PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-05-08, 14:14:58
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Captainloz Video 9 (showing COP = 2) replication.  (Read 3814 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
As i already made a similar coil setup as Captainloz uses, i could not resist a replication attempt of Captainloz his setup presented in his video #9: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6X9jQIAVt4"  in which he shows a COP of 2.

His circuit used there is slightly different from earlier ones as he now uses a variable cap to tune L2 for resonance.

As far as i can see his circuit used is shown in the diagram below.

The L2 and L3 coils are special as the inner parts (2/3) are folded back, see his video #5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk9uSOdj-hE&t    on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/Captainloz/videos

My replication can be seen here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLWkVofOCBk

The resulting input / output measurements are in the screenshots below,  some specifics layout in the picture.

Screenshot 1: input 60mW,  screenshot 2: output 30mW for a cop of 0.5

I was using only my FG as input (5V DC square wave @ 30% duty cycle) and i don't think using a MOSFET driven by a FG will result in a higher COP.

Only potential problem i see is the groundloop caused by the FG grounded black lead and the scope ground leads when measuring the output.

But using a battery operated FG did not show a drastic change.

As we have lots of RF showing up in the output, i can imagine it will be hard to make correct measurements especially when using long(er) wiring and higher input voltages.

Non-members can reach me via a PM on Overunity.com.

Regards Itsu
« Last Edit: 2020-09-27, 20:22:03 by Itsu »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1290
Itsu,

If you look closely at the video you referenced at the beginning, you will see that the output circuit capacitance is in parallel with the lamps.  IOW, he is measuring the capacitance reactance current in parallel with the resistive loads through the current sense resistor.  This will nearly always produce "OU" when configured this way.  Try paralleling your output capacitance with the load instead of series and watch your COP go up!

Regards,
Pm
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 78
Technique of measurement is the hardest part in electronics. When I bought an oscilloscope I found out that I hardly could use it correctly. It took some time to learn even the simplest measurements which were not simple at all.

I am a layman in electronics and it seems that the OU scene (and specially the most verbal and loud ones) are also mostly laymen. Therefore the many false claims. I also must claim OU really soon now, I have all the necessary qualifications (an oscilloscope and no technique).

Greetings, Conrad

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1290
Itsu,

Disregard what I said in my previous post and I was referring to his video #5 not #9!

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Technique of measurement is the hardest part in electronics. When I bought an oscilloscope I found out that I hardly could use it correctly. It took some time to learn even the simplest measurements which were not simple at all.

I am a layman in electronics and it seems that the OU scene (and specially the most verbal and loud ones) are also mostly laymen. Therefore the many false claims. I also must claim OU really soon now, I have all the necessary qualifications (an oscilloscope and no technique).

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad,

i agree, but despite you being a laymen in electronics (which in my perception you are no longer) i still will believe you when you claim OU or found propulsion with a gyroscope.  O0

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678

As suggested by  member picowatt on OU.com to compare the brightness of the used bulbs with a DC source i put my little bulb on my DC PS and put it to about the same brightness as when used on the AC circuit.

To compare the brightness via eyeballing is very rough, but it can show the difference between almost right and completly off.

My scope earlier came to 30mW and the DC methode came to 1V @ 34mA which is 34mW also, close enough.


Good suggestion, see video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh3sqQcHy4E

Itsu 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1367
As suggested by  member picowatt on OU.com to compare the brightness of the used bulbs with a DC source i put my little bulb on my DC PS and put it to about the same brightness as when used on the AC circuit.

To compare the brightness via eyeballing is very rough, but it can show the difference between almost right and completly off.

My scope earlier came to 30mW and the DC methode came to 1V @ 34mA which is 34mW also, close enough.


Good suggestion, see video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh3sqQcHy4E

Itsu

The issue of measuring output power crops up regularly. In my view, there is only one method which will convince most people, especially non technical ones. It is not always easy or possible but where possible, convert the output into a current which can be used to heat water and use: mass x temp rise x cal value. Obviously, with very small power levels, this may be difficult, if not impossible. But when achieved, sceptics have nowhere to hide.

 
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678

Hi Paul,   

i agree,  Chet also promotes this kind of measurements which also ION was a big fan of.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678

A replication is just that, a replication, there will be differences in the layout and components used which will make it hard to "grab" the correct sweep spot if there exist any.


