PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2026-01-29, 08:39:58
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 ... 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 36179 times)
Topic Options img
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #425 on: 2024-09-19, 21:49:54 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
When measuring voltages in or around the E-Field for any given core, one must be careful because all may not be as it appears!  The following is an example.

Using the same 2" dia ferrite toroid core with a 1.06uf capacitor for 'C', voltage measurements will be made with C in the core with scope probe connected and then C will be outside the core with the scope probe connected. In reality, the scope probe connected to C will just be rotated in the core.

The first pix P1 shows the layout with C in the core and the following scope pix shows the measurements.  CH1(yel)=mosfet gate drive, CH3(pnk)= voltage across C and CH4(grn)= current.

The next pix P2 shows the layout with C outside the core.  Again, the following scope pix shows the measurement results. 

We see it appears that C has ~2.95v across it in both cases.

Next we view the layout P3 as shown in P1 above except a 62uH coil L1 is now connected across C with a current probe inserted to measure the current thru L1.  The P3a scope pix shows the starting and ending voltages across C of 3.016v and 2,617v respectively which amounts to a loss in C of Ucloss=(3.016^2-2.617^2)*1.06e-6/2=1.19uJ .  Scope pix P3b shows the peak current in L3 to be 185ma which indicates a stored energy of UL1=.185^2*62e-6=1.06uJ .

Next we view the layout P4 as shown in P2 above except L1 has been added across C along with the inserted current probe.  The P4 scope pix now shows no current flowing into L1 but we still see that C appears to have 2.95v across it!?!  How can this be?

We get our answer if we carefully inspect our layout.  With the scope probe ground lead positioned in the hole of the toroid as seen, the V/t is applied from the E-Field such that the end of the ground lead at the bottom of the toroid connected to the probe is at virtual ground potential while the clip end out the top of the toroid connected to C has the positive V/t potential of 2.95v.  This is what appears at the probe tip and is what the scope input records.

Although it appeared at first that transposition of C from inside the core to outside the core was the same, it really is not!

Regards,
Pm

Regards,
Pm 

With C outside the core, little to no voltage exists across it so there is no current flow through L1.
   
img  Smudge
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #426 on: 2024-09-20, 10:02:33 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
@PM,

You are posting results faster then my brain can follow ;)
Here is my reply to your post #422.
You said
Quote
At first glance, these results appear to show that 'C' really has no voltage across it while 'Z' does.
That is not true, you do measure some volts across C.  The voltage across a capacitor is given by the time integral of the current divided by the C.  You do measure the current but it is bug****d by the ringing.  You do give the mean value of 1.348mA over a time period of 811nS (forget the rms value of the ringing, that is noise we do not want).  The i*t integral value is 1.093E-9, and dividing this by your C value yields a voltage charge of 1.031mV that is compared to your measured value of 4.381mV.  So your measured value that you say is really zero is not zero, it is quite significant.  Dividing that i*t by the 680pF value gives a voltage charge of 1.608V which is close to your measured 1.478V.  I think if you had a higher value for your Z component, maybe even the same value as C, you would get rid of that ringing noise and observe voltages that better agree with the measured i*t integral.

As regards your
Quote
So why does 'C' measure near zero volts?  Because the E-Field influence on the CH2 probe that is the core center hole is equal and opposite the true voltage across 'C'.  IOW, 1.478v does truly exist across 'C' and the tip of the probe "sees" this positive voltage, but the lower part of the probe exiting the hole in the toroid is at a near ground potential.  This is because the section of the probe in the hole has the same potential across it as does 'C'.  Hence, the scope sees zero voltage.

So, the voltage potential across 'C' and 'Z' is equal and that is why we see no current flow between them.  Also, 'C' is the voltage source for 'Z'.
IMO that is entirely false reasoning.  We do see current flow between them and that yields the different voltages.  If you rotate the ring core 90 degrees so that both C and Z are outside the ring you still get the voltages across both due to non zero current flow, both capacitors get charged to different "voltage potentials".  And the sum of those two potentials in series is the single turn voltage from the flux change in that closed loop.

