ~90% still leaving an apparent COP = 2.18 .

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

Posts: 2232
As we know, COP = Pin/Pout or Uin/Uout.  In this case we are dealing in energy levels so we define first the Uin as -127.11uJ .  This is not energy taken from the supply but rather energy fed back into the supply V4 so we are allowed to qualify this as our Uin.

We then examine the lost energy in the circuit.  First L1 and L2.  Looking at the plot, we can see that the ending currents in L1 and L2 are nearly the same but swapped from the starting current levels.  When calculated as in the previous post, we have a starting energy in L1 and L2 of 360uJ and we have an ending energy level of 327.8uJ which we will recover we assume at 100%.  So, we have lost 32.2uJ in L1 and L2 during one cycle.

The same will apply for L4 which starts at 200ma and ends the cycle at 194.9ma which results in a loss of 25.18uJ .  So we have a total loss of 57.38uJ or energy spent and we again are allowed to qualify this as our Uout to use in our COP formula.  This may not be intuitive but what it boils down to is that we have a negative input energy gain and a positive output energy loss for use in our COP calculation.

Pm

Steve,

I must have been having a senior moment when I responded to your question with the above answer!  :-X  You're all too kind for not correcting me as there isn't much right in my response so let me try again!!!

We all know [except me at times] that COP = Pout/Pin or Uout/Uin.   In this case we are dealing in energy levels so we define first the Uout as -127.11uJ .  This is not energy taken from the supply but rather energy fed back into the supply V4 so we are allowed to qualify this as our Uout.

We then examine the lost energy in the circuit.  First L1 and L2.  Looking at the plot, we can see that the ending currents in L1 and L2 are nearly the same but swapped from the starting current levels.  When calculated as in the previous post, we have a starting energy in L1 and L2 of 360uJ and we have an ending energy level of 327.8uJ which we will recover we assume at 100%.  So, we have lost 32.2uJ in L1 and L2 during one cycle.

The same will apply for L4 which starts at 200ma and ends the cycle at 194.9ma which results in a loss of 25.18uJ .  So we have a total loss of 57.38uJ or energy spent and we again are allowed to qualify this as our Uin to use in our COP formula.  This may not be intuitive but what it boils down to is that we have a negative output energy gain and a positive input energy loss for use in our COP calculation.

Pm

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
This is an improved version of Post #353 with lower supply voltage, higher efficiency, higher self-capacitance, and with a bi-directional switch for VL2 using Ixys IXTH3N120 high voltage mosfets since I have them on hand.

To maintain any given peak pulse voltage on VL2 for a fixed supply and first phase timing, as the self-capacitance of L1 and L2 decreases so must the bias current in L4.  IOW, if the self-capacitance of L1 and L2 is increased, bias current in L4 may also be increased which results in a higher COP.  In this example, the Bvdss min is 1200v so VL2 must be held at or below this level.

A typical self-capacitance for the winding area of a 5mh inductor used in a bench device for the core I've chosen is ~56pf.  To raise this self-capacitance to 200pf, several options are available such as bifilar or multifilar winding, using a flat magnet wire, sandwiched flat coil sections, etc.  Once this is accomplished, we have a go.

The operation of this topology may at first glance appear to be rather inefficient if one is paying attention.  This is due to the first part of the VL2 pulse going negative which has the effect of reducing the bias current in L4.  However during this time, the current from L4 entering the summing junction at VL2 has the effect of increasing IL1 and reducing IL2 as can been seen.  For the following positive half cycle, the current in L4 is restored, the current in L2 falls to near zero, and the current in L1 holds at a reasonably high level due to the constant current effect of L4.  This is the gain mechanism of the device.

This may not be apparent unless one studies my previous posts and analyzes the reactive power levels in L1 and L2 during an "aiding" pulse generation.

Looking at the data from the sim, we see that the input energy drawn from the supply V4 is 86.62uJ .

The starting bias in L4 is 450ma and the ending current is 451.2ma for a slight gain of (.4512^2-.45^2) * .025/2 = 13.5uJ .

Both L1 and L2 start at zero bias and end in 437ma and -3.4ma respectively.  With recovery at 100%, this results in a buck energy gain of (([.437]+[.0034])*.5)^2 * .001/2 = 24.2uJ and an aid energy gain of
(([.437]-[.0034])*.5)^2 *.018/2 = 423uJ for a total net energy gain of 447.2uJ .

Therefore, the apparent COP = (13.5+447.2)/86.62 = 5.32!  In reality, the energy gain in L4 would just be allowed to carry on if positive and topped off if negative.

