PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2026-01-29, 08:38:34
News: The text input boxes (where you write your messages) are resizeable.  Just drag the bottom border of the text box to size it appropriately to your device.  The changes are persistent across your devices.

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 36109 times)
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
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



Many thanks for sharing!
" All the other parameters affect this performance and the highest reached to date has been ~11.
"
Just to clarify, are these results (11) based on simulation or actual experiment?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Many thanks for sharing!
" All the other parameters affect this performance and the highest reached to date has been ~11.
"
Just to clarify, are these results (11) based on simulation or actual experiment?

At this point, simulation only!

Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
This is the same simulation as before except V4 has been increased from 20v to 40vdc.  This has the effect of increasing the input loss and decreasing the losses in I1 and V3.  Of course we all know that a sim can't possibly show OU, right?

Also shown are standard formula for calculating the mutual inductance and various net inductance values of a simple two winding transformer assembly.

I will also include the energy gain in the C3, D4 network capacitance which is~600pf.  This was neglected in the previous example.

For simplicity, I will let the reader do the general math to show that the apparent gain in this example is 2.02 .

The input energy increases due to the increase in the input voltage supply V4.  As a result, the energy in I1 and V3 decrease due to the larger resonant voltage swing at VL1. This action produces a larger resonant current in L2 resulting in the peak currents to reach a value equal to or larger than the constant current in L1 in a shorter period of time.

Regards,
Pm



 
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
The best proof for any working concept especially those developed via simulation, is to do a bench build.  Well, that is what I attempted on the previous sims and it became glaringly apparent that I had an error.

Simply put, I was "seeing" the plot trace "I1" as "IL1" in my mind and even though I carefully checked and double checked my work, this got by me!  So, in reality, this circuitry does not produce OU as I initially thought!

Sorry for the wasted time and energy for those who investigated!!

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

Posts: 2232
Well, after all the previous false starts, I wouldn't blame anyone if they didn't pay attention to anything posted here by yours truly! C.C   Anyway, here is new circuit (at least to me) that acts like a near lossless constant current source.  The major losses would be primarily in the PWM used to generate the voltage ramp but with today's components, these losses would be at a minimum.

Yes, this is a sim, but the circuit has been proven to work on the bench with equivalent results.

So, with the 1st sim plot and schematic below we see the basic formula used to calculate the required constant current which in this case is 2A.  This plot also shows the constant current as bipolar due to the ramping up and down of the voltage source V3.  V7 simply acts as a lossless current sensor. 

As one can see, the current rises rather rapidly after the start of the voltage ramp and this is limited by the ESR of C1 which in this case is .2 ohms.

In the second plot, we see the first 10us of the cycle which the circuit produces a constant 2A of current in C1.  We also see that the energy consumed in V3 is ~500uJ.  This is cancelled out by the fact that C1 has reached a full charge of 100v which equates to 100^2*.1e-6/2 = 500uJ.

Just another tool in the toolkit.  Hmmm, I wonder if this displacement current can do any work?

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3914


Buy me a beer
Jon, you are an insperation for many.

In answer to, can displacement current do work? Yes it can, what creats a magnetic field? Current creates a magnetic field, but to make that field do work it has to move across a wire, alternating, but does not need to be AC, just a differential current.

The magnet that drops through a copper tube is an example.

Another is the moving disc inside the electric meter. which moves faster or slower depending on the current draw, like poles pushing away.

Regards

Mike
« Last Edit: 2024-02-09, 12:26:59 by Centraflow »


---------------------------
"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: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Thanks Mike!  O0

A complement to the displacement current generator is the displacement (for lack of better name) voltage generator.  Much the same as we changed the unknown in the equation de=di*dt/C to di=C*de/dt for a capacitance, we also can change the unknown in di=de*dt/L to de=L*di/dt for an inductance.  This generates a constant voltage across an inductor that is dependent on the rate of current rise in the inductor over time.

In the attached sim we see a 5mh inductor driven by a 100ma current ramp over 10us which generates a constant 50v dc across L1.  This process is also conservative as the energy consumed by the current generator is seen to be 25.017uJ while the ending energy in L1 is 25uJ.

