PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-08-16, 14:24:12
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: A Melnichenko effect replication  (Read 2897 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Thanks, PM,   this remanence could play a role, but this asymmetry would show up in a hysteresis curve i guess?

Not that that easy is to check.

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1506
Thanks, PM,   this remanence could play a role, but this asymmetry would show up in a hysteresis curve i guess?

Not that that easy is to check.

Itsu

Actually, the more I consider this, I think that the possibility of remanence playing a part in Melnichenko's device is not probable.  The reason being the core material IMO is not reaching a non-linear or saturation point in the hysteresis curve.  IOW, the hysteresis curve will be very flat on itself and would thus exhibit very little remanence.

Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

New BIGGER L2 coil made using 3 stacked ferrite toroids as core, see picture below.

L2 core 8.6cm long @ 5cm diameter, coil 8.6cm long 66 turns (3 layers of 22 turns) 3.4mm stranded wire, 0.3 Ohm DC resistance

L2 standalone                 660uH @ 1KHz
L2 inside L1                    655uH @ 1KHz

L1 standalone                 726uH @ 1KHz
L1 with L2 inside            1083uH @ 1KHz
L1 with L2 inside shorted  595uH @ 1KHz

Coupling coefficient K      0.67   ( https://www.e-magnetica.pl/calculator/magnetic_coupling_coefficient )


I will do some measurements with this new L2 coil.


Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487


Please check edited data below in bold



I did some measurements on this new BIGGER L2 coil made of 3 stacked ferrite toroids as core

Using a 100 Ohm 1% induction free resistor as lamp1 and a 12V / 5W lamp as lamp2, i have a 219 / 211V BEMF spike across L1 @ 36V input voltage.

FG:1.5KHz @ 10% duty cycle


The input power in that situation is:

with lamp2 load off:   3.2W
with lamp2 load on:   3.2W   


The power into the 100 Ohm lamp1 load is:

with lamp2 load off:   3.2W
with lamp2 load on:   2.1W   


The power into the lamp2 load is:

with lamp2 load off:    0mW
with lamp2 load on: 855mW     some light in the 12V / 5W lamp


At 36V input voltage, the lamp2 load when switched on does take / shares its power from Lamp1 once again.

Efficiency with:

Lamp2 load off:  3.2W /  3.2W = 1      = 100%            Max. efficiency up till now with L2 off
Lamp2 load on:  2.95W / 3.2W = 0.92 = 92%         

EDIT:

The 100% efficiency in the above efficiency results should have warned me that something was wrong.

I tried for several days now to remeasure this circuit, but i am not able to come to the reported 100%, so very probably
i made some mistake somewhere in the measurements.

The new measurements over several days are all very close to each other so my new results with this bigger L2 coil should be:

The input power is:


with lamp2 load off:              3.36W
with the lamp2 load on:       3.36W 

the power into the 100 Ohm lamp1 load is: 
 
with lamp2 load off:           3.04W
with lamp2 load on:           1.98W

The power into the lamp2 load is:

with lamp2 load off:          0mW

with lamp2 load on:    894mW

Efficiency with:

Lamp2 load off:             3.04W /  3.36W = 0.90       =   90%                                                   
Lamp2 load on:              2.87W /  3.36W = 0.85       =   85%     


Itsu
« Last Edit: 2022-08-08, 20:02:38 by Itsu »
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 967
Hi Itsu,

Congratulations on achieving the 100 % efficiency, I assume you were surprised to measure that.  This is a great progress from the 70-80 % efficiency range you experienced so far with the previous tests.
Thanks for all your arduous efforts.

Gyula
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Hi Gyula,


yes, I was surprised about the 100%, I will redo these tests tonight once again to be sure.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Above measurements redone, now checking for 2 decimal digits (for what its worth), but basically it had the same results.

The power into the 100 Ohm lamp1 load is "with lamp2 load off:   3.18W" instead of 3.2W, which makes the efficiency with "Lamp2 load off:" 99.6%

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Doing some screenshots on my present "ORIGINAL Melnichenko" circuit, see diagram.




