PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-06-24, 15:36:38
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 4126 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2921
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

 


Thanks PM, 

good to know.

I want to stay as close to CaptainLoz his setup.
He does not use Metglas and has his L1 coil on the outer parts of L2 / L3.

Also the counter-wind parts of L2 / L3 are his idea i think, so following that too.

I have verified that the L2 / L3 coils are coupled as bucking (when putting them in series), but they are not in series connected in the circuit used.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2921
Initial measurements with the new coil setup (for specs, see above).

I had to re-adjust the resonance frequency of L2 due to the higher L1 inductance.
Its now tuned to 690KHz (with the variable cap only set to max. = 692pF).

Still using the FG only, so with 5Vpp DC square wave @ 34% duty cycle (same as CaptainLoz used).

Input measurent using a 1 Ohm 1% inductionfree csr in the L1 supply lead, see screenshot 1
Output measurement using a 10 Ohm 1% inductionfree csr (divided the math value by 10) see screenshot 2

So with the new coil set, we have input 71mW, output 26mW for a COP of 0.36.

I will now increase the input voltage to 30V by using a MOSFET driven by the FG.

Regards Itsu.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2178
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".
How about the simplest definition L = Φ / i   ...or how many Webers you get from an Amp.

Also, this is illuminating.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2178
Initial measurements with the new coil setup (for specs, see above).
It would be nice to see how much of the output waveform is caused by the diode.
So next time you do your measurements please short the diode and open it to see what difference it makes.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1328
It would be nice to see how much of the output waveform is caused by the diode.
So next time you do your measurements please short the diode and open it to see what difference it makes.

This is an excellent suggestion because if the circuit polarities are as Chris claims they are, no diodes should be needed due to the fact that the output di/dt never goes below zero.  At least  not in the experiments I ran!

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2921
You mean diode D1 (as thats the only diode in my present (and captainLoz) circuit, see below)?

Shorting D1 makes no difference for the output, open it increases the output on the bulb to 29mW (so + 3mW).

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1328
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.

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.

First I agree there is much confusion about this on the forums.  I could be wrong, but I think that EMJ's drive circuitry is a full bridge.  He makes and sells the drive circuit pcbs to his followers along with his current sensing pcb.  In this case, he could be and appears to be directing the collapsing field of the primary back to the power supply.  What doesn't make sense in his scope shots is that they indicate he is gating the supply voltage and the voltage source is very "soft" due to the relative voltage increase during the primary collapse phase.  Having used this type of input circuitry for many years, something just isn't right about all that!  Of course I've quizzed him on this and got nothing in response.

Quote
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.

I agree and would add that the average of any measurement of ring-down oscillation in an inductive circuit be it voltage, current, energy, or power, will be the same as if the parasitic capacitance creating the oscillation wasn't there.  No gain mechanism available here.

Regards,
Pm

Quote
Regards
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1328
You mean diode D1 (as thats the only diode in my present (and captainLoz) circuit, see below)?

Shorting D1 makes no difference for the output, open it increases the output on the bulb to 29mW (so + 3mW).

Itsu

Chuckle~! C.C  Yes, this is what I meant.  The reason the output increases when that secondary is opened is that the leakage inductance created by the shorted secondary is gone.

If Chris is correct about the polarity connections on his POC circuit, consider the fact that the flux present in the core or air, can only change in magnitude over time due to di/dt but at no time is any additional flux or H field added to the circuit to provide a gain.  Now if the secondaries only conduct during the "off" time of the primary, [IOW reverse the diode connections] there may be some magic in the collapsing primary driving the connected secondaries through the leakage inductances.  This so called "leakage inductance" can store energy which few are aware off!

I know you are intent on replicating CaptainLoz's circuit and if he is still claiming OU at this point in time, it may be worth it.  For my 2cents, I don't think he has OU.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2921
Thanks PM,

as far as i know, CaptainLoz has not retracted his COP = 2 claim, as that is what he was seeing on his scope.