I tried to follow the "Captainsloz coil setup" as close as possible, using the same thickess of wiring and length (see his Video #5), but the ferrite rings inside them are possible different in size and make, so the L2 and L3 coils came out a little less in inductance (71uH versus 90uH), but the L1 was the same (18uH).

Also the L2 and L3 inner windings (at 2/3) "foldback" was incorperated.

The L2 coil in combination with the variable cap was tuned to resonance which came out to be 830Khz (Like captainloz).

Max. output (30mW) was measured at this resonance, but i did not tune to a (sub)harmonic or "off" frequency yet.

The point of the replication was more to show the difficult waveforms due to the RF and the consequent difficulty to make precise measurements.

Very important in this matter is the post from Picowatt here:
https://overunity.com/18617/rant-caffe-asylum/msg551145/#msg551145

So a wire which has 10nH of inductance will have a reactance of 0.05 Ohm at the used 830KHz.

When using 0.1 Ohm csr's at this frequency, this is already half of that value, so i think it will be better to use 1 Ohm csr's and as minimal wire lengths to interconnect as possible.

Itsu
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1991
So a wire which has 10nH of inductance will have a reactance of 0.05 Ohm at the used 830KHz.
When using 0.1 Ohm csr's at this frequency, this is already half of that value, so i think it will be better to use 1 Ohm csr's and as minimal wire lengths to interconnect as possible.
Yes, high frequencies are notoriously hard to measure.  Also the skin-effect is a large factor at these frequencies.

Comparing the relative brightness of an incandescent light bulb with the RF current flowing through it to an identical bulb supplied by a known DC current is a pretty good way to measure OUTPUT power (it is not a good way to measure input power, though).  I prefer to use one of these automotive dome light bulbs because they have a straight (non-coiled) filament.
Eyeballing the brightness is a little "how you're doing" - as Dave would say.  A phototransistor (or a PV cell) attached to the bulb is more reliable.

The only thing about the behavior of this circuit that has a low yawn factor, is the appearance of high output frequencies from the low input frequencies ...however the square wave at the input already contains high-frequency components so after this consideration I wonder whether the high output frequencies will persist if the input is driven with a pure tone (sine wave).  Of course any diode is a non-linear component and can work as a frequency doubler ...but is this enough to explain the HF output?
« Last Edit: 2020-09-28, 23:38:48 by verpies »
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678

Presently i use a 1 Ohm csr to measure the current through the bulb, but it shows some fuzzyness (really RF??) on the blue current signal thus on the red math trace, see first post above (output.png).

In trying to increase the output measurement accuracy, i did not use a 0.1 Ohm csr as this makes the voltage drop across it smaller thus fuzzier thus less accurate, but instead i used a 10 Ohm csr.

The voltage drop is 10x higher, thus more stable and accurater.
But we now have to also calculate the power used by this csr as it is no longer neglectable.

Below screenshot 1 shows the signals and the calculated power across the bulb using a 10 Ohm 1% inductionfree csr which seems to get ride of the fuzzyness (no RF??).
I left the blue current trace value untouched, but it should be divided by 10 because of the 10 Ohm csr (so 31.7mA).
Instead i use the math output to divide by 10 so we see the correct output power (27.6mW).

Now we have to do the same for the power used by the 10 Ohm csr, so screenshot 2 shows the signals across and the calculated power of the 10 Ohm csr.
Again the the blue current trace value is untouched, but it should be divided by 10 because of the 10 Ohm csr (so 31.3mA).
Again also here i use the math output to divide by 10 so we see the correct output power (9.9mW).
 

Together they consume 27.6 + 9.9 = 37.5mW, the input 60mW says the same for a COP of 0.625.

One observation is that it looks like the output RF is gone while using a 10 Ohm csr (higher load?) which should make measurements (scope) easier.

Another observation is that the voltage and current across both the bulb and csr are in phase as is expected for resistive loads.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Yes, high frequencies are notoriously hard to measure.  Also the skin-effect is a large factor at these frequencies.