Smudge
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #427 on: 2024-09-20, 15:37:20 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-09-20, 10:02:33
@PM,

You are posting results faster then my brain can follow ;)
Here is my reply to your post #422.
You said That is not true, you do measure some volts across C.  The voltage across a capacitor is given by the time integral of the current divided by the C.  You do measure the current but it is bug****d by the ringing.  You do give the mean value of 1.348mA over a time period of 811nS (forget the rms value of the ringing, that is noise we do not want).  The i*t integral value is 1.093E-9, and dividing this by your C value yields a voltage charge of 1.031mV that is compared to your measured value of 4.381mV.  So your measured value that you say is really zero is not zero, it is quite significant.  Dividing that i*t by the 680pF value gives a voltage charge of 1.608V which is close to your measured 1.478V.  I think if you had a higher value for your Z component, maybe even the same value as C, you would get rid of that ringing noise and observe voltages that better agree with the measured i*t integral.

As regards your IMO that is entirely false reasoning.  We do see current flow between them and that yields the different voltages.  If you rotate the ring core 90 degrees so that both C and Z are outside the ring you still get the voltages across both due to non zero current flow, both capacitors get charged to different "voltage potentials".  And the sum of those two potentials in series is the single turn voltage from the flux change in that closed loop.

Smudge

Smudge,

My previous test and the one that follows were taken in your #1 position with 'C' in the core and the 680pf is outside the core.  The probe connections and ID's in the following are the same as before for that position.  I apologize that some of my previous measurements were not as complete and detailed as they could have been.

So, I will respond to your post above by demonstrating the following.

P1 below shows the initial current seen in the probe while in the position between 'C' and the 680pf cap at the application of voltage to the 20T primary.  From CH2(pnk) we see a peak voltage of 1.772 is reached with and avg current of 19.76ma over 94ns.  If we assume we are charging the 680pf cap during this time, that would require a mean current of di=1.772*680e-12/94e-9=12.8ma.  We see that we have measured an average current of 19.76ma which when considering the stray capacitance from leads, etc, this is reasonably close. 

OTH, if we assume we are charging the 1.06uf cap during this time, that would require a mean current of di=1.772*1.06e-6/94e-9=19.98A.

P2 and P3 show the mean voltage measurements across 'C' on CH2(blu) prior to and after stabilization of voltage application to the primary of 900.9uV and 1.17mV respectively.  This is a differential of 269uV.  These measurements were not taken properly in the initial posting.

Now we come to the elephant in the room!  A 42uH inductor L1 is added in parallel to the 680pf cap.  All other connection remain the same except the current probe on CH4(grn) now shows the current in L1.

P4 shows the voltage drop across the 680pf cap with CH3 of 130.3mV and P5 shows the voltage drop across 'C' with CH2 of 138.6mV. 

P6 shows us that L1 reaches a peak current of 91.79ma over this same time period of 2.914us.  The energy in L1 is Ul1=.09179^2*42e-6/2=177uJ .

Now, let's use the starting and ending voltages taken on CH3 in P4 of 1.446v and 1.315v respectively and apply first to the 680pf cap.  U=(1.446^2-1.315^2)*680e-12/2=123pJ .  Applying these voltages to 'C' yields UC=(1.446^2-1.315^2)*1.06e-6/2=192uJ .

It is obvious that the 680 pf cap is not supplying the energy to L1 but it appears that 'C' must be supplying the energy to L1.  But how can this be when the voltage across 'C' appears to start the cycle at near zero volts as seen on CH2 in P6?   The answer is that 'C' does contain the average voltage of 1.446v at the start of the cycle but the scope probe of CH2 has this voltage potential cancelled by the opposite polarity induced on the ground lead probe via the E_Field.

The bottom line is, I stand by my claim that dielectric induction via the E-Field is real and the potential differential seen across said dielectric is produced by the aether.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #428 on: 2024-09-20, 19:56:19 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
Quote: The bottom line is, I stand by my claim that dielectric induction via the E-Field is real and the potential differential seen across said dielectric is produced by the aether.

