PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2023-02-01, 06:49:32
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Fighters "Romanian ZPM (Zero Point Module) replication.  (Read 4323 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3560
Itsu, Thanks for reminding me of all the things you can do with a nanoVNA. I use it in radio for antennas, and I always forget to use it when I'm tinkering around the FE! :(
But as I'm in the process of redesigning my current gradient device, now I'll use it.


F6,

you are welcome.

I think it is a nice tool to visualize the behavior of some abstracts like inductance or capacitance versus frequency IMO.

Itsu
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3560

So, if we concluded here:   https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4374.msg103052#msg103052  that the resonance we see in Fighter his setup around 600kHz is NOT caused by a parallel capacitance with the opposing coils, i was looking for another source of resonance in the circuit.

I tried a resonance LC circuit of a 163uH air coil with a 3nF capacitor (resonance around 204kHz) both in series as in parallel on several places in the circuit, mainly near the PS, see diagram:



But only some slight resonance effects were seen (204kHz) causing a slight dimming of the bulbs.


I will retry using not an air coil, but a coil on ferrite to see if the resonance effect can be enhanced.


Itsu   
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3560


As mentioned above, I have tried to use coils on ferrite formers in a series- / parallel LC configuration on several places in the ZPM circuit as i did with the air coils, but similar results were seen being:

A slight resonance (sine wave like signal on the feeding voltage / current) in some cases (positions) causing the input current to decrease slightly, but it also causes the load bulbs to dim, which is understandable and expected.


So i think i have exhausted almost all possibilities to create the "effect" as shown by Fighter his ZPM being 2x 12V 55W bulbs (100W) brightly on at a certain high frequency (600kHz) while the input current drops to almost zero mA (creating the illusion of an almost infinite COP).

The closest i came to this "effect" was to have resonance in the circuit (by using an external filter to the PS) showing the PS decreasing its current to almost zero  O0
But it also showed the load bulbs going off due to less or no input power  :(
 

The issues i have with Fighter his ZPM are that:

# no one of the several replicators has been able to replicate the above-mentioned "effect". (sure there are replicators showing decreasing input current like me, but not with the load bulbs staying brightly on)
# Although Fighter has documented his ZMP experiments rather well, the key measurements and data are not provided or are deemed inconclusive, like the alternative input power measurements.
# there are strong indications of an instable environment (grounding?) or even feedback / oscillations in his circuit by looking at the fluctuating current on the PS amp. meter and the slow oscillating (few Hz) of
   the bulbs in some cases.
# a very big problem could be the used FG (feeltech-fy3224s) who seems to have a problem in that it is not very well isolated from mains power see here: 
   https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/feeltech-fy3224s-24mhz-2-channel-dds-aw-function-signal-generator/225/ and a video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqxA4HRYjVg

This last problem (possible 115V AC on the BNC plug) could very well also cause the reported quick heating of the MOSFET.


Anyway, Fighter himself is the only one able to address these raised concerns by using an alternative power source (batteries preferable), a different FG and proper alternative input power measurements.

But due to time constraints he seems to have, i do not see that happening any time soon.

So i officially declare my ZPM replication attempt as failed and i will shelve my ZPM device next to all my other failed attempts to replicate a claimed overunity device until new insights become available.

All these failed replications sounds not very positive, but if they were not failing, that would mean i had succeeded in replicating an overunity device, but as we all know, such overunity devices are not existing
yet in the public domain.

That's why we are here for.



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

Posts: 996
Hi Itsu,

Regarding the input power measurement on Fighter's ZPM setup, the most ununderstandable thing for me is that everybody on Fighter's forum has disregarded the result of the Math function of your digital oscilloscope whereby the instanteneous input voltage and current were multiplied on your working setup. Why has been a deep silence on this measurement method and on your results in connection with the ZPM?

Even member Jagau did not use this measurement method, though his digital oscilloscope is also capable of multiplying two channels like yours. Instead, he used a different method (I refresh the link here https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=&order=all#comment-95fc8b64-5d6a-4928-9a0e-af660031c7de ) which gave him around 2.5 W input power while his power supply built-in meter showed 4.3 W and the output power was correctly measured to be around 4 W across his bulb load.

Of course anyone can use formulas he considers fit for the job but somehow the calculation results should be checked and this is why I suggested the use of an isolated DC-DC converter to loop the output back to the input here: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4374.msg102602#msg102602   A successful looping could be a best answer for any doubts on measurement or calculation issues posed.
 