First screenshot is showing the voltage / current across / through L1 (trigger point) in yellow / green together with
the voltage / current across / through  L2 in blue and purple.

My interpretation of the signals are noted in the screenshot.



The second screenshot is of a frequency sweep while monitoring the voltage across L1 in yellow and L2 in blue while the circuit was unpowered.
I loosely couple (1 turn) a sweeping FG with L1 while recording the voltage across both coils.



Never i have read that Melnichenko uses resonance to accomplish his free energy, but its nice to know where the coils resonance points are and
as can be seen they are way up in frequency like 100KHz for L1 and 680KHz for L2.
Sweep is from 10Hz to 1MHz, so basically we have 100KHz / division.
The red line is the used 1.5Khz pulse frequency.

I have up till now with all my Melnichenko experiments seen NO sign of any abnormalities on the scope nor as an effect in the lamps.
So i guess its time for other replicators to show their circuit, their in- / output measurement results, their signal screenshots and their abnormalities noted, especially
with COP > 1.   

Until then i will work on my present original Melnichenko setup as it has the highest efficiency up till now and trying to improve on.


Regards Itsu 
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 838
Itsu,

Thank you for your comprehensive professional report.

I can basically confirm your findings. I varied the input frequency for maximum lamp brightness then observed that just the addition of a core diminished the inputs lamp brilliance. The addition of a core and coil/lamp diminished it still further as the output of coil two came at the expense of coil one's output.

I was waiting for certain people to publish the secret, hasn't happened.

Ron
« Last Edit: 2022-08-08, 00:48:47 by ronee »
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Hi Ronee,

thank you for revealing your results, i did see them also on aboveunity.com.

Yes, i hope more people who are replicating and have better results come forwards with their results, so we can see where we go wrong.

Regards Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487
Concerning the polarization of L2 in the above screenshot with the voltage and currents, it deliberately is chosen that way so that the power induced into L2 comes from the "demagnetization phase" aka "collapsing magnetic field phase" aka the "bemf phase" of the cycle, as that is, according to Melnichenko and Jagau, where the free energy comes from.
Jagau correct me when wrong!


The below screenshot is from when the L2 connections are swapped, so showing the other polarization effect of L2:






We see that now the Power into L2 is induced during the magnetization phase of the cycle which is, according to melnichenko and Jagau, NOT where the free energy comes from.
Jagau correct me when wrong!

If those signals are still wrong, even when they are coming from a close replication of the circuit used by Melnichenko, then the circuit is wrong or the effect claimed is not there.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Concerning replications:


When an inventor (Melnichenko) or a replicator (Jagau) claims a certain effect (like COP > 1 by both),  and REQUESTS other replicators to join them to confirm this claim,
it is IMHO the DUTY of the claimant to provide the replicators with ALL information needed to come to the same result (COP > 1).

If you want to entertain people by presenting puzzles to them, you should not REQUEST for replicators to join, but puzzle enthusiasts.


Throwing bread crumbs and expecting the replicators to figure out how it works without showing the used circuit, some in- and output measurements, components used, etc.
will quickly raise the suspicion that the claimant does NOT have anything special to show and is provoking the replicators to connect the dots and find the effect for him.

I know Jagau is not such a person and there are probably some other factors involved why he is so reluctant to provide details of his working circuit, but this leads to
nothing and only gets the honest working replicators frustrated (not to mention the costs involved).

We are all in this for the benefit of humankind, so playing games on "who is the best" or "who is light years ahead" or "who knows it all" is childish the least and bordering to unacceptable behavior IMO.

Itsu
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1506
Concerning replications:


When an inventor (Melnichenko) or a replicator (Jagau) claims a certain effect (like COP > 1 by both),  and REQUESTS other replicators to join them to confirm this claim,
it is IMHO the DUTY of the claimant to provide the replicators with ALL information needed to come to the same result (COP > 1).

If you want to entertain people by presenting puzzles to them, you should not REQUEST for replicators to join, but puzzle enthusiasts.