Regards,
Pm
UNQUote

  Thanks for your research and your willingness to share!
(I had eye surgery yesterday, but hope to get going along the lines you have initiated/invented - soon.)
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #429 on: 2024-09-20, 20:24:02 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2024-09-20, 19:56:19
Quote: The bottom line is, I stand by my claim that dielectric induction via the E-Field is real and the potential differential seen across said dielectric is produced by the aether.

Regards,
Pm
UNQUote

  Thanks for your research and your willingness to share!
(I had eye surgery yesterday, but hope to get going along the lines you have initiated/invented - soon.)

Steve,

I hope all goes/went well with your eye surgery!

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Smudge
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #430 on: 2024-09-21, 11:05:28 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
Quote from: partzman on 2024-09-19, 21:49:54
When measuring voltages in or around the E-Field for any given core, one must be careful because all may not be as it appears!  The following is an example.

Using the same 2" dia ferrite toroid core with a 1.06uf capacitor for 'C', voltage measurements will be made with C in the core with scope probe connected and then C will be outside the core with the scope probe connected. In reality, the scope probe connected to C will just be rotated in the core.

The first pix P1 shows the layout with C in the core and the following scope pix shows the measurements.  CH1(yel)=mosfet gate drive, CH3(pnk)= voltage across C and CH4(grn)= current.
You know that a conductor as a single turn around the core carrying flux Phi will show the voltage dPhi/dt across its ends even when there is no load connected.  That applies to the innards of the scope probe and its croc clip ground wire if they form part of the closed ciercuit around the flux.  I show your pix P1 with the closed circuit shown in green.  That closed circuit drives current through the probe capacitance in series with C, and since C is huge compared to the probe it is like a short circuit to the fast transient you are using, as I show.

Quote
The next pix P2 shows the layout with C outside the core.  Again, the following scope pix shows the measurement results. 

We see it appears that C has ~2.95v across it in both cases.
My next pix is your P2 with the closed loop shown so no change, current is driven through the probe capacitance and that is what the scope measures as the voltage.  In both cases only trivial current flows, there is virtually zero volts across C but the scope is displaying the single turn voltage.
 
Quote
Next we view the layout P3 as shown in P1 above except a 62uH coil L1 is now connected across C with a current probe inserted to measure the current thru L1.  The P3a scope pix shows the starting and ending voltages across C of 3.016v and 2,617v respectively which amounts to a loss in C of Ucloss=(3.016^2-2.617^2)*1.06e-6/2=1.19uJ .  Scope pix P3b shows the peak current in L3 to be 185ma which indicates a stored energy of UL1=.185^2*62e-6=1.06uJ .

My next pix is your P3 showing that the induced voltage is driving two currents, i1 through the scope probe capacitance and i2 through L1.  i1 is trivial but i2 is not, and it is the non-trivial i2 that your current probe measures because L1 is driven by the single turn voltage..
   
Quote
Next we view the layout P4 as shown in P2 above except L1 has been added across C along with the inserted current probe.  The P4 scope pix now shows no current flowing into L1 but we still see that C appears to have 2.95v across it!?!  How can this be?

See my version of P4 that shows there is a difference to your P3 in that now L1 is not driven by the single turn voltage, it is ony seeing the trivial almost zero voltage across C.  The 2.95v seen by the scope is not the voltage across C, it is the voltage across the probe capacitance.
 
Quote
We get our answer if we carefully inspect our layout.  With the scope probe ground lead positioned in the hole of the toroid as seen, the V/t is applied from the E-Field such that the end of the ground lead at the bottom of the toroid connected to the probe is at virtual ground potential while the clip end out the top of the toroid connected to C has the positive V/t potential of 2.95v.  This is what appears at the probe tip and is what the scope input records.
Exactly, it forms part of the closed loop I show encircling the flux.

Quote
Although it appeared at first that transposition of C from inside the core to outside the core was the same, it really is not!

I have to disagree with you there.  In all cases the voltage across C is trivial.