This will probably be my last post for awhile as I am going to the bench to build this thing.

Regards,
Pm

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Well, sad to report that the previous topology shown in posts #349, 350, 353, and 355 does not provide COP's>1!  When the CC inductor L4 is clamped to freeze it's current and L1 and L2 likewise, the current levels in L1 and L2 drop from no longer being influenced by the current in L4 and the resultant energy levels are thus lower than originally calculated.  So, another fail!!!  :-[

However, after defining the above and thus returning to the work in post #339, I made an astonishing discovery which I will share hopefully later today.

Regards,
Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

Sorry to hear this new project didn't work out.
I'm eager to hear of continuing work with the PSO. I've been having a lot of new ideas about parametrics recently, sparked by your PSO work and Hakasys's comments.

Fred

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Partzman,

Sorry to hear this new project didn't work out.
I'm eager to hear of continuing work with the PSO. I've been having a lot of new ideas about parametrics recently, sparked by your PSO work and Hakasys's comments.

Fred

Hi Fred,

Well, unfortunately my "discovery" with the PSO was not correctly analyzed!  I think I'm going to take a break for a while.

Jon
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 603
Hi Fred,

Well, unfortunately my "discovery" with the PSO was not correctly analyzed!  I think I'm going to take a break for a while.

Jon

I think most of us have had the fleeting 'it friggin works!' moment at least once ;D

I remember getting some signals and ordering a precision load supply, next day early AM delivery to try and chase down some 217% COP measurements.  (turned out to be a harmonic glitch in the digital supply meter).

We'll get there.  It's a marathon, not a sprint :P
« Last Edit: 2022-11-22, 21:09:29 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."
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4725
Jon
You are the benchmark for integrity and diligence !
And honestly.. you are a huge asset and inspiration.

That being said ….
I understand the need for some peace ….

With gratitude
Chet
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 591
A fresh start can only be made from a failure or 2 . We are chasing ghosts at times .

I have learned a lot from your efforts with sims .
My validation is how long will it run and or does it build up?
Always been a bit of a hack .

The most frustrating thing is to get a combination working with crazy good results then not being able to reproduce it or have the
education to explain  it with any precision .
This has happened to me twice so far and it is what inspires me to keep at it regardless of my own known short comings.
Working methodically avoids this but there comes a point where you chase a resonance on top of resonance and so on .
That is where it happened in both cases. I believe its series and parallel resonance overlapping slightly.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I was visiting family over the holidays.

I have a strong hunch that your constant current idea 'has legs' but I wonder if perhaps you have complicated it too much?

Perhaps because I don't have advanced electronics skills, the issues seem much simpler than I've seen them presented.

If the current through the secondary of a transformer never changes, then naturally that current cannot load the primary, right? And that's the basic principle as I understand it.

So, one either somehow modifies the current so that it doesn't change, or ADD current to it for the same purpose.

Modifying the current seems difficult, because the current changes direction-- so any constant current source relying strictly on what exists in the circuit must cease working as it approaches the zero crossing point.

My proposed solution was to use two secondaries each with a diode, and supply ADDITIONAL controlled current from an outside source to both coils so that the summed currents don't vary. 

Perhaps not an elegant solution because you must add energy to the circuit, but so what? Power out is still higher than power in.

In my current project, I supply power to a thermoelectric module to increase the total output power. I've demonstrated the effect to the tune of a mW or so, and yet I know beforehand there won't be any interest, because there is a psychological need on the part of most 'OU inventors' to avoid any kind of input power at all costs, to achieve the glorious goal of 'self running'. But I don't care about all that, I just want to increase the total output power. So I expected in advance that my idea would be ignored, as it has been. People seem to be more interested in proving a point than in providing a new power source to our civilization.

Fred

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Thanks to those of you who gave words of encouragement as it always helps!   O0

Fred:  I'll have to study your latest recommendation on the secondary side of the transformer design as it is a little fuzzy to me at the moment.

Regards,
Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

I apologize for being a bit grouchy in my last letter. I had pressing financial concerns that were distorting my thinking.

The concept is perhaps too simple to be workable.

Consider first only one secondary coil with a diode so that there's current in only half the cycle. The current is then a half sine. A variable source of current, perhaps a controlled battery, is then added to the half sine to make it unvarying DC at the half sine peak current. 

The full system does this twice, with two dioded coils.

The result is that the current through the secondary is always the half sine peak current, and the principle of your invention is fulfilled.