Throwing bread crumbs and expecting the replicators to figure out how it works without showing the used circuit, some in- and output measurements, components used, etc.
will quickly raise the suspicion that the claimant does NOT have anything special to show and is provoking the replicators to connect the dots and find the effect for him.

I know Jagau is not such a person and there are probably some other factors involved why he is so reluctant to provide details of his working circuit, but this leads to
nothing and only gets the honest working replicators frustrated (not to mention the costs involved).

We are all in this for the benefit of humankind, so playing games on "who is the best" or "who is light years ahead" or "who knows it all" is childish the least and bordering to unacceptable behavior IMO.

Itsu

Itsu,

I wholeheartedly agree with your statements above! 

Regards,
Pm
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 399
Itsu,

I wholeheartedly agree with your statements above! 

Regards,
Pm



   Itsu:
    Thank you for your efforts. I also agree with your statements.
And, I am sad to see that all the different tests of the different free energy devices have resulted in zilch.
 
   I am about to disassemble the Stalker replication that has been sitting on my bench for several years, which was still waiting for the missing link, never to be found.
   A sad day for me, as well.
   Thanks, again.

   NickZ
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Thanks Partzman,  thanks Nick,

Nick, i am sorry to hear you are going to disassemble your Stalker / Ruslan replication, i know how you believe(d) in it.
Mine is put in a box ready to reassemble when needed for some reason, you never know,  time will tell.

Thanks for joining me building one then.


Itsu
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 967
Folks,  here are some FACTs against Chris's claims he wrote here https://aboveunity.com/thread/melnichenko-s-effect/?order=all#comment-9ba8d63d-398e-4072-aec2-aeec0134ad63

I include his relevant text here:

"Captainloz gave you 100% of the data, as has Jagau, and you still cant make it work!

In the end, we have given you 100% of the data! Its all here on THIS Website!
    Polarity of L1's Voltage changes at Mosfet TOff, the CURRENT Does NOT!
    Polarity of L2's Voltage and Current do NOT Change!
    This is purely a DC System and there is no AC Component here!
    Voltage is Generated in L2 at Mosfet TOn and the Potential of BOTH L1 and L2 increase to VMax over Time t, at this point the Mosfet is turned Off, TOff, and the Demagnetisation Phase occurs!
    The Demagnetisation Phase must always be longer in Time t than the Magnetisation Phase!
    Through this entire period, L1 and L2 oppose each other!"



Claim 1:
"Captainloz gave you 100% of the data, as has Jagau, and you still cant make it work!"

Fact:  Chris here means the POC setup for which Captainloz measured COP of 2. Captainloz used his precision current shunt resistor (metal strip through-hole resistor) at the 800 kHz frequency range, where the U shaped metal strip manifested 35 nH self inductance as per Itsu measurements on the same off the shelf shunt resistor.  Itsu used Vector Network Analyzer to characterize the frequency dependence of the shunt, see data here:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3691.msg85851#msg85851  and the original 0.1 Ohm (at DC) manifested 0.23 Ohm impedance at 800 kHz, a 2x increase, it explains Captainloz COP of 2 "measurement" on his POC setup. Chris keeps deep silence on this fact.

Fact: Jagau has not given 100% the data, what he mentioned was "Melnichenko did not clearly reveal how to do it, so why is so much expected of us? Work a little, it does not kill anyone." He has not shown measurements like Itsu did on the input output-power relations, he only claimed 4.5 W in, 7 W out. This is not a complaint from me, just giving readers the facts.       

Claim 2:
In the end, we have given you 100% of the data! Its all here on THIS Website!
    Polarity of L1's Voltage changes at Mosfet TOff, the CURRENT Does NOT!