It also strange that the switching MOSFET gets so much hot in Fighter's circuit that it needs extensive heat sink, yet the meter on his power supply shows near zero or zero supply current. Strange because it is supposed to operate as a switch controlled by <50% duty cycle square wave pulses.

Member Atti nicely mentioned these issues at Fighter's forum. https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/atti-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=5&order=all#comment-766d5ae8-95ac-4353-941c-af8a00647efc

Thank you for taking the time and efforts to test the ZPM device. Hopefully we can hear about the true performance sooner or later. I certainly wish success to everyone.

Gyula
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3560

Gyula,

Quote
Regarding the input power measurement on Fighter's ZPM setup, the most ununderstandable thing for me is that everybody on Fighter's forum has disregarded the result of the Math function of your digital oscilloscope whereby
the instanteneous input voltage and current were multiplied on your working setup.
Why has been a deep silence on this measurement method and on your results in connection with the ZPM?

Well, the reason for that silence on my results seems to be that i was not having the "effect" (being resonance, zero amps on my input meter and 100W bulbs fully on, meaning COP > 100 or overunity) thus my in- output measurements supposed to be pointless.

Other members did not use this scope measurement method because they also did not have the "effect" or they did not reach their claimed COP > 2 or so results using that method, so stuck to their own single method.
 
Also, your suggested isolated DC-DC converter to loop the output back to the input method was ignored, as that also would compromise the claimed COP results.

The heating up (seconds) of the MOSFET in Fighter his setup is a giveaway that something is very wrong in his setup.

Member Atti indeed did mention this briefly but at the same time he mentions to forget about it (But let's not look at these problems) which is a wise thing to do as any criticism on the ZPM results or measurements used will be swiftly dealt with like new member "EEng" experienced who was banned hours after questioning the used measurement method / calculations there.

 
I hope that the remaining ZPM replicators will show their results being positive or negative, despite the risk of being banned there when it turns out to be negative.

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

Posts: 996
Hi Itsu,

As there are new attempts to replicate member Fighter's ZPM device at beyondunity.org forum we can hope some new insights come up from the results.
You may have noticed a comment in such new thread here https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a  where this is written in connection with the reliability of built-in meters of power supplies:

"Simplest possible example with a linear resistor with 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50 % your PS will indicate 26 watts of consumption of the 10 ohm resistor, which is not correct. The correct answer is 13 watts which can be verified in various ways with well-known formulas."

Well,  I agree that the built-in power meters in Power Supplies can display false power consumption taken out but I find the 13 W power in the 10 Ohm resistor too low when pulsed with 24 V pulses at 50 % duty cyle.

It remains to be seen how Jagau arrived at the 13 W instead of the 28.8 W. Because this calculator gives 28.8 W average power for one T cycle. The peak power comes out as 57.6 W and the peak current is 2.4 A. 
Here is the link https://www.vishay.com/en/resistors/pulse-energy-calculator/

I entered 50 us for pulse width, 24V for voltage and 10 Ohm for the resistance. The 50 us can be chosen arbitrary of course, only the pulse energy varies with it which in this example is 2.88 mJ.
For the Variables on the right hand side I entered 100 us to have one full cycle for the 50 us pulse width (i.e. 50% duty cycle).

I also did an LTSpice simulation with the given data and it confirms the results of the online calculator. The simulator also gives 57.6 W peak power, also 2.88 mJ pulse energy, 2.4 A peak current and 28.8 W average power.
I attached the simulation results from LTSpice. 

I wonder how the 13 W power was calculated from the formulas.

Addition: if we multiply the RMS values of the peak voltage and peak current calculated by the simulator, we get 16.97 V x 1.69 A = 28.67 W power (V and I are in phase).

Gyula

   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3560

Gyula,

yes, i was following these new replications too, and was confused by that same 13W result.

Member AlteredUnity mentioned that his PS showed 7W input (which i agree can be deceiving especially with pulsed loads), so was this mentioned 13W in response to that 7W input statement or was it
in relation to the mentioned 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50 % duty cycle example.

In both cases the 13W does not make sense, as you showed for the 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50 % duty cycle case by using the Vishay calculator and the LTspice simulation.

It seems AlteredUnity is also confused about this.


Also, the wrong statement IMO that a modern digital scope is not able to do simple multiplication of 2 channels and display the result in mean (average) without any additional software has him left confused.