Both of the above examples are considered with linear components. 

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

Posts: 2232
Here is an example of a non-linear displacement voltage generator.  The model for the 3019 pot core was taken from bench measurements and the B1 source creates the non-linear characteristics minus hysteresis.  The current ramp source in this case goes from -300ma to +300ma over 50us and the resultant bell shaped voltage across the inductor is seen to reach a peak of ~248.8v.  The inductor is modeled with a capacitor/gyrator.

Note that the voltage across the inductor is all positive with the given current ramp and is produced at a mere cost of 193.1nJ .

Regards,
Pm

Edit: I see that the plot is much  clearer when separated from the schematic as compared to being attached with the schematic.  :)
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Here is one application of the displacement current circuit to supply the primary of an RLE transformer arrangement.

The first pix is the schematic. 

The first plot pix is with measurements taken in the intended 10us time frame.  The data info for this plot follows next and with all calcs done, the results are conservative.

The second plot pix is with the measurement time period extended to 23.681us.  With the plot data that follows, it can be seen that there is apparently a gain of 1.056% which is currently being studied.

Regards,
Pm

Edit:  The calcs for the starting and ending currents in L1 and L2 are based on L1 buck L2 = 1mh, and L1 aid L2 = 19mh.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
This is a new concept of an RLE current pump that utilizes a constant current/voltage load in a unique configuration.  Let me first say however that this simulation is by no means a final solution but rather a potential concept that needs to be engineered in the real world.  The caveat for this sim is that extremely short high voltage transients occur during the complementary current transitions of P1 and P2.  This is due to the fact that there are no capacitance's included in the models. This can not be achieved with the various capacitance's involved in normal inductors and switches so this is basically a learning tool to attempt to achieve these results in a bench version.

The basic idea is to provide at least a two primary, single secondary transformer wherein the primaries are alternately switched out-of-phase to each other while producing a constant DC emf in the secondary.  This secondary DC emf is matched to a DC voltage of 5.5v as a load through a constant current inductor L2 that maintains a relatively constant current to V15. This is one source of output energy. 

To provide a constant current in L2, L3 is added to form a constant current transformer with a coupling k=.5 for simplicity as other k factors may be used .  L3 is supplied with a ramped current source I1 during the 200us of operation that starts at 200ma and finishes at 300ma.  With the currents in a bucking mode in this current transformer, the current in L2 is maintained relatively constant.  As will be shown, this current transformer provides another means of output energy.

In operation, P1 is first connected to the 12V supply V10 via S4 for 10us with a 20us duty cycle.  Alternately, P1 is switched off and P2 is connected to V10 via S1 for the same time period.  This switching in effect shuttles the flux in the outer legs of the core between P1 and P2 while producing an emf in the S1 of ~5.5v DC.  This EMF is the result of P1/P2 coupling to S1 of k=.455 so EMF = k*12 = 5.46v .  The constant EMF of the secondary is possible due to the constant current load on the secondary and the alternate switching of the primaries.

Another important aspect of this flux switching is the eventual settling of the peak currents reached in P1 and P2 to plus and minus values.  In this core, the coupling between P1 and P2 is k=.45 .  During the first switching cycle of P1, the peak current reached is 99ma starting from 0ma.  After four cycles, the peak currents in P1 and P2 are ~+68ma and ~-31ma alternately.  This can be calculated by +Ipkrun = Ipk*(1/(1+k)) = +.0682 .  The negative peak is simply the difference between the initial Ipk and the +Ipkrun value.  What is important about this is the fact that energy is returned to the input supply V10 during the negative portions of the input current from both P1 an P2.  This effectively lowers the input power when creating the same S1 EMF.  As the k factor is increased, the more input energy is saved until theoretically, when K=1 is reached, the input power would be zero.

The first pix is the waveform plot, the second is the schematic, and the third is the power/energy data.

When viewing the data, we see that the input energy from V(vs)*I(V1) is 46.336uJ .  Also, the output generated across V(Vv15)*I(V15) is 222.41uJ .  The energy across the current ramp I1 is seen to be -V(VL3)*I(I1) which is 148.72uJ which is an actual gain.  However, depending on how this current generator is implemented, it could be a loss or gain so we'll consider both options.