I am sure that if he finds an error or otherwise finds out what is wrong he will come forward with it.

I only am amazed by the fact that he seems to have no time to work on his COP = 2 circuit as that is what everyone is looking for, but then again, life takes priorities sometime.

When reversing the D1 diode in my circuit, the output on the bulb goes down to 22mW.

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1328
Itsu and AC,

I think I was wrong when I said Chris was using a full bridge circuit to drive the primary.  He appears to be using a high side switch only at least based on his own posting on his forum.  The info below is taken from-

http://www.aboveunity.com/thread/the-input-coil/?order=all#comment-3d85527c-c560-48b5-a0af-ac44014c1e7c

If the pix below is what he is using to switch the primary, there is no path for the collapsing current to reach the power supply.  What there is however, is a path for the avalanche current of the P-channel mosfet to draw current from the power supply!  IOW, what he thinks is returned current is actually additional current draw from the supply.  This is his circuit gain for OU IMO!

To confirm this, I need to study his schematic which he supplies on his forum somewhere but all I see on the driver pcb that CaptainLoz is using in video #9 is one, large case semiconductor.

This would explain why he states that when a load is presented on the POC, the returned current increases.

If this is how he and all his followers drive the primary of his POCs, there is no OU!

The second pix shows the scope waveforms from his schematic.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2921

PM,

i have no idea what CaptainLoz is/was using for driving his L1 coil, i understand a MOSFET, but how it is connected i have no idea.


I used a MOSFET driven by a MOSFET driver and put also 30V on the drain, but the L1 was connected to the drain, not the source.

See video which i will upload now.

Intense RF and HV is present, so very hard to make good measurements.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2921
I used a MOSFET and MOSFET driver driven by my battery operated FG.
Frequency set to resonance (940KHz) and with square wave @ 34% duty cycle.
Drain voltage was 30V and pulling about 1.1A (30W input).

Output was a pair of 12V/5W automotiv bulbs in parallel driven to full brightness.
Output measurement was done with a 1 Ohm 1% inductionfree csr and resulted in 12.7W output.

Input measurements are impossible using the scope due to the HV and intense RF causing all kind of problems in the equipments, even not connected Spectrum Analyzers etc.
I had to use some heavy common mode chokes and decoupling caps in the drain supply line and MOSFET driver leads to get the PS to work kind of stable.

No wonder CaptainLoz had his first scope fried.

Need to find a way to screen off the measurement equipment, but it goes without saying that adequate measurements are very hard to do.

Video from the setup and output measurement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwqL076SIhI

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1328
Itsu,

Yes, I watched your video and there certainly is a lot of harmonics present.  So, you are using what would be termed low side switching with an N-channel mosfet.  What is the number of the mosfet or, check to see what the maximum Vds is as the avalanche will occur somewhere above this rating.

I've looked on the AU forum but have yet to find Chris's schematic for his driver board.  He may have taken it out of public view.  The more I think about it, I'm sure this mistaken assumption on his part is the source of his OU with his POC device.

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

Posts: 1328
OK, a little confirmation that Chris uses a single high side mosfet in his circuit but he also say that a low side will work as well as long as...... well you take a look at the pix below.

As AC said, Chris has a misconception of the reverse voltage that appears during the collapse of the primary.  He believes that the internal substrate diode or an external diode feeds energy back to the primary because of these diodes.  Wrong!  The only thing that happens is the avalanche of the mosfet due to exceeding the Vds breakdown limit or at a minimum he will charge and discharge the drain to source/gate capacitance of which neither will put energy back to the supply but instead will require energy from the supply.  Oh my!

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2178
There is a certain way to recover the energy stored in L1.  This also protects the MOSFET from D-S overvoltage.
Namely using a double wire cable for L1 and connecting it like in this circuit.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1328
There is a certain way to recover the energy stored in L1.  This also protects the MOSFET from D-S overvoltage.
Namely using a double wire cable for L1 and connecting it like in this circuit.