Smudge
   
img  Smudge
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #431 on: 2024-09-21, 11:15:03 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
@Pm,

Before I reply to your post #427 and because the exact circuit layout needs photos to ensure I understand what you did, could you please repost #427 with pictures like you did in post #425.

Smudge
   
img  Verpies
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #432 on: 2024-09-21, 13:09:32 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4513
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-09-21, 11:05:28
i1 is trivial but i2 is not, and it is the non-trivial i2 that your current probe measures because L1 is driven by the single turn voltage..
The current flowing through L1 is further complicated by its inter-turn capacitance.  This capacitance is not trivial for tightly wound inductors.
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #433 on: 2024-09-21, 16:44:39 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-09-21, 11:05:28
You know that a conductor as a single turn around the core carrying flux Phi will show the voltage dPhi/dt across its ends even when there is no load connected.  That applies to the innards of the scope probe and its croc clip ground wire if they form part of the closed ciercuit around the flux.  I show your pix P1 with the closed circuit shown in green.  That closed circuit drives current through the probe capacitance in series with C, and since C is huge compared to the probe it is like a short circuit to the fast transient you are using, as I show.

I agree with your basic analysis using conventional thinking.  However, this simple device does not operate under convention.

Quote
My next pix is your P2 with the closed loop shown so no change, current is driven through the probe capacitance and that is what the scope measures as the voltage.  In both cases only trivial current flows, there is virtually zero volts across C but the scope is displaying the single turn voltage.

I don't quite agree with you here so this is my detailed analysis.  Look carefully at your current path.  Where is the actual scope ground?  It is at the lower end of the "wire" or ground lead that is positioned in the hole in the core.  This is the reference point or ground for the scope measurement and will be zero volts.  Given the polarity being the same in the primary as the previous pix, this means that the top portion of the "wire" that is exiting at the top part of the hole will have a more positive potential due to the E-Field.  Therefore, the probe tip is actually measuring the V/t of the ground lead as it is positioned in the core.  At this point, 'C' has no induced dielectric induction therefore no potential across it and therefore appears as a short.  The high impedance, low capacitance scope probe offers little to load to the V/t across our 'wire' or portion of ground lead so what we see measured by the scope probe is the actual V/t of the ground lead.

Quote
My next pix is your P3 showing that the induced voltage is driving two currents, i1 through the scope probe capacitance and i2 through L1.  i1 is trivial but i2 is not, and it is the non-trivial i2 that your current probe measures because L1 is driven by the single turn voltage..

Ah yes, "the single turn voltage"!  With all due respect I ask you, exactly what happens to create this single V/t across the capacitance?  When this voltage reaches the V/t level in ~50ns, what does this mean?  Is this significant or not?

Quote
 
See my version of P4 that shows there is a difference to your P3 in that now L1 is not driven by the single turn voltage, it is ony seeing the trivial almost zero voltage across C.  The 2.95v seen by the scope is not the voltage across C, it is the voltage across the probe capacitance.

In general I agree but it is not the voltage across the probe capacitance that is the source for the 2.95v seen, it is the induced ground lead.  Maybe you agree with this but I'm not sure!

Quote
Exactly, it forms part of the closed loop I show encircling the flux.

I have to disagree with you there.  In all cases the voltage across C is trivial.

Smudge

I think we are almost on the same page with the main difference being I claim that when 'C' in the core is measured to have V/t potential, this results in an actual energy level in 'C' commensurate with that potential.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #434 on: 2024-09-21, 16:56:36 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-09-21, 11:15:03
@Pm,

Before I reply to your post #427 and because the exact circuit layout needs photos to ensure I understand what you did, could you please repost #427 with pictures like you did in post #425.

Smudge

The test was run on the assembly shown below except the 42uH inductor L1 was connected across the 680pf cap and the current probe added in one leg to measure the L1 current.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Smudge
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #435 on: 2024-09-22, 11:31:33 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
Quote from: partzman on 2024-09-20, 15:37:20
Smudge,

My previous test and the one that follows were taken in your #1 position with 'C' in the core and the 680pf is outside the core.  The probe connections and ID's in the following are the same as before for that position.  I apologize that some of my previous measurements were not as complete and detailed as they could have been.

