PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-12-05, 04:32:36
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Author Topic: Parametric Charging  (Read 36862 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
 author=partzman link=topic=3655.msg69375#msg69375 date=1535205791]


Quote
These are very interesting results, O0 but I think you forgot to attach the modified schematic.


Oop's
Modified circuit now attached to previous post  O0

Quote
What is the voltage step up or down ratio of the transformer that gives you the best performance?  Also, what is the core material?

Ok,the core material is ferrite.
Primary to secondary ratio unknown.
I will get turn ratio,inductance and resistance values for you tomorrow.
I believe the small step up transformers found in mains CFL bulbs would do the job.
Also he small step up transformers in the cheap cameras that are used to charge up the flash cap may also work.
Maybe one of the same type from an old CPU power supply would work.
The best results so far are achieved by the original one i tried,and are using for my posted results--that being the one from the 6 volt CFL(small fluro tube) camping lantern.
So many to try,so little spare time. C.C

Quote
I agree with your calculations on your post previous to the modified version and I also agree with your capacitive coupling analysis between primary and secondary.

Late last night I tried a single inductor version of your circuit and it did not produce your waveforms or any OU.  This would support the importance of capacitive coupling between windings rather than the importance of the leakage inductance.

It would seem that the capacitive coupling between primary and secondary is needed,as none of the transformers i tried void of capacitive coupling between primary and secondary windings worked--not even close.
In those cases,all power could be accounted for accurately.

This circuit of yours Pm could be the one,as measurements have been taken carefully,and the OU results are consistent  O0

What we need is a 555 PWM circuit with adjustable frequency that could be run from the energy being sent to C1.
The output from that is then looped back into the input.
I cant do much more with the measurements,or be more accurate than i have been,so a looped DUT is the next step.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
TM and PM,

i used the diagram on post #9 above to replicate using:

V1 = IXDN614PI MOSFET driver on 40V  (driven by my FG)
L1 = 322uH (measured) on 5cm OD former
C1 = 5.015uF (measured) 2x 10uF/50V WIMA caps in series
C2 = 3274pF (measured)
Mx = 4x IRF3205 MOSFETs
R1 = 14.86KOhm (measured) load resistor across C1

I think the resonance frequency is around the shown (screenshot) 441Khz. 
Probes are as indicated on the post #9 diagram (including the 4 turns for the current probe).
Blue marker is underneath the red marker on the left side
 
Not sure why i have a negative input power calculation (probe looks the righ way, see picture).
Could be the scope / probe needs some warmup time.

Anyway,  this is what i have at resonance, not sure what PM means on his table by sweep (ms).

Itsu

Hi Itsu

Perhaps make the turns on current probe the opposite direction.

Am i correct that the P/in is near 800mW ?,once inverted,or is it divided by the 4 turn ratio to give P/in of 200mW?.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad

Should not your circuit be as I have posted below with the addition of the red cables?

Just to clarify :)

Interesting stuff now coming out from all directions but in a similar area.

Regards

Mike 8)

Hi mike.

It is,but i forgot to add them in the schematics.
Thanks for pointing that out,and sorry if this has screwed anyone around--my bad.

Below is a pic of my actual circuit(as posted in reply 6),which shows all diodes soldered together.

Amended schematic below as well.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2456


Buy me a beer
OK Brad

thought it was a mistake, no problem this end, used to use diodes in this form to make variable capacitors for oscillators. As you change the voltage between them, so changes the capacitance between them ;)

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"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: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270
Hi Itsu

Perhaps make the turns on current probe the opposite direction.

Am i correct that the P/in is near 800mW ?,once inverted,or is it divided by the 4 turn ratio to give P/in of 200mW?.


Brad

I fauled up with the circuit, so i redid it on that same post.

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
TM and PM,

i used the diagram on post #9 above to replicate using:

V1 = IXDN614PI MOSFET driver on 40V  (driven by my FG)
L1 = 322uH (measured) on 5cm OD former
C1 = 5.015uF (measured) 2x 10uF/50V WIMA caps in series
C2 = 3274pF (measured)
Mx = 4x IRF3205 MOSFETs
R1 = 14.86KOhm (measured) load resistor across C1

I think the resonance frequency is around the shown (screenshots) 466Khz. 
Probes are as indicated on the post #9 diagram (including the 4 turns for the current probe).
Blue marker is underneath the red marker on the left side
 
Not sure the current probe is in the righ way, see picture, but this gives positive values (inverted the green trace).