Fact: He says the obvious: when the current in a coil is switched off, the polarity of the voltage across the coil changes to the opposite polarity of the input voltage (back spike appears) and the coil tries to maintain its current it has had at the switch-off moment. As the collapsing field goes down so does the current and its polarity does not change, a well known fact. 
And a scope shot by Itsu on his Melnichenko setup clearly shows this behaviour, see it in his Reply #57 here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4312.0;attach=45127;image  for instance the yellow (L1 voltage) and green (L1 current) scope traces.  These traces show exactly the obvious behaviour, question is why Chris says this belongs to his given data? Any decent website dealing with coil current switch-off topic discusses this obvious behavior.
     By the way, neither Itsu nor anyone else said the current would change at Mosfet TOff, why Chris mentions this as if it were said ??

Claim 3:
Polarity of L2's Voltage and Current do NOT Change!

Fact: The first part is not correct: the voltage polarity across L2 changes, see Itsu's blue trace (L2 voltage) in his scopeshot (referred to above) when the current is off in L1. This is because during the magnetization phase L2 senses an expanding and increasing magnetic field coming from L1 and at the current switch-off moment the magnetic field starts collapsing, hence the induced voltage in L2 should change polarity. Basic Faraday induction on the direction of moving magnetic field.

Fact: the second part of Claim 3 is incomplete, the L2 current is zero during magnetization (D2 and D3 diodes block current as wanted) and starts flowing at the moment of the input current switch-off in L1. So current changes from zero to a maximum value in L2 during the demagnetization, then reducing to zero as the collapsing field diminishing also to zero. 

Claim 4:
  This is purely a DC System and there is no AC Component here!

Fact: This is a pulsed DC system. Who said there is AC component here?

Claim 5:
 Voltage is Generated in L2 at Mosfet TOn and the Potential of BOTH L1 and L2 increase to VMax over Time t, at this point the Mosfet is turned Off, TOff, and the Demagnetisation Phase occurs!

Fact: This is also claiming the obvious, Itsu's scope shot clearly shows this, and this is the wanted operation established by Melnichenko, and Jagau also wrote this is the needed modus operandi. So what??

Claim 6:
The Demagnetisation Phase must always be longer in Time t than the Magnetisation Phase!

Fact: Yes, this is also achieved by Itsu, in the scopeshot referred to above the magnetization time is around 63 us and the demagnetization time is around 90 us for L1 voltage and current, and around 110 us for L2 voltage and current, this depends on the load resistances too. So what ??

Claim 7:
Through this entire period, L1 and L2 oppose each other!

Well, this needs explanation what exactly Chris means here.  Because, during the magnetization time L2 is not active magnetically (for it has no current) so the coils cannot oppose each other through the entire period. Entire period for me means the time from one switch-on moment to the next switch-on moment. Of course, the input current in L1 magnetizes the core in L2 but the two coils cannot oppose each other through the entire period. 

Anyway, these are as Chris says the 100% given data, so where are the data?

On Chris's forum, there are 3 other replicators, besides Jagau, who actually built the Melnichenko setup under discussion as Jagau described. Why is it then that they achieved the same 75% to 93% efficiency just like Itsu did? Where is the famous 'helping each other' claimed so much and so often on Chris's forum?

One more thing worth mentioning: IF the POC setup works with COP > 1 performance, then where is its practical application? What does Chris use it for during the long years? What do the many 'successful' replicators on his forum use the POC for?

 Since the many years he has come up with such 'aboveunity' claim but it has never ever proved by him or by anybody with correct measurements, why is that?  IT is ridiculous to have fear from showing measurements.
This situation is like he has been shelving a COP > 1 device for years now (but of course if it indeed performs like that). The setup surely works, the question is its input and output power ratio.
   
And Chris can call me or Itsu or all others as trolls, trouble makers,   it does not matter, he has been doing this for years with anyone asking for proof (and he bans any member on his forum who does not 'behave'). The right questions should always be asked and he avoids answering them correctly at all cost. Why is that?  Just for fear, or ?

Gyula
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1506
Gyula,

Well stated and true!!!

Pm
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 876

Nick, i am sorry to hear you are going to disassemble your Stalker / Ruslan replication, i know how you believe(d) in it.
Mine is put in a box ready to reassemble when needed for some reason, you never know,  time will tell.

Thanks for joining me building one then.

Itsu

 :'(


---------------------------
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Gyula,

thanks for the extensive point by point analysis, this is a skill i lack still and very useful.