So, I will respond to your post above by demonstrating the following.

P1 below shows the initial current seen in the probe while in the position between 'C' and the 680pf cap at the application of voltage to the 20T primary.  From CH2(pnk) we see a peak voltage of 1.772 is reached with and avg current of 19.76ma over 94ns.  If we assume we are charging the 680pf cap during this time, that would require a mean current of di=1.772*680e-12/94e-9=12.8ma.  We see that we have measured an average current of 19.76ma which when considering the stray capacitance from leads, etc, this is reasonably close. 

OTH, if we assume we are charging the 1.06uf cap during this time, that would require a mean current of di=1.772*1.06e-6/94e-9=19.98A.
In other words the 1.06uF cap gains little charge and little voltage.  Taking that current of 19.76mA over 94nS it would charge the 1.06uF to 1.75mV which is close to the two values you measured in the next paragraph.

Quote
P2 and P3 show the mean voltage measurements across 'C' on CH2(blu) prior to and after stabilization of voltage application to the primary of 900.9uV and 1.17mV respectively.  This is a differential of 269uV.  These measurements were not taken properly in the initial posting.

Quote
Now we come to the elephant in the room!  A 42uH inductor L1 is added in parallel to the 680pf cap.  All other connection remain the same except the current probe on CH4(grn) now shows the current in L1.

P4 shows the voltage drop across the 680pf cap with CH3 of 130.3mV and P5 shows the voltage drop across 'C' with CH2 of 138.6mV.
So we see the same voltage change from the two probes.  You talk about a voltage drop across the 680pF and indeed it is a voltage reduction.  But 'C' starts at virtually zero volts so it is not a voltage drop, it is a voltage rise in the negative direction.   

Quote
P6 shows us that L1 reaches a peak current of 91.79ma over this same time period of 2.914us.  The energy in L1 is Ul1=.09179^2*42e-6/2=177uJ .

Now, let's use the starting and ending voltages taken on CH3 in P4 of 1.446v and 1.315v respectively and apply first to the 680pf cap.  U=(1.446^2-1.315^2)*680e-12/2=123pJ .  Applying these voltages to 'C' yields UC=(1.446^2-1.315^2)*1.06e-6/2=192uJ .

It is obvious that the 680 pf cap is not supplying the energy to L1 but it appears that 'C' must be supplying the energy to L1.
No, C gets charged by that amount, it is not supplying energy, it is gaining energy.
Quote
But how can this be when the voltage across 'C' appears to start the cycle at near zero volts as seen on CH2 in P6?   The answer is that 'C' does contain the average voltage of 1.446v at the start of the cycle but the scope probe of CH2 has this voltage potential cancelled by the opposite polarity induced on the ground lead probe via the E_Field.

The bottom line is, I stand by my claim that dielectric induction via the E-Field is real and the potential differential seen across said dielectric is produced by the aether.
I have to disagree.  Perhaps if you measured the input energy to the drive coil both with and without L1 in place that would tell you something.  Of course there is some dielectric induction that makes the 'C'  almost look like a short when the load C is small in comparison, but it is not the potential difference you quote as though the 'C' was charged to that value.  Perhaps repeat the experiment with 'C' replaced by a shorting wire and compare.  Your potential difference is still there.

Using induction through a 'C' as opposed to through a wire placed inside the toroid must have differences associated with phase shift and perhaps that is something to be explored.  You have already performed an experiment with 4 turns each having a C inside the toroid.  It would be interesting to see that extended to many more turns each with an internal C (the central hole filled with C's), the many turns feeding a resistive load.     

Smudge
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #436 on: 2024-09-23, 15:12:41 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
  "I have to disagree with you there.  In all cases the voltage across C is trivial.