It is easy to do (input) power measurements this way by measuring the (input) voltage on one channel and (input) current on another channel and use the math function to multiply these instantaneous values of the both channels and have the resulting power trace displayed in mean (average) over several (the more, the better) cycles on the screen, see f.i.:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKftVD0fAts


Itsu

   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 996
...
Member AlteredUnity mentioned that his PS showed 7W input (which i agree can be deceiving especially with pulsed loads), so was this mentioned 13W in response to that 7W input statement or was it
in relation to the mentioned 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50 % duty cycle example.

In both cases the 13W does not make sense,
...



Hi Itsu,

The example sounds to mean the 13 W power is dissipated in a 10 Ohm resistor load pulsed with a 50% duty cycle square wave with a changing amplitude between zero and 24V.  The meaning of the example is the 7 W power taken by the DUT reported cannot be correct because it was measured by the power supply, ergo the power supply would measure 26 W for the example on the 10 Ohm load instead of the calculated 13 W.   :o

This is written :

"Simplest possible example with a linear resistor with 24 volts on a 10 ohm resistor pulsed at 50% your PS will indicate 26 watts of consumption of the 10 ohm resistor, which is not correct. The correct answer is 13 watts which can be verified in various ways with well-known formulas. "  https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a

The 26 W consumption is close to the reality (i.e. to 28.8 W) but the calculated 13 W is not an acceptable result, hopefully Jagau will explain how he arrived at the 13 W.

Gyula
   
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 996
Hi Itsu,

I have received answer from a Tektronix Support Engineer to my question whether the Math feature / channel in the Tektronix TBS1000 digital oscilloscope family can calculate and display the Mean value of the product of two waveforms displayed on CH1 and CH2 inputs.
Here it is (I omitted some personal data):

" Dear ...,
Thank you for contacting Tektronix.
I just tested it on our old TBS1152, you can use the math channel to calculate CH1(V) x CH2(A) and use a math function to measure the mean value of the math channel. You will get the results in VA.
These are all standard functions.
Kind regards,
Timo Neuenstein
Technical Support Engineer EMEA - COE"

 
I asked this from the Tektronix Tech Support because Jagau has got the TBS1104 oscilloscope (see it in his post here: https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/jagau-s-successful-zpm-replication/?p=&order=all#comment-95fc8b64-5d6a-4928-9a0e-af660031c7de ) but he does not use it to measure input power to his circuits.

And a few days ago he wrote the reason why and I found it rather odd so this is why I asked about it. 

This was his reason, I quote from his post (addressed to another member)  https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/alteredunity-s-zpm-replication-attempt/?p=&order=all#comment-4be6fcf0-be7e-4d76-a58c-af8c0159624a :

Quote
"For an oscilloscope like yours (Rigol DS1054z), the calculation is done in IRMS and Vrms, but if you do not have integrated software or purchased separately from your math menu, your oscilloscope cannot interpret the average power, you will not yet have the right answer, it will give you instant power.
An oscilloscope without this software calculates the instantaneous power not the average power, don't worry I have the same problem with mine, that's why you have to use the standard formulas.
"
Unquote

There are several false statements in the quoted text:

- calculations are not done from the IRMS and VRMS values but from many small samples (taken instanteneously) of the two full waveforms as they are being displayed on CH1 and CH2.
- for the TBS1000 scope family there is no need to purchase any extra software to do the multiplication between the two channels, and then the averaging, it is a standard feature, this is just confirmed by the Tektronix engineer. I do assume that the Rigol DS 1054z digital scope can do the same when its Math menu is switched on and the CH1 x CH2 is chosen (I have not confirmed this for Rigol).
- so the result of the multiplication can be chosen and displayed in Mean value in the Math channel.

Side Note: the TBS1000 digital oscilloscope family (by now discontinued) include types TBS1022 TBS1042 TBS1062 TBS1102 TBS1104 TBS1152 (this list is not complete). The TBS1104 is a 100 MHz scope with 4 inputs, the TBS1151 is a 150 MHz scope with 2 inputs, Sample rates are 1 GS/s (giga Sample / second) for both and all members of the family have the same Math features i.e. they are all capable of computing the product of the instantaneous voltage and current values and displaying the mean of the result.

Gyula
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3560

Gyula,

thanks for asking Tektronix about the math function, it seems to be a standard function on Tektronix and other modern digital scopes, so i have wondered for a long time why it is not more used.

Of course, such wrong statements won't help, as a lot of new members will accept what is written there and not use that function on their scopes now.

Hopefully this kind of correction will help those new members to try it out for themselves by starting with measuring simple things using this scope math function.


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


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2023-02-01, 06:49:32