The other source of gain is the current transformer L2/L3 which will require explanation.  We first need to calculate the aid and buck inductance values for L2/L3.  Since M=k*(L2*L3)^.5 therefore M=.5*.025 = .0125h.
Then, Laid=L2+L3+2M=75mh and Lbuck=L2+L3-2M=25mh.

The initial currents in L2 and L3 are +200ma and -200ma respectively noting the dot convention.  So we are in a buck mode therefore, the starting energy in L2/L3=.2^2*.025/2=500uJ .  The ending currents in L2 and L3 are +205ma and -300ma respectively.  Since L2 and L3 are identical in inductance, we can now take the average sum of the current magnitudes to calculate the buck energy.  So, Ubuck=(([.205]+[.300])/2)^2*.025/2=797uJ .  However, we also have a differential in the + and - currents which allow us to apply the average difference of the current magnitudes to calculate the aid energy.  So, Ugain=(([.300]-[.205])/2)^2*.075/2=84.6uJ .

Therefore, we have an ending energy in L2/L3 of 797uJ+84.6uJ=881.6uJ .  With the starting energy considered, we have an energy gain of 881.6uJ-500uJ=331.6uJ .

So, the COP with I1 used as a gain source is (222.41e-6+331.6e-6+148.72e-6)/46.336e-6 = 15.16 .  With I1 considered a loss, COP = (222.41e-6+331.6e-6)/(46.336e-6+148.72e-6) = 2.84 .

Research is ongoing.

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

Posts: 2232
Well, not much interest I see with no comments or questions!  Oh well!

Several things to consider on this design that is if anybody is following along. 

First, the dot polarity of this type of core topology.  With the primaries wound in the same direction on the outside core legs, if we place the dot on the left primary on the top of the winding, the right hand secondary dot will be on the bottom of the winding.  We find this to be the opposite as compared to two adjacent primary windings on the same core leg.  However, the phasing of each primary to the secondary wound on the center leg is the same.  The advantage?  When one primary is collapsing and the other is shorted to effectively transfer the core flux with this topology, the current polarity in the primaries is correct for alternately driven phases.  IOW, the secondary will always be presented with the same polarity EMF which is unique.  This feature allows the current inductor to see the same polarity voltage over periodic cycles which would normally increase the constant current.

Second, the current inductor in this case is a Symmetrical Current Transformer or SCT.  This xfmr consists of two equal windings of 25mh each with a k=.5 coupling factor.  Applying the proper math to his transformer, we have a buck inductance of 25mh and an aid inductance of 75mh.  In the example given above, the increasing current ramp in L3 maintains the constant current in L2 slightly above the 200ma starting current.  However, the ending aid and buck current energy levels compared to the starting energy levels calculate to be considerably higher than the energy taken from the ramped current source I1 over the same time period.  This is a large contributor to the overall gain plus, the constant current loading of the secondary eliminates nearly all the Lenz effect on the primaries.  With just a single constant current inductor for this topology, the inductor will suffer a decrease in current which is not desired.

Then we have the potential problem of self capacitance in all the inductors.  I've attached just one paper on the subject of how to cancel these self capacities.

Therefore, this topology offers potential high gain.

Regards,
Pm   
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
I think you would get more interest shown in your schemes if you could sketch the device that would be used in an experiment.  Your Spice circuit has little meaning in terms of an actual circuit with actual hardware.

Smudge
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
I think you would get more interest shown in your schemes if you could sketch the device that would be used in an experiment.  Your Spice circuit has little meaning in terms of an actual circuit with actual hardware.

Smudge

Yes I see your point and I agree.  I'm presently working on a bench version of this device that will either prove or disprove the concept.  I always seem to get ahead of myself by posting sims that I realize aren't taken seriously!

Pm
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Well, it has been awhile since I've posted here but below I'm posting what I think to be an important discovery that is new as far as I'm concerned.  The paper is copyrighted but feel free to copy for your own use but I would ask not to share at this time with anyone outside this private thread.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4513
I find it hard to disambiguate this sentence from your paper: "I was studying the results of bucking single turns in the center of the toroid core where predominately the E-Field exists".