Yes, I agree and suggested this method in my post #15.  But, this is not the connection method used in EMJ's POC.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2921

PM,

the MOSFET i use is a "9R500C", 900V, 0.5 Ohm Rdson, 11A cont.
I knew there would be nasty spikes at 30V, so choose a HV one, but even then.

verpies,

that looks familiar,  but it won't avoid all that nasty RF being spread around and making scopes rattle and SA's beep i think.

Anyway, i may do some further tests using this new coil set, but at lower voltage.
I would like to make some input measurements using the scope and not rely on the input measurement via the PS's which CaptainLoz did, but even this doesn't look good:

Input:    PS1 30V/1.1A = 33W    PS2 12V/016A = 1.92W       Total 34.92W    (not including the battery driven FG for now)
Output:  12.7W   (lightning up brightly 2x 12V/5W automotiv bulbs parallel.
COP:      0.36

I do hope CaptainLoz will interact somehow as i cannot believe that someone pursuing overunity can sit on a device showing a COP = 2 and go on doing other things.

Regards Itsu
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3566
Topics seem locked at Stefan’s forum ! ?

I agree claim is enormous !

If he is a captain.. you are away for long times depending
On work?


   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2921

Quote
Topics seem locked at Stefan’s forum ! ?

Yep, seems like it, same as:

Partnered Output Coils - Builders Group - Moderated!   and    RANT CAFFE ASYLUM

typical.


Quote
If he is a captain.. you are away for long times depending On work?

Hmmm,    could be, but i doubt it.


Itsu
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2178
that looks familiar,...
Yup

...but it won't avoid all that nasty RF being spread around and making scopes rattle and SA's beep i think.
It actually will suppress all oscillations above V2 significantly via C1 which also absorbs the inter-winding capacitance.
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2420


Buy me a cigar
Yep, seems like it, same as:

Partnered Output Coils - Builders Group - Moderated!   and    RANT CAFFE ASYLUM

typical.


Hmmm,    could be, but i doubt it.


Itsu

A bit like " locking the stable door after the horse has bolted " see screenshot below.

The string of recent events that saw several members moderated has totally ruined OU.Com's credibility IMO.

Keep up the great work guys.   O0

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1328
All,

Since CaptLoz is not responding to Itsu, I will propose the input scheme I believe Chris is using for his device.  I had stated earlier that there is no way for a single mosfet circuit to return energy to the power supply but that is not correct and I know better from past experience so, I'm blaming my 79 years young as the problem! 

Anyway, I've attached a schematic and scope pix of the input circuit and will explain how it works.  Ch1(yel) is the input pulse to the mosfet, CH2(blu) is the power supply voltage, CH3(pnk) is the output voltage across the drain, CH4(grn) is the current in L1, and Math(red) is the input power.

Initially, L1 is connected between + and ground via M1 and current begins to ramp up linearly.  At a given point in time M1 is turned off and the current in L1 starts to fall as the voltage across L1 attempts to reverse.  This action can not happen instantaneously however due to the capacitance that appears at the mosfet drain or Coss plus the parasitic capacitance of L1.  So, this total capacitance will begin to charge and we will see a half sine wave at the output of the drain as long as the mosfet is not going into avalanche.  When the voltage across the capacitance has reached a peak, the energy it contains will nearly equal the energy stored in L1 and the current in L1 will be zero.

Now, the charged capacitance will use L1 for the discharge path back to the + power source and will discharge back to zero volts and the current in L1 will now be negative and nearly equal to the positive peak current reached during the charging phase.  This is when the energy stored in C1 returns to the power supply as seen by the negative current and power on the scope traces.  Notice the relatively low net average input power of 43.7mw when the average input power for just the positive half of the cycle is 747.7mw in the 2nd scope pix.

I personally did not use this type of input circuit when testing my variations of the POC device but will give it another try to see if there is any possible OU.