Smudge"

    How about placing a 0.3V-drop diode in series with the Cap 1? 
I wonder then if the voltage across C can be measured after the "event",
and using a voltmeter rather than a scope...
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #437 on: 2024-09-23, 17:56:20 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Smudge,

This is my response to your post #435 and the previous posts where you claim there is no voltage across C1.  I disagree as always but I hope this post will clarify which one of us is correct.  You do not accept my analysis that the scope probe is affected by being in the center of the core and induced by the E-Field.  These tests show IMO that I am correct and that induced voltage in the probe forces the scope input to see near zero volts and thus one can assume there is zero volts across C1.

P1 is a pix of the first measurement setup.  I have replaced the probe in the core center hole that was connected to the top of C1 with a brown wire that is now connected to the top of C1 and extends down thru the core to the bottom of the core window.  The CH2 scope probe is now connected to this loose end of the brown wire as seen.  CH is connected across C2.

P1 Scope shows the measurements of this setup and the results are the same as before.  That is, C1 measures near zero on CH2(blu) and C2 measures 2.952v on CH3(pnk)

The P2 pix now shows CH2 connected directly to the top of C1 instead of the brown wire with all other connections remaining the same.  The bottom of the brown wire is not connected to anything.

P2 Scope shows the measurements.  We now see the C1 voltage measures 3.003v on CH2 while C1 measures 2.959v on CH3.

The brown wire in the core center hole is induced with a voltage equal to the induced voltage in C1.  Therefore, the voltage measured on the bottom of the brown wire is near zero.  This is exactly what is happening to the portion of the scope probe that is in the E-Field when connected to the top of C1.

IMO, it is obvious there is induced voltage on C1 as is measured in the P2 Scope measurements.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #438 on: 2024-09-23, 20:25:49 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Why am I even posting here?

Pm
   
img  Smudge
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #439 on: 2024-09-24, 11:57:13 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
@Pm,

Now do the same experiment with the big C replaced by a piece of wire.  Keep your brown wire there for the two measurements.  You will get exactly the same results.  It clearly shows the difference between a closed circuit that encloses flux and one that does not.   The piece of wire replacing the C has voltage induced into it but that voltage is not like a voltage drop when the wire is carrying current (it would require a huge current to get that equivalent induced voltage).  In the same token the voltage induced across that C is not the same voltage you would get by passing (changing) current through the C.  If you replaced that C with a low value resistor your two measurements would show different results but the one connected to the brown wire would not be zero, it would show the voltage drop across the resistor as a pulse due to the current through it, different resistors would show different voltage pulses there.  What I am trying to explain is that your claim that the C has that 3V across it cannot be used for energy calcs, it does not represent that 1/2CV2 value.  If you want to establish the energy in that C you must use the voltage as measured by the probe connected to the brown wire that is showing virtually zero volts.  A smaller C there would show more volts that would indicate its energy state.

Smudge 
   
img  Grumage
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #440 on: 2024-09-24, 13:18:07 »

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3099


Buy me a cigar
Quote from: partzman on 2024-09-23, 20:25:49
Why am I even posting here?

Pm

Dear Jon. Please don’t despair, I avidly read all your posts but sadly, because of my lack of knowledge I can’t really understand most of it. Your pursuit of OU however and the effort you make is, I’m sure  greatly appreciated by us all.  O0

Kind regards. Graham.



---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #441 on: 2024-09-24, 14:29:11 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-09-24, 11:57:13
@Pm,

Now do the same experiment with the big C replaced by a piece of wire.  Keep your brown wire there for the two measurements.  You will get exactly the same results.  It clearly shows the difference between a closed circuit that encloses flux and one that does not.   The piece of wire replacing the C has voltage induced into it but that voltage is not like a voltage drop when the wire is carrying current (it would require a huge current to get that equivalent induced voltage).  In the same token the voltage induced across that C is not the same voltage you would get by passing (changing) current through the C.  If you replaced that C with a low value resistor your two measurements would show different results but the one connected to the brown wire would not be zero, it would show the voltage drop across the resistor as a pulse due to the current through it, different resistors would show different voltage pulses there.  What I am trying to explain is that your claim that the C has that 3V across it cannot be used for energy calcs, it does not represent that 1/2CV2 value.  If you want to establish the energy in that C you must use the voltage as measured by the probe connected to the brown wire that is showing virtually zero volts.  A smaller C there would show more volts that would indicate its energy state.