Do you mean that:
a) the study of the E-field takes place in the center of the toroid
b) bucking single turns are in the center of the toroid

Also, your Fig.3 does not depict any bucking turns.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
I find it hard to disambiguate this sentence from your paper: "I was studying the results of bucking single turns in the center of the toroid core where predominately the E-Field exists".

Do you mean that:
a) the study of the E-field takes place in the center of the toroid

b) bucking single turns are in the center of the toroid

To be more precise, I was studying the result of placing a bucking coil or wire (with little to no inductance) vertically in the area of the center hole of a toroid where nearly all the E-Field exists between the top and bottom surfaces of the core.  I could then measure one volt across the bucking coil or wire with a 42v pulse applied to a 42 turn coil wound on the toroid as the primary.  The basic idea was to then connect 2 or more of these bucking coils or wires in series to produce larger voltages across the assumed non-inductive secondary.  This basically worked however, the multiple series connected bucking wires resulted in a total inductance that was equal to or greater than a normal secondary so the idea did not work as intended.   

Quote

Also, your Fig.3 does not depict any bucking turns.

Yes, that is because the focus is on the vertically positioned plates of a capacitor with the advantages stated in the paper and not on a bucking coil or wire.  I hope I have clarified this for you.

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

Posts: 2232
Well, not much response from my previous post on dielectric induction but here is a paper that takes a closer look.

I hope to post more info on my tests in the near future.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4513
Well, not much response from my previous post on dielectric induction ...
For me it is just difficult to understand how the components of this system are arranged.
The diagram below is confusing to me and does not jive with the descriptions in the paper, e.g.: What turns are bucking and where? What is their shape, position and mutual orientation? What is the magnetic flux path/shape generated by these bucking turns (is it like this ?) ? There is nothing drawn in the center of the toroid (certainly no turns are shown there). There is a capacitor depicted inside the toroid's hole but it's not located in the center of the toroid.   The arrow depicting the direction of the E-field makes no sense to me. There are no scope probe positions/colors, etc...
So instead of annoying you with my stupid questions about unimportant things that are obvious to you, I just moved on.

A good 3D diagram of everything would help, even depicting the things you are not focusing on....
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
Well, not much response from my previous post on dielectric induction but here is a paper that takes a closer look.

I hope to post more info on my tests in the near future.

Regards,
Pm


Jon - thank you for sharing your observations and insights.  I also am trying to understand the basic set-up - perhaps a
photo showing the capacitor oriented inside the toroid would help? 

You said, "Consider now what would happen if we placed a DC bias voltage on C2 of say 64v. We will still find a dV of 2.97 volts on C1 over the first 147ns of the cycle. Now our energy increase in C1 would be dUC1=(66.97^2-64^2)*1.06e-6/2=206.1uJ with the same miniscule input energy taken from C2 which is next to nothing! Higher bias voltage equal higher energy differential! "

   Truly remarkable!  (Have you actually done this experiment?)
Thanks again.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
For me it is just difficult to understand how the components of this system are arranged.
The diagram below is confusing to me and does not jive with the descriptions in the paper, e.g.: What turns are bucking and where? What is their shape, position and mutual orientation? What is the magnetic flux path/shape generated by these bucking turns (is it like this ?) ? There is nothing drawn in the center of the toroid (certainly no turns are shown there).

First, let me sincerely apologize for my poor communication skills as I'm not doing this phenomenon justice at all! 

There are no bucking turns involved at all.  I only mentioned them in a feeble attempt to describe how I got to this point in time but as I re-read my paper, it certainly is confusing so my apologies!!

Quote
There is a capacitor depicted inside the toroid's hole but it's not located in the center of the toroid.   The arrow depicting the direction of the E-field makes no sense to me. There are no scope probe positions/colors, etc...
So instead of annoying you with my stupid questions about unimportant things that are obvious to you, I just moved on.

A good 3D diagram of everything would help, even depicting the things you are not focusing on....