Comparing the relative brightness of an incandescent light bulb with the RF current flowing through it to an identical bulb supplied by a known DC current is a pretty good way to measure OUTPUT power (it is not a good way to measure input power, though).  I prefer to use one of these automotive dome light bulbs because they have a straight (non-coiled) filament.
Eyeballing the brightness is a little "how you're doing" - as Dave would say.  A phototransistor (or a PV cell) attached to the bulb is more reliable.

The only thing about the behavior of this circuit that is above the yawn factor, is the appearance of high output frequencies from the low input frequencies ...however the square wave at the input already contains high-frequency components so after this consideration I wonder whether the high output frequencies will persist if the input is driven with a pure tone (sine wave).  Of course any diode is a non-linear component and can work as a frequency doubler ...but is this enough to explain the HF output?

Quote
A phototransistor (or a PV cell) attached to the bulb is more reliable.

Yes, but needs to be put into a blackend box for max. accuracy.

Quote
The only thing about the behavior of this circuit that is above the yawn factor, is the appearance of high output frequencies from the low input frequencies

 :)    right, so could it be the load (or lack of) is causing this HF as with a 10 Ohm csr it looks dampened/gone.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678

Looking at the RF spectrum (9KHz to 250MHz) emmited by the coils shows strong RF, but hardly any difference between the 1 or 10 Ohm csr's.

Itsu
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1991
Looking at the RF spectrum (9KHz to 250MHz) emmited by the coils shows strong RF, but hardly any difference between the 1 or 10 Ohm csr's.
Even if you drive it with a kHz sine wave ?
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Driven with a kHz sine wave shows waaayyy less RF, both in amplitude as in frequency range.

I had to increase sensitivity and limit the frequency range to 50MHz to show anything.

But we see more RF generated with the 10 Ohm csr (mrk 2 -59dBm) compared to the 1 Ohm csr (-63dBm).

Mrk 1 shows the L2 resonance frequency, Mrk 3 and 4 are from outside somewhere.

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1290
Itsu,

I posted this at OUdotcom and will post here as well as it may be of interest-

All,

For those who might wish to replicate CaptainLoz's [CL] video #9, I have some info that is my opinion based on Chris's own words, scope pix, etc, that will perhaps help[ in your replication.

The POC schematic shown below is from Chris himself and is basically incorrect based on his scope pix of his secondary currents.  Using standard dot notation, if a positive voltage pulse is applied to L1 as he shows with the dot end being more positive than the non-dot end,  the dot ends of L2 and L3 will have a more positive voltage than the non-dot ends thus forcing the diodes D1 and D2 into conduction thereby forcing current to flow in L2 and L3 during the time that L1 is charging.  This is not in agreement with his scope pix which show that L2 and L3 conduct current during the collapse phase of L1.  This means the diodes D1 and D2 need to be reversed in order for this to be correct.  When both L2 and L3 conduct during the collapse phase of L1, Chris refers to this as the POCs are "slapping" together.  He also refers to the rising edge of the L2 L3 current waveforms as an "asymmetrical regauging" process!

The energy in L1 that is built during it's charging phase or time, must be discharged back to the power supply.  This means you must use a full or 3/4 bridge driver circuit.  A 3/4 bridge driver simply replaces the upper conduction mosfet for the side of the bridge that returns the energy from L1 to the supply with a Schottky diode.

You could also wind L1 as a bifilar coil and then one half of the bifilar would be used for the charging phase using a single low side mosfet, then use the other half of the bifilar for the return path to the supply with again a Schottky diode.  One must observe the dot convention for this to work.  The disadvantage to this latter method is the relatively large inter-winding capacitance created will produce higher frequency harmonics in L1.

Chris mentions resonance.  This could be in many different forms and Chris never reveals exactly which type of resonance he means.  So, we must take hints that he gives from CL's attempted replication and that is, the wavelength of the operating frequency is some fractional part of the length of wire used in the secondaries.

And referring to the pix below of Chris's bucking coils, this configuration works with a series connection as shown.  However, if a standard coil is center tapped with the start and finish wires connected together, we now have two paralleled coils that when driven between the tap and the start/finish, will also be bucking.  I mention this because of the need to carefully observe if L2 and L3 are truly bucking when they conduct under the above rules.