Smudge

Smudge,

I will perform your suggested experiment above even though I already know the results.  They will be the same as with the capacitor in the core. 

I will also post a simple periodic OU demo later that proves there is both voltage and energy in the capacitor placed in the core's E_Field.

In the meantime, please look at the attached pix of my questioning ChatGPT on the subject.  I used png's so the Greek letters are preserved.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #442 on: 2024-09-24, 14:31:48 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Grumage on 2024-09-24, 13:18:07
Dear Jon. Please don’t despair, I avidly read all your posts but sadly, because of my lack of knowledge I can’t really understand most of it. Your pursuit of OU however and the effort you make is, I’m sure  greatly appreciated by us all.  O0

Kind regards. Graham.

Graham,

Thank you for your kind words!  O0  Just a little frustration showing!

Regards,
Pm
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #443 on: 2024-09-24, 15:48:35 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Smudge,

I going to skip the wire replacement for 'C' if you don't mind and go to the image below that represents the circuit in question.

This is a pictorial of the brown wire test I performed in post #437 and is a study of the potentials (rounded to 3v for simplicity) in the device. 

I think we would both agree with the measurement of 3v taken by Probe1 across 'Z' and the polarity shown.

Next is the measurement taken with Probe2a that shows 3v taken across 'C' with the polarity shown.

Last is the measurement taken with Probe2b at the bottom of the brown wire which is 0v.  The only way that the bottom of the brown wire could be at 0v is if 'C' also has a potential of 3v and therefore with the potentials across 'C' and the brown wire being equal at 3v, the bottom of the brown wire has to be at a potential of 0v.

Therefore, 'C' has a potential of 3v across it.

If you agree with this great, but if not, please explain.

Regards,
Pm
   
img  Smudge
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #444 on: 2024-09-24, 16:24:34 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
Quote from: partzman on 2024-09-24, 14:29:11
Smudge,

I will perform your suggested experiment above even though I already know the results.  They will be the same as with the capacitor in the core. 

I will also post a simple periodic OU demo later that proves there is both voltage and energy in the capacitor placed in the core's E_Field.

In the meantime, please look at the attached pix of my questioning ChatGPT on the subject.  I used png's so the Greek letters are preserved.

Regards,
Pm
Pm,
I understand your frustation at this, you are not alone as I suspect most people on this forum are as perplexed as you are.  May I suggest that the most interesting demo would be to use two capacitors like the 680pF one but say one double the value of the other.  Keep your brown wire there and scope the two voltages as you have just done.  I think the two different voltages you see will tell you a lot about how the induced current creates the charge/energy in each one.  The ChatGPT answers do not give the whole picture.  I cannot explain why the E field induced across the internal C dielectric does not create the same charge/stored energy that would occur if the C was charged in the normal manner.  Maybe it would do so if the dielectric was simply a block the size of the C and had its two electrodes top and bottom, but then that would be a very low capacitance value.

Smudge

P.S.  The hospice nurse has just been and my wife has only a week or so to live, she has terminal bowel cancer. 
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #445 on: 2024-09-24, 19:51:35 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-09-24, 16:24:34
Pm,
I understand your frustation at this, you are not alone as I suspect most people on this forum are as perplexed as you are.  May I suggest that the most interesting demo would be to use two capacitors like the 680pF one but say one double the value of the other.  Keep your brown wire there and scope the two voltages as you have just done.  I think the two different voltages you see will tell you a lot about how the induced current creates the charge/energy in each one.  The ChatGPT answers do not give the whole picture.  I cannot explain why the E field induced across the internal C dielectric does not create the same charge/stored energy that would occur if the C was charged in the normal manner.  Maybe it would do so if the dielectric was simply a block the size of the C and had its two electrodes top and bottom, but then that would be a very low capacitance value.