I totally understand.  Attached below is the corrected diagram with hopefully a clearer depiction of the cap plates and the E-Field.  The polarities follow the standard transformer dot rules.

The position of the capacitor does not need to be directly in the center of the hole in the toroid and in fact, I have recently learned that at least with a single capacitor, the position of the cap with the scope probe measuring leads connected for open circuit measurements can be outside the core.  The two positions are shown in the two pix below for comparison.  The probes used here are Tek TPP0500B which are 500MHz, 10Meg with 3.9pf of capacitance.

The question is, with the data taken as shown in the analysis paper above, how does the 1.06uf film cap charge to an open circuit voltage of 2.97v in 148ns with little to no energy drawn from the input while keeping in mind that the only current path is the high impedance Tek probe?  It should require ~21A of charging current to achieve this performance!

Regards,
Pm

   
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232


Jon - thank you for sharing your observations and insights.  I also am trying to understand the basic set-up - perhaps a
photo showing the capacitor oriented inside the toroid would help? 

You said, "Consider now what would happen if we placed a DC bias voltage on C2 of say 64v. We will still find a dV of 2.97 volts on C1 over the first 147ns of the cycle. Now our energy increase in C1 would be dUC1=(66.97^2-64^2)*1.06e-6/2=206.1uJ with the same miniscule input energy taken from C2 which is next to nothing! Higher bias voltage equal higher energy differential! "

   Truly remarkable!  (Have you actually done this experiment?)
Thanks again.

I hope the photos shown in the above post will clarify the positioning of the capacitor(s).  As far as the bias voltage experiment yes, Figure 3 on Pg4 of the analysis paper shows the measurements taken with these exact circuit conditions.  These are really pretty easy experiments to perform to see the results for oneself.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4513
how does the 1.06uf film cap charge to an open circuit voltage of 2.97v in 148ns with little to no energy drawn from the input while keeping in mind that the only current path is the high impedance Tek probe?  It should require ~21A of charging current to achieve this performance!
Maybe this much current does flow through the 3.9pf capacitance of the probe.
What happens if you substitute a low leakage 3.9pf cap in lieu of the probe ?
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Maybe this much current does flow through the 3.9pf capacitance of the probe.
What happens if you substitute a low leakage 3.9pf cap in lieu of the probe ?

If I remove the probe and add the 3.9pf cap, I have no way of measuring the voltage across C1.  So, I have measured the current thru C1 on the ground leg and the scope probe attached and the pix is attached.

The mean current thru C1 appears to be ~830ua!

Another way to look at the probe capacitance of 3.9pf is to say, "what amount of current would be required to raise 3.9pf to 2.8v?".  The answer is di=dV*C/dt=2.8*39e-12/162e-9=674ua.  This is reasonably close to the measured result above.

Pm
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
  Jon,
I'm trying to understand your INPUT during the experiment powered by C2.
You wrote,
"This version utilizes a charged input capacitor C2 to supply energy to the primary L1. The capacitor is pre-charged to 64v DC via R2 which has miniscule energy loss. "

The circuit diagram says that C2 is just 680 pF = did I get that right?  Very small.
Charged to 64V, right?

Just how do you connect C2 to the coil (which you wrapped on the toroid)?  Just touching wires, or what?
Thanks again.
Steve

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
  Jon,
I'm trying to understand your INPUT during the experiment powered by C2.
You wrote,
"This version utilizes a charged input capacitor C2 to supply energy to the primary L1. The capacitor is pre-charged to 64v DC via R2 which has miniscule energy loss. "

The circuit diagram says that C2 is just 680 pF = did I get that right?  Very small.
Charged to 64V, right?

Yes that is correct on both cases.  IOW, the 680pf charged to 64v is just 1.4uJ in stored energy.  Notice that even this small cap is barely discharged after C1 has reached 2.97v .

Quote
Just how do you connect C2 to the coil (which you wrapped on the toroid)?  Just touching wires, or what?

I'm using small jumper wires for most of the connections which is really not the best.  Short, soldered connections would be the best.

Quote
Thanks again.
Steve
   
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, 08:38:34