It is too hard to tell for me so I'll describe what should be the correct direction.  The current probe arrow shows the direction of conventional current flow or the positive flow.  Picture the positive current leaving your generator and entering the start of your 4 turn loop and exiting the finish of the same loop that would connect to the coil.  The arrow should point in the direction of your finish wind or toward the coil.  I originally had the sense loop wound as you have but when I measured it's inductance it was like .15uH.  So, I wound a new one like in the pix attached with the loops separated and the inductance is not measurable.  I also profiled the sense loop with a 100 ohm 1% non inductive resistor from 10kHz to 5MHz to determine the correct divisor to use in the math calculation.  I realize you don't have that capability in your scope but that's OK since you can do the same thing as you have been by dividing the power input by 4 but just use the corrected number instead.  My setup measures a little low so my divisor is 3.883 at 500kHz for example.

Quote
Anyway, is this what i have at resonance, not sure what PM means on his table by sweep (ms).

When you run continuously with a proper load across C1, you want to run at a frequency that is higher than the resonance frequency you are now reaching.  I have determined the correct operating frequency and load from my 100ms scans and there is a maximum power level that will produce OU.  I will explain this later in another post.  I would recommend that you try increasing your frequency slowly while watching input power on your math channel and you should see the power level begin to reduce.  Eventually you should see the input drop below the output if the parametric capacitance curve is proper for the circuit values and frequency thus providing a gain.  The curve for this is dependent on the mosfets and will vary from my results as you used a different device.

The sweep (ms) indicates the horizontal time that the measurements were taken during a total sweep of 100ms.  IOW, the complete sweep was taken and stored or frozen, and then vertical cursors were placed at 10ms intervals from the start and all measurements were taken at those points in time and recorded into the table.  So a sweep (ms) of 30 means that the measurements of Pin and C1 volts were taken at 30ms from the start of the sweep and the rest is calculated. 

Quote
screenshot 1 is with input calcs (yellow x green = red) 6.2w / 4 =  1.55W     (/ 4 because the 4 turns on the current probe)
screenshot 2 is with output calcs (blue - purple= red)  91V across 14.86KOhm = 56mW

Itsu
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270

Thanks PM,

i will check on the current probe,  guess i had it the wrong way (top of the loop), so therefor i had to
invert the trace.   Also will spread the 4 turns evenly.

By the way, the output was not 56mW, but 557mW (P=U²/R = 91²/14860 = 8281/14860 = 0.557W (557mw).

Itsu
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270

PM,

i still do not get what you mean by sweep,  sweeping what?
Not the frequency (what i normally understand by sweeping).

You sweep time?   Is that not what a scope normally does?

Anyway, i increased my time base to 20ms/div. and used Single Seq. on the trigger menu, then started my FG.
This way i get a 20ms/div (about 9 div = 180ms) sweep from start of signal.
Is that what you mean?

I see a gradual increase in the blue and purple signals as well in the red math trace (blue - purple).
Also the current increases untill around 131ms where it levels of, see screenshot between blue cursors.

This is for a fixed frequency at 480Khz, going up further in frequency, the signals (blue and purple) drops strongly. 
Same when going down in frequency, at a certain point (say 420Khz), the blue and purple sigs drop, so we seem
to have a narrow bandwidth to work with (resonance?).

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
PM,

i still do not get what you mean by sweep,  sweeping what?
Not the frequency (what i normally understand by sweeping).

You sweep time?   Is that not what a scope normally does?

Anyway, i increased my time base to 20ms/div. and used Single Seq. on the trigger menu, then started my FG.
This way i get a 20ms/div (about 9 div = 180ms) sweep from start of signal.
Is that what you mean?

I see a gradual increase in the blue and purple signals as well in the red math trace (blue - purple).
Also the current increases untill around 131ms where it levels of, see screenshot between blue cursors.

This is for a fixed frequency at 480Khz, going up further in frequency, the signals (blue and purple) drops strongly. 
Same when going down in frequency, at a certain point (say 420Khz), the blue and purple sigs drop, so we seem
to have a narrow bandwidth to work with (resonance?).

Itsu

Itsu,

You basically have it except I used 10ms/div for the horizontal sweep to be able to reach a 100MS/s sample rate with my 350MHz scope.  IIRC, you have a higher bandwidth scope so you should be able to reach a higher sample rate.

Try using the 100ms window and adjust the frequency until the voltage across C1 peaks at or near the end of the sweep.  That frequency is what you will be using for the continuous loaded C1 testing.

Once you have captured the screen at that point, then measure the Pin and C1 volts at each 10ms division and document so you can calculate the COP for each 10 ms division.  Hopefully you will find that at the shorter sweep times you will have COP>1 and possible even clear to the end of the 100ms sweep although this is difficult to achieve.  I might add that my scope seems to take forever to make the individual calculations so it requires a lot of patience at this point.

An approximation of the amount of output power you can achieve can be done in this way.  Let's say you have a maximum COP at 40ms with an output energy calc of 1mJ.  Then potentially a Pout ~ 1e-3/40e-3 ~ 25mw can be achieved.  At this point determine the best resistor value experimentally by starting with say a 10k.  You can keep increasing the value until you see the voltage on C1 go to maximum which you don't want.  Due to the non-linearity of the circuit, it gets really touchy near this point as you will see I hope.

Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270

Thanks PM,

i will continue tomorrow, i think the optimum will be around 470Khz then (voltage across C1 peaks at the end of the sweep (100ms))

Meanwhile i ran across this screenshot at 450Khz:     :)

Itsu
   
Group: Guest
Sorry to interrupt but I'm posting in this thread since I can't post, or even SEE, the Dr. Jones thread when I'm logged in. The screenshots below illustrate the issue and problem.

When I first encountered this I got mad, I admit, because I thought I was being excluded from Yet Another Secret Thread for some reason. I actually stared at the "Delete Account" button for many minutes last night.  But now I see that others are experiencing the same problem.

1. When I'm not logged in I see the Jones thread listed, and I can view the thread normally.
2. If I'm viewing the thread and try to log in, I get this error message. Login succeeds but I am forbidden from seeing the thread at all.
3. When I'm logged in the thread doesn't even appear at all on the top contents page.


How many other threads are like this, I wonder. How many other members are also experiencing this problem? Would someone not even _know_ that some threads are totally invisible to that someone?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
Thanks PM,

i will continue tomorrow, i think the optimum will be around 470Khz then (voltage across C1 peaks at the end of the sweep (100ms))

Meanwhile i ran across this screenshot at 450Khz:     :)

Itsu

OK, this looks good and tells me you could raise the frequency say 5-10kHz at a time because the IRF3205s have hit their limit at ~60ms.  Increasing the frequency will move this limit to the right and ideally the peak voltage on C1 would be at the 100ms mark but it's OK to go a little beyond.  I think in doing this you will have OU somewhere perhaps at the lower sweep times because the IRF3205 is reasonably close to the specs for the 14N05L.

Pm

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
Sorry to interrupt but I'm posting in this thread since I can't post, or even SEE, the Dr. Jones thread when I'm logged in. The screenshots below illustrate the issue and problem.

When I first encountered this I got mad, I admit, because I thought I was being excluded from Yet Another Secret Thread for some reason. I actually stared at the "Delete Account" button for many minutes last night.  But now I see that others are experiencing the same problem.

1. When I'm not logged in I see the Jones thread listed, and I can view the thread normally.
2. If I'm viewing the thread and try to log in, I get this error message. Login succeeds but I am forbidden from seeing the thread at all.
3. When I'm logged in the thread doesn't even appear at all on the top contents page.


How many other threads are like this, I wonder. How many other members are also experiencing this problem? Would someone not even _know_ that some threads are totally invisible to that someone?

TK,

I don't know but it would appear to me that there is a problem with the forum software in regards to certain members yourself included.  I don't think it is anything malicious but purely coincidental.  I'm sure Peter is looking into it.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2456


Buy me a beer
TK, you sort of have it in reverse so it seems, how odd, don't login and you see all, login and don't see all, hmmmmm

Regards

Mike 8)

PS. now I know why you did not answer my questions :(


---------------------------
"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: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3270

I was busy today evening noting down the values of a 100ms sweep and catalog them for every 10ms which is a painstaking task.

But it does not look good.

I never came across a point where output is even close to the input.

Something like this (437KHz):

sweep time ms     input mW    voltage across 14.86KOhm    output mW
10                       127             8.25                                      4.6
20                       151           13.3                                      12
30                       374           18.5                                      23
40                       632           23.9                                      38
50                     1168           31.5                                      67
60                     2202           42.9                                    124
70                     3712           57                                       219
80                     4986           72.5                                    354
90                     4988           83.5                                    469
100                   3778           87.8                                    519

Will try some more different frequencies in the next few days.

Itsu                 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
I was busy today evening noting down the values of a 100ms sweep and catalog them for every 10ms which is a painstaking task.

But it does not look good.

I never came across a point where output is even close to the input.

Something like this (437KHz):

sweep time ms     input mW    voltage across 14.86KOhm    output mW
10                       127             8.25                                      4.6
20                       151           13.3                                      12
30                       374           18.5                                      23
40                       632           23.9                                      38
50                     1168           31.5                                      67
60                     2202           42.9                                    124
70                     3712           57                                       219
80                     4986           72.5                                    354
90                     4988           83.5                                    469
100                   3778           87.8                                    519

Will try some more different frequencies in the next few days.

Itsu                 

Itsu,

I know how painstaking it is to take these measurements so my hat is off to you for doing so.  O0 O0

Now, I must admit that I wasn't very clear in my explanation of the overall measurements as it appears you have made the 100ms sweep and taken the measurements correctly, but this should be done without any load resistor connected across C1.  I apologize for my lack of clarity on this point. :-[  The load resistor is connected only during a continuous test at the frequency where OU is seen somewhere during a sweep.