Fred
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
.......
« Last Edit: 2022-12-03, 15:53:44 by partzman »
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Partzman,

I apologize for being a bit grouchy in my last letter. I had pressing financial concerns that were distorting my thinking.

The concept is perhaps too simple to be workable.

Consider first only one secondary coil with a diode so that there's current in only half the cycle. The current is then a half sine. A variable source of current, perhaps a controlled battery, is then added to the half sine to make it unvarying DC at the half sine peak current. 

The full system does this twice, with two dioded coils.

The result is that the current through the secondary is always the half sine peak current, and the principle of your invention is fulfilled.

Fred

Fred,

Oh, I didn't take your response as being anything but trying to help!

OK, I'll try a sim of your idea and we'll see how it goes!!!

Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

I'm glad my mood didn't show through in my words.

I hope it works!

Fred
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

I guess that sim didn't work out?

Fred
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 603
I think one thing we should be mindful of when studying parametrics is the characteristics of the gain mechanism.
Are we dealing with anomalous amplification of voltage, current, or power?

In Centraflow's build, he describes steap as an anomalous current source.  That is, all things being equal there is more current on output than expected, but not voltage.

If we're dealing with single variation of L or C, we expect an anomalous voltage or power to result.  But if both were varied symmetrically, then the result might be anomalous current?

Just some idle morning ponderings, hopefully not distracting :-X


---------------------------
"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
Hi Partzman,

I guess that sim didn't work out?

Fred

Fred,

I haven't had a chance to try it up to this point in time.  Maybe this week.

Regards,
Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

No problem!

Hey if you need a break from your constant current project, but still want to do research, I have some other ideas to try out. Up to you.

Fred
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Hi Partzman,

No problem!

Hey if you need a break from your constant current project, but still want to do research, I have some other ideas to try out. Up to you.

Fred

Fred,

My wife is in Hospice and has tested positive for Covid.  I'm not going to be spending much time on FE work for awhile.

Regards,
Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 361
Hi Partzman,

I'm sorry to hear that! She will be in my prayers.
Take care of yourself too.

Fred
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Well, it's been a long time between posts here but I wish to share a new topology that appears to have promise.  I actually observed/discovered this by accident more so than by premeditated design.

This is one simulation of the concept which can be applied in various ways.  This device operates aperiodically in that there are two phases, one to charge reactive elements, and the second to discharge said elements.

We will use resonance between the inductance of the primary (with the secondary basically short circuited) and the total capacitance at VL1 which is ~600pf.  The inductance of L1 with L2 shorted by V3 ~ 450uH.  It does not matter to the primary inductance whether the short circuit current in L2 is positive or minus.

We then apply a linear 100ma current ramp to L1 for the first 10us of the charge cycle.  This current ramp will ideally produce a voltage across L1 that follows E=di*L/dt.  Therefore E=25v however, the influence of V3 shorting L2 yields and average value of E=22.7v for the first 10us.  During this same time, the current in L2 in going negative by an average of ~-5ma. 

After the first 10us, the current in L1 is held at a constant 100ma while IL2 begins an oscillatory ramp in a positive direction due to V3.  Now however, the oscillatory voltage across the primary now reaches an average value of E=36.2v.  This creates an increase in the induction current in L2 until the peak current in L2 reaches 113.9ma at 20.795us which is the end of the charge phase.  L2 remains at a constant current of 100ma during this time in which makes it basically invisible to the actions of L2 due to the RLE effect.  We can correctly assume (although it is not shown) that by correctly shorting the circuit between appropriate nodes and stopping all other functions, that we can freeze the current in L2 at this time and begin the discharge phase.

We now have a transformer with two positive currents in L1 and L2.  In this case if we now connected L1 and L2 in series, L1 aid L2 = 9.5mH using the formula in the dotted box.  The average current therefore with L1 and L2 series connected will be (.100 + .1139)/2 = .107 .   This equates to a stored energy of (.107^2)*.0095/2 = 54.4uJ.

We now take the energy costs from the plot math and sum the magnitudes 492.75e-9 + 28.881e-6 + 6.623e-6 = 36uJ.

Therefore, the apparent COP = 54.4/36 = 1.51 .

The gain mechanism is based around the ratio of (L1 aid L2)/L1w/L2ss which in this case 100% gain efficiency would be 9.5e-3.450e-6 ~21.  All the other parameters affect this performance and the highest reached to date has been ~11.

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 30 31
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2026-01-29, 10:10:52