Regards,
Pm
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1926
Chet
Quote
Topics seem locked at Stefan’s forum ! ?
I agree claim is enormous !
If he is a captain.. you are away for long times depending
On work?

Yes Stefan locked the threads and it was about time in my opinion. Chris and friends managed to spam and degenerate almost every thread at OU and it begs the question why. Why spam and gaslight so many people through open and moderated threads when they have there own forum?.

As well, the claim by Captainloz is not enormous because nothing was proven to date. It was just another baseless claim we have all seen before hundreds of times in the past all of which could not be replicated or proven.

In fact, I have written a couple of electrodynamics related science papers recently which require rigorous and accurate proof through meaningful justification and real data. This is what a professional format should look like...https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/scientific-papers-13815490/. Most people have no idea what it takes to write a science paper nor the amount of work, justification and proof required just to prove something relatively simple. So as you can imagine when I see all this hocus pocus posted in the forums and people jump in head first I have to question there motives.

In my opinion all this hearsay and gaslighting nonsense needs to end which was why everyone was justified in being so critical and Stefan was right in closing the threads. They were not proving anything, they were gaslighting people through sheer repetition and that's not good science.

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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1926
I would also point out that what Partzman and Itsu are doing is what good science should look like. Doing some meaningful theorizing with justification to support the theory and real experiments. We need more of this kind of quality work in my opinion.

With that in mind, I'm almost done my new Arduino FE/efficiency detector based on input/output capacitors. I haven't added that much that qualifies as tangible to the FE community lately and I think this can help. No more DSO's or expensive equipment would be required and a $50 device can give us 100% reliable and meaningful data. The only real limitation is the power handling capability which peaks at around 100 watts on my setup.

A science paper will also published with all the relevant schematics, components, testing, data graphs and the results. In my opinion the key is removing all the uncertainty and ambiguity we see out there and this is a step in the right direction.

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: 2921
All,

Since CaptLoz is not responding to Itsu, I will propose the input scheme I believe Chris is using for his device.  I had stated earlier that there is no way for a single mosfet circuit to return energy to the power supply but that is not correct and I know better from past experience so, I'm blaming my 79 years young as the problem! 

Anyway, I've attached a schematic and scope pix of the input circuit and will explain how it works.  Ch1(yel) is the input pulse to the mosfet, CH2(blu) is the power supply voltage, CH3(pnk) is the output voltage across the drain, CH4(grn) is the current in L1, and Math(red) is the input power.

Initially, L1 is connected between + and ground via M1 and current begins to ramp up linearly.  At a given point in time M1 is turned off and the current in L1 starts to fall as the voltage across L1 attempts to reverse.  This action can not happen instantaneously however due to the capacitance that appears at the mosfet drain or Coss plus the parasitic capacitance of L1.  So, this total capacitance will begin to charge and we will see a half sine wave at the output of the drain as long as the mosfet is not going into avalanche.  When the voltage across the capacitance has reached a peak, the energy it contains will nearly equal the energy stored in L1 and the current in L1 will be zero.

Now, the charged capacitance will use L1 for the discharge path back to the + power source and will discharge back to zero volts and the current in L1 will now be negative and nearly equal to the positive peak current reached during the charging phase.  This is when the energy stored in C1 returns to the power supply as seen by the negative current and power on the scope traces.  Notice the relatively low net average input power of 43.7mw when the average input power for just the positive half of the cycle is 747.7mw in the 2nd scope pix.

I personally did not use this type of input circuit when testing my variations of the POC device but will give it another try to see if there is any possible OU.

Regards,
Pm

PM,

thanks for the confirmation/visualisation that energy is being returned to the PS.

Its good to mention you use the vertical (green) cursors to measure a specific timeframe and that the lower box value's are representing that data.

I was trying the same using a 5mH coil, but was not able to get the same traces, probably you are using different frequency / duty cycle / MOSFET.

Anyway, do you use a HV probe for the purple CH3 as 471V becomes nasty already.

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


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-06-24, 15:36:38