It is understood from Chris's videos that L1 is wound over say L2 for relatively tight coupling.  L2 is then used to drive the load while L3 has only the diode for conduction of current.  The duty cycle of the input pulse to L1 is typically ~10% but could vary depending on the build.

In the CL video #9, he places the output resonating across the diode.

And again sounding like a broken record, please use the maximum vertical deflection possible on your scope for all waveforms.

Also, anybody that is using the same Rigol scope as CL, please check to see if the Math result is in avg or rms and/or is selectable!

Regards,
Pm

PS:  Chris, please feel free to correct any of the above with DATA not stupid remarks!
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Hi Partzman,

thanks for your comments, they are most valuable  O0

But i am replication Captainloz his Video #9 setup (Asymmetrical Regauging 9) which has some changes from the diagram you presented above.

You say:
Quote
In the CL video #9, he places the output resonating (cap??) across the diode.
(i think you forgot the "cap" word) but that is not what i understood from his video's as i think he removed that diode and replaced it with the variable capacitor, see my modified diagram below.

Hopefully Captain can confirm this somehow and not let Chris do it for him as Chris did not replicate it himself (nor did anyone else yet).

Concerning the wavelength and length of wires used, In video #5 Captainloz showed the below shown writings and in a post on his thread the folowing data:

Quote
I started winding the coils from each end using the right hand grip rule, (current pointing into the middle). 
When you get to the middle just fold the wire over and come back on itself 7 turns, then fold the wire again and wind back to the start. 
So it's just 2 layers.
The torid OD is 62mm, ID is 35mm, 11mm thick. 
I got these about 10 years ago and I can't find the record of the type of ferrite.
I'm pretty sure I got them off Ebay.
Yellow wire is 14 AWG (L2 & L3)
Red wire is 2.5mm (L1)
General purpose diode's 6A05 - 1212
2 x 14V bulbs
1 x 12 V 7.5 wLED bulb
2 x WIMA 2kV, 2nF caps
Cheers,
Loz

Be aware; in a later video Loz changed the L2 / L3 coils to be wound FROM the inside to the ends, then back inwards and reverse direction the last 7 windings, ending all connections in the middle!


Presently i am building a coil set more according to those specs.

Itsu
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1991
Using standard dot notation, if a positive voltage pulse is applied to L1 as he shows with the dot end being more positive than the non-dot end,  the dot ends of L2 and L3 will have a more positive voltage than the non-dot ends thus forcing the diodes D1 and D2 into conduction thereby forcing current to flow in L2 and L3 during the time that L1 is charging.  This is not in agreement with his scope pix which show that L2 and L3 conduct current during the collapse phase of L1.
Very good PM, I did not expect such basic inconsistency in the schematic and did not analyze it in that much detail.  You did!
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1290
Verpies,

Thank you for your comment!

Itsu,

Here is the response to my post on OUdotcom of which I appreciate.  He has corrected me on his schematic-

   Partzman,

   If I were you, I would stop trying to correct, and follow the basic layout!

   Each Partnered Output Coil carry's a Current due to Electromagnetic Induction, each is the others Primary Coil - So claiming I am incorrect is Wrong! You need to follow basic well known rules here!


   Study Carefully:

   Quote from: Floyd Sparky Sweet link="http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Nothing%20is%20Something.pdf"


    The principle of superposition states that; "In order to calculate the resultant intensity of superimposed fields, each field must be dealt with individually as though the other were not present". The resultant is obtained by vector addition of each field considered singularly. Consider for a moment the construction of the triode which includes the bifilar coils located within the fields of the two conditioned magnets.

    When the current in one half of the conductors in the coils (i.e., one of the bifilar elements in each coil) of the device is moving up, both the current and the magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.

    The  resultant motional E-field would be vertical to both and inwardly directed.

    At the same time the current in the other half of the conductors in the coils is moving down and both the current and magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.

    The resulting motional E-field is again vertical to both and inwardly directed.

    Thus, the resultant field intensity is double the intensity attributable to either one of the set of coil conductors taken singularly.

    Expressed mathematically:

    E = ( B x V ) + ( -B x -V ) = 2 ( B x V )




   Now, Study Carefully: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsKoAu_X25A



   Quote from: EMJunkie on Today at 12:36:55 AM


   My Diagram is correct, change it, it wont work! Period!