Smudge

P.S.  The hospice nurse has just been and my wife has only a week or so to live, she has terminal bowel cancer.

Smudge,

I can not put into words my feelings concerning your wife and yourself.  Hospice is very difficult on everybody!  I know 'cause I've been there and done that.  So I would say that we can shelve this discussion until later so you can focus on your wife!  We can sort all this out later.

Sincerest Regards,
Pm
   
img  Smudge
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #446 on: 2024-09-25, 10:05:48 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
Pm,
Thank you for your kind words.  Here we have a system where end-of-life care is provided by hospice nurses where the aim is to keep the care at home and only move to the hospice at the last minute.  This means I am at home with my wife who is bedridden and asleep most of the time so I have hours to just be here doing nothing.  Involving myself in your work is keeping me sane so please continue.

Regards
Smudge
   
img  Smudge
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #447 on: 2024-09-25, 11:17:12 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
Pm,

If you could kindly do the experiment with 680pF outside and 2x680pF=1360pF inside I would expect to see 2V across the 680pF, and -1V across the 1360pF measured at your brown wire that passes back through the hole.  If you use your current probe I would expect the initial mean current pulse multiplied by its width to agree with the voltages seen across each capacitance.  The system is still supplying an induced 3V across the two capacitances in series. 

If I am right then this experiment is not showing dielectric induction, it as merely driving current through two capacitors in series by normal induction.  However dielectic induction does exist.  If you place a lump of dielectric in the hole the induced E field there must polarise the dielectric.  Is there any way we can measure that polarisation?  What energy exchange takes place during that polarisation?  I think one way to get a handle on this is to record the input volts and current with nothing else there, just the primary winding.  Then place a cylindrical lump of high K dielectric in the hole to fill it.  Record again the primary input and compare with the previous result.  It may need an impossibly high dielectric constant to get measurable results, so try again with a cylindrical lump of copper that fills the hole.  If you do see a change between the two measurements you then need to rule out the change in self capacitance of the primary coil being the culprit or eddy currents being the culprit.  Perhaps do a run with thin copper foil against the inside surface of the primary coil to eliminate the former then use a cylindrical bundle of insulated copper wire to rule out the latter.

Smudge
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #448 on: 2024-09-25, 14:03:23 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-09-25, 10:05:48
Pm,
Thank you for your kind words.  Here we have a system where end-of-life care is provided by hospice nurses where the aim is to keep the care at home and only move to the hospice at the last minute.  This means I am at home with my wife who is bedridden and asleep most of the time so I have hours to just be here doing nothing.  Involving myself in your work is keeping me sane so please continue.

Regards
Smudge

Smudge,

You have the best possible situation under the circumstances.  My wife was in separate facility from our home as her care was rather intensive.

OK, we'll continue on!

Regards,
Pm
   
img  partzman
Re: partzmans board ATL « Reply #449 on: 2024-09-25, 16:16:47 »
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2232
Quote from: Smudge on 2024-09-25, 11:17:12
Pm,

If you could kindly do the experiment with 680pF outside and 2x680pF=1360pF inside I would expect to see 2V across the 680pF, and -1V across the 1360pF measured at your brown wire that passes back through the hole.  If you use your current probe I would expect the initial mean current pulse multiplied by its width to agree with the voltages seen across each capacitance.  The system is still supplying an induced 3V across the two capacitances in series. 

[snip]

Smudge

Smudge,

The following is the test you requested above.

Pix1 shows the layout.  I used a 1380pf in the core and the 680pf on the outside so we're not a perfect 2:1 but close.  The net series capacitance is then 455pf.

Pix2 shows the connections used for the Scope2 measurements.

Pix3 shows the connections used for the Scope3 measurements.

Pix4 shows the current probe position for the Scope4 and Scope5 (disregard the R2 trace) current measurements.

These voltage values are close to your predictions.  The mean current calculations are taken over a longer time period and an initial pulse period.  IMO, the current measurement calculations appear to be closer to be charging the 680pf rather than the series equivalent 455pf!

Regards,
Pm
   
Pages: 1 ... 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, 08:39:58