If you would please, re-run the same test without the 14.86k ohm resistor and log your results and let's see what your results are.

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

Posts: 1380
All,

This is a change in the circuit design from full wave bridge to full wave center tap reducing the parametric elements to two.  The results are interesting and require much more analysis but I'll post the info now anyway.

In the schematic below, T1 is trifilar wound with 15x34 litz wire separated out into 3 windings of 5x34 each on a T225-26B powdered iron core.  This results in a winding-to-winding capacitance of ~3.5nf.  The CSR used is a Caddock MP820 series 10 ohm 1% non-inductive film resistor.  This gives really accurate current measurements but at the cost of wasted energy.  This is added into the data table for the sweep measurements to arrive at a total net COP.

It should be noted that the input voltage measurement is taken ahead of the coupling cap and T1 so these losses are included in the measurements.

The operating frequency of 151kHz is the lowest to date and is partly due to the increase in parametric capacitance with the full wave center tap topology.  We are now approaching an area where really efficient oscillator/drivers can be built!!!

Anyway, from the data table we see the apparent COP without the loss in the CSR considered, and an apparent COPnet with the CSR lost energy added to the calculation.

The scope pix shows the 8ms sweep which is shorter than previous sweeps due to the charge curve difference from slight different circuit operation.  More on this later.

Regards,
Pm

Edit: Corrected missing L1 in schematic.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Ok,a little info on the small transformer that is giving the best results in my setup.

Primaries inductance value is very low at .1mH
Secondaries inductance value is 40.2mH

Resistance value across primary is 1.6 ohms
Resistance across secondary is 12.9 ohms

Below is a scope shot showing a supplied AC voltage(blue channel),and the resultant  ac voltage across the secondary(yellow channel)
The turn ratio seems to be around 21:1

I have not yet come across another transformer that will give the results this one dose,although i am yet to try one with the same turn ratio-dont have one.
So,will be winding one tonight,but on a larger core,with larger wire,in the hope of upping the power ratio's.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
Ok,a little info on the small transformer that is giving the best results in my setup.

Primaries inductance value is very low at .1mH
Secondaries inductance value is 40.2mH

Resistance value across primary is 1.6 ohms
Resistance across secondary is 12.9 ohms

Below is a scope shot showing a supplied AC voltage(blue channel),and the resultant  ac voltage across the secondary(yellow channel)
The turn ratio seems to be around 21:1

I have not yet come across another transformer that will give the results this one dose,although i am yet to try one with the same turn ratio-dont have one.
So,will be winding one tonight,but on a larger core,with larger wire,in the hope of upping the power ratio's.


Brad

Brad,

Thanks for taking these measurements.  O0

Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
All,

I guess I'm the one responsible for screwing up the members that were having login problems.  I was adding members to this list through the moderation tab and somehow the forum software changed individual membership parameters.  So, I sincerely apologize to any and all that had a problem  :-[ 

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
Brad,

Thanks for taking these measurements.  O0

Pm

I have found a large ferrite E core in one of my old computer power supplies,so I'll wind that tonight,and see what happens.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
All,

I guess I'm the one responsible for screwing up the members that were having login problems.  I was adding members to this list through the moderation tab and somehow the forum software changed individual membership parameters.  So, I sincerely apologize to any and all that had a problem  :-[ 



Regards,
Pm

I was hoping for more people to check my measurements,maybe this is the reason only you (Pm) have checked and confirmed my measurements?.

No blame of fault on anyones part.
Was just a software problem apparently.

Brad
« Last Edit: 2018-08-27, 09:45:42 by TinMan »


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3844


Buy me some coffee
There is definitely no blame towards partzman for the software problem, it's a shame the function does not work correctly ;)



   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1380
All,

Here is an updated data table in reference to the test device in post #41 which shows an additional COPb calculation which I believe to be correct. 

The original COP measurement does not take into consideration the loss in the CSR.  So, COPa adds the CSR loss to the output and then calculates the gain while COPb subtracts the CSR loss from the input before calculating the gain.  I believe the latter is correct if one considers KPL and the overall input power minus the CSR loss leaves the actual energy supplied to the remaining circuitry.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4409


Buy me some coffee
All,

Here is an updated data table in reference to the test device in post #41 which shows an additional COPb calculation which I believe to be correct. 

The original COP measurement does not take into consideration the loss in the CSR.  So, COPa adds the CSR loss to the output and then calculates the gain while COPb subtracts the CSR loss from the input before calculating the gain.  I believe the latter is correct if one considers KPL and the overall input power minus the CSR loss leaves the actual energy supplied to the remaining circuitry.

Regards,
Pm

It is odd that we both seem to be showing COPs of about the same value Pm

Are we both making the same mistake somewhere,or have we finally found the secret to a true energy amplifier ?


Brad.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-12-05, 04:32:36