   Each Coil has a Magnetic Field Changing in Time, this is directly related to the Changing Current! di/dt, you all should know this already!

   Electromagnetic Induction can occur more than once in a Single Machine! That's why This statement was made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa4nUEsBer8

   If your Partnered Output Coils do not Oppose, you have it wrong! Period!

   Again I define Magnetic Resonance: Each Current, in each Partnered Output Coil, is 180 Degrees out of Phase - Simple! Antenna Theory is the same basic Rules!



   You must stop trying to change things! It will not work if you change things! This is so Simple! Yet so easy to balls it up! Only if you don't follow the basic, simple, straight forward Rules already laid out!

   Shown below, when you have this all correct, the Input Power sent back to your Power Supply, can be greater than the Input Power Sent to the Coil! Input can become Negative!

   I am not posting on overunityresearch, I don't like that forum! I only post on My Forum and sometimes here.

   Best wishes, stay safe and well in these Dire Times,
   Chris Sykes

Regards,
Pm
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1883
partzman

Quote from EMJ
Quote
Shown below, when you have this all correct, the Input Power sent back to your Power Supply, can be greater than the Input Power Sent to the Coil! Input can become Negative!

This is a common mistake many novice experimenters seem to make when they cannot understand what there seeing on there DSO.

We charge a coil with a current having a known voltage polarity which produces a magnetic field. Then when the magnetic field collapses the current remains in a forward direction however the voltage polarity reverses. The novice then assumes the coil produced "negative electricity" because the positive input pulse above the zero plane is now below it at a higher voltage if the circuit resistance is higher. They then confuse the reversed polarity and higher voltage with a gain in energy when none is present.

The problems here are many...
1) there confusing a reversal of the voltage polarity with a reversal of the current flow when the current does not reverse.
2) there confusing a voltage rise/current fall with a gain in power or energy when none is present.
3) there confusing the voltage polarity displayed on the DSO above and below the zero plane with a state of charge ie negative electricity.

I know this because decades ago I made the same mistakes and see many others repeating them. So it's important to understand what were seeing on our DSO and how it relates to what's actually happening.

Another very common mistake relates to oscillations. We apply an input pulse to a coil with capacitance in the circuit and we see voltage oscillations. It is then assumed because we only applied one input pulse but many oscillations occurred more energy was present. However this is obviously not a gain in energy and the energy is simply being conserved not dissipating producing the oscillations. It's important to understand that voltage is not energy, voltage times current over a specific time period is energy.

Regards


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1991
partzman
Quote from EMJ
This is a common mistake many novice experimenters seem to make when they cannot understand what there seeing on there DSO.
You are preaching to the choir. IMO both Partzman and Itsu know this very well, although I can't speak for the others.

Take a look at the experiment I have done with Itsu a while ago, where an inductor was charged with current and next, the energy representing the product of this current and inductance was recovered in a capacitor. 
We accounted for all the energy losses in diodes, switches and resistances and even published a pie chart of them in MS-Excel. @Itsu: Can you find a link to that pie chart or thread ?

Another very common mistake relates to oscillations. We apply an input pulse to a coil with capacitance in the circuit and we see voltage oscillations
I also agree with you that LC resonances and TL reflections can generate decaying oscillations from a single pulse, but I do not think they should generate a wide spectrum of frequencies after the input pulse terminates.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1290
Itsu,

In addition to my post #15, there is another factor that Chris has never answered [among other things] and that is, whether of not he is gapping the Metglas cores he uses.  It is very difficult to saturate a core when two bucking windings are driven even with high current.  This fact can be used to make extremely small high current inductors that don't saturate.  Since he avoids answering this point, it may be important.

If you are placing the POC windings on the same core leg and close together, I would wind the primary as close as possible to where the two POCs meet.  This will give opportunity for the "squeezed" flux between the POCs to possibly influence the primary during the discharge phase back to the power source.  Just a thot!

I also don't think it is important to counter-wind the POCs, just make sure they are providing bucking flux in the core.  An easy way to confirm this is to do inductance measurements of the two coils in series and use the connections that provide the lowest inductance and I'm sure you already know this.