Like Chris, i would like to see some different kind of signals coming out of this circuit (less input and more output preferable), but the scope does not lie and presents these conventional signals belonging
to this conventional fly back circuit.

I can not magically change those signals to something more promising, it is what it is.

I tried both the original Melnichenko circuit and the modified by Jagau circuit with several coils and cores, but they all stay within the conventional 70 to 90% efficiency range.


I still have some modifications pending on the L1 and L2 coil / core, presented by Jagau, so we will see if it will change much.

Regards Kees 
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 1
Hi, everybody.

Firs Itsu, I'm sorry to bring you in my theme on Chis forum, but it was my last post before i got kick out with no reason, and a have to know how naïve some people can be. For me the only proof of OU is a self runner. No scope no measurement nothing else. I spend a lot of money for a device which should be so easy and cheap ( 20$), for nothing. When you start to ask question
you got banned and got a stamp as a troll. I did need a lot of time to finally figure out who is who. I reading your journey with
big interest, thanks for sharing all and for all your time and money invested in the research. But unfortunately your last post here is right on the target.
Wish you all the best, Editor The Cook
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Hi TheCook,

i agree with you about: "For me the only proof of OU is a self runner.", that's the ultimate proof.

But as nobody ever has shown a self runner for me to replicate, i have to lower the standard and replicate circuits / devices for which people claim they are over-or above unity.

But as a non Electronics trained person, i have to rely on the cooperation and information of the person claiming this.

If this information stalls somehow, then i can come a long way especially with the help of the many knowledgeable people on forums like this one, but ultimately the one making
the claim should step up to the plate IF that's what he is looking for in the replicators.

If you have something interesting, i would suggest opening a thread here and present your circuit, so others can join in and advise you or even replicate it.

Regards Itsu 
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 76
"For me the only proof of OU is a self runner.", that's the ultimate proof.

I'd argue that a principle-of-operation and operating constraints are even more important than a working device.

A working device is a 'miracle' and unless it is understood it will always remain an oddity/serendipity.

  Someone might show a simple circuit with a coil apparently producing power, but that doesn't mean someone can understand or recreate it.    Perhaps the builder left out the fact that one of the coils was wound with iron wire and acts like a magnetic amplifier, or that it only works at voltages over 1500v, or that it requires a bias current to be injected just prior to triggering?  Or that one of the coils must be wound CCW, or that two coils must be of precisely equal lengths.  Or perhaps the builder doesn't even know how it works, they just know a circuit configuration that works most of the time. ^-^

You can't just show someone under the hood of a modern car and expect them to be able to build a working Model T or understand internal combustion. ;D
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Hi Hakasays,

good point, if someone is ONLY showing a self runner for me to replicate i would have nowhere to begin, so there must always be additional info to be given for a replication.

A principle-of-operation and operating constraints would be a good start  O0


Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487
I made a LTspice sim of my present original Melnichenko circuit.

The results can be seen below (i am zoomed in in the trace plot and i have reversed the currents to match my screenshot):
A bigger picture can be seen in the 2nd attachment at the bottom.



Please compare this with my earlier made screenshot in post #57 here:  https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4312.msg99826#msg99826

It has the same colors and probe points.         





The sim file (.asc) is attached below, so anyone can play with the polarities of L2  and / or the L2 diodes to see what happens.


Regards Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3487

Last 2 posts removed being off-topic.


New L2 coil made of 3 coils in series each on a ferrite toroid with 5 mm gap in between as suggested by Jagau.     40 turns each so 120 turns total.

L2 standalone                 1093uH @ 1KHz
L2 inside L1                    1090uH @ 1KHz

L1 standalone                 726uH @ 1KHz
L1 with L2 inside             944uH @ 1KHz
L1 with L2 inside shorted  559uH @ 1KHz

Coupling coefficient K      0.64   (https://www.e-magnetica.pl/calculator/magnetic_coupling_coefficient)


I will do some measurements with this new L2 coil.

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


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-08-16, 14:24:12