Regards,
Pm

 
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1883
Verpies
Quote
You are preaching to the choir. IMO both Partzman and Itsu know this very well, although I can't speak for the others.

I would agree, and my post was basically directed at others not so much partzman.

Quote
Take a look at the experiment I have done with Itsu a while ago, where an inductor was charged with current and next, the energy representing the product of this current and inductance was recovered in a capacitor.

I hope this doesn't sound like nitpicking but I have a problem with the term "inductance" because it doesn't really describe anything per say. It's an enigma within electrodynamics in my opinion. At which point, I should point out I am about to ramble just as I did in my response to partzman and this is not directed at you specifically.

I begs the question what is "inductance", here is the completely nonsensical definition on the web which many consider normal for reasons I cannot begin to understand... "In electromagnetism and electronics, inductance is the tendency of an electrical conductor to oppose a change in the electric current flowing through it". So inductance is an opposition to an electron current?, well no that's mental because there trying to describe lenz law which is in fact a specific effect caused by an expanding/contracting magnetic field causing an opposing force on the electrons in a conductor which carry an electric field with them in the conductor which is the cause of why there motion is inhibited. 

Not to mention the fact there are countless ways in which to "induce" a force on the electrons in a "conductor" and I use that term liberally, causing them to move a predetermined path. Here is a hint, I once charged a capacitor bank to some 300kV, I then discharged said capacitors through a magnetically quenched rotary spark gap around 1" in the smallest period of time I could manage. This energy was transferred to an 8" stainless sphere in such a short time period that the electrodynamic forces on the sphere caused it to eject particulate matter(radiant energy ie moving outward from a center) charged to a high potential. This was the cause, the effect was that any conductor within a given proximity out to 36" or more was "induced" with a potential equal to the number of particles ejected and the magnitude of charges they carried with them which then dispersed causing a current to flow in said conductor. This qualifies as "induction", as Faraday and Ampere initially described it in there literature which begs the ultimate question why anyone would degrade the substance of there vast work to something as simplistic as... an opposition to a change in electric current?. It is, to be honest, degrading to the magnitude of there work in my opinion.

Now for most I suspect this means little but for some I hope the wheels started turning. Follow the line of reason, Induction... but not induction as most know it, charged particles being ejected through a distance because of a radiant event through a spark gap. We could enclose the gap with cylindrical layers of conductors and route the radiant energy to any number of contrivance such as electrical motors for an automobile?. The unfortunate truth is that if someone described this invention to me I could tell you the inventors whole history, who he associated with, his literature, his theory and the science behind it from memory. So who do you suppose this inventor is?, obviously not me however his work speaks for itself.

The unfortunate truth is that we have to do our homework because better men and minds than us solved all these problems a very long time ago. So let's throw it out there... you tell me who invented what I described and I will tell you how it works.

Regards





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2678
Compare between my new coil set and CaptainLoz (CL) his (see his data above):
 
L2 and L3 are wound inwards to outwards and back in (bucking, least inductance).

                                                                      me                           CL
Ferrit diameter/circumference:                       66mm/239mm            62mm/207mm
L2 / L3 wire length:                                     8m +25cm leads         8m +5cm / 8m +1cm leads
L2 / L3 wire thickness                                      1.4mm                  1.6mm (AWG14)
L2 / L3 nbr layers / turns                                   2 / 36                       2 / 34
L2 / L3 Last turns (inside) folded back                     8                             7
L2 / L3 inductance                                      96uH @ 100KHz          90uH @ 200KHz

L1      Wire length                                       4m +25cm leads             4m +10cm       ?
L1      wire thickness                                         2mm                         2.5mm
L1      nbr layers / turns                                     1 / 16                       1 / 14
L1      inductance                                       37uH @ 100KHz            18uH @ 200KHz    <========?

Not sure why my inductance of L1 is twice of CL his coil, when looking at his red L1 coil in video #5 i see about 14 turns, diameter former must be about 68mm (62mm ferrite + 2x2 turns 2mm makes 68mm) which has a circumference of 231.6mm x 14 turns = 2.9m.

So is his L1 really 4m?   Hopefully he can answer.

I will be using this coil set for new tests for now.

Itsu
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-05-08, 14:14:58