PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-11-29, 08:43:53
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Author Topic: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?  (Read 310487 times)

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3182
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Proper voltage and current measurement at the resistor will adequately indicate the power and energy going into it. When measuring input and output powers using the oscilloscope method, the power dissipated in the switch should also be accounted for, especially if it appears the output to input ratio is close to a value of 1.

As I pointed out in my previous post, integration, i.e. "taking the integral" of a properly-obtained instantaneous power trace is absolutely not required in order to obtain a COP measurement. This is going on the solid assumption that the average input and output values of power in the circuit do not vary over time. Applying a mean average algorithm to P(instantaneous) will provide a "real-time" direct readout of the power being measured.

.99
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2964
I shouldn't worry too much, MH...  or Rose...  I'll do the measurements, it may take a little time as I have numerous duties at this time, but we're making progress and learning about these interesting Joule Thief circuits and variants.  
Lawrence said it well:

 PhysicsProf now has at least four FLEET prototypes with Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of various values.  He also has two 1 inch toroid cores to do more prototypes.

He now has an oscilloscope that can do the multiply function directly.  He also has the software to do the integration.  Thus he is fully equipped to do the “energy = integration of the Instantaneous Power Curve over time”.  The Instantaneous Power is given by the product of the Instantaneous Voltage across the source and the Instantaneous Voltage across a 1 ohm resistor.

Please let him do this test first.  He will be able to provide the screen shots, displayed and calculated values.  His COP values will be the ratio of Output Energy over Input Energy over the same period to the best ability of his equipment.

Other cooks, please wait until the meal is cooked.  If you want, I can provide you with the raw meat (FLEET prototypes).  Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2318
@All
Maybe it is about time someone throw a curve ball into the mix and to start I will take a chapter from A.D Moore's book "Electrostatics". Moore makes a exceptional point when he refers to the fact that even a simple cave man must have been aware of the fact that static electricity exists - how could they not as it is a natural and abundant phenomena, next around 600 B.C. there is documentation that in fact the Greeks knew of this form of electricity when amber was rubbed. However it took about 2200 years after the Greeks discovery before a man named William Gilbert actually built the first influence machine and a new area of science was born. You see it was not that people did not know of electrostatics it was the fact that everone found it easier to theorize about these strange effects rather than put their theories to the test. Even today we see this "caveman" mentality when people tell us our laws of science cannot be broken which seems absurd considering the laws are continually being rewritten as new discoveries are made, if a law of science is the undeniable truth then how can it change-- the truth cannot change. Now do not get me wrong, I am not criticizing science, I am criticizing people who do not understand science and believe our theories can never change.
So rather than suffer the fate of the caveman or the armchair critic as they are interchangable to some extent I intend to take a more active role in this new year and take on some outside projects above and beyond the many things I have on the go. As such if Lawrence (ltseung888) would like to send me a few of his latest prototypes I would be happy to do a full energy accounting of his creations well beyond what many experts here might consider acceptable. This will not be something as crude as attaching an oscilloscope to the output conductors and must include a black box test procedure. That is the device in it's entirety is placed in a closed vessel and all forms of energy including heat, pressure, light, conduction, electrostatic, electric and magnetic field energies are fully accounted for to determine the total change in energy state between two regions. If Lawrence would like me to get involved he can PM me for details.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
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: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3182
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Sounds like there are a number of folks here that have their own ideas as to the best way to test Lawrence's circuit, so rather than spend precious hours putting together a document that will most likely be ignored, I'm going to apply that time towards other tasks I need to do.

Anxiously awaiting data to review ;)

.99
   
Group: Guest
Lawrence, Prof, I am working on a short document that may help with this testing. Below is a preview:

Lawrence, your scopes do not have the integral function, but for obtaining the circuit COP, that is not a necessity actually. What matters most is the ability for the scope to perform "multiplication" and "mean" averaging, which your model does do.
Poynty I do not understand why you need the integral function of a scope meter to establish the integrated value.  You only need a reasonable number of samples and an exel or somesuch spreadsheet. 

While I fully advocate and strongly encourage the use of differential and current probes for obtaining these type of power measurements, it may be viable to examine the potential of using the much less favorable method employing passive scope probes.
To the best of my knowledge there is not a current probe extant that can deal with the frequencies applied by Lawrence or Professor.  Not that I've heard of.  If you know of a make that can manage this - then please advise.  We're all looking for this.  I've been advised that not even a Tektronix current probe is up to the job.  While the differential probe is preferred for measuring the voltage across the load resistor the actual analysis of its waveforms depends on variables related to the frequency.  If the Ohms value varies with frequency then there is no standardised Ohms value you can apply to determine the rate of current flow through that resistor.  You can, however, use a small shunt resistor in series with that load resistor to determine the rate of current flow.  But as the voltages across the load resistor may be the result of a variable Ohm's value - then how do you determine that voltage?  But why bother?  Just check the rate of temperature rise.  That will tell the whole story. 

Poynty - with respect.  This is exactly why I asked you to design a document.  The measurement protocol has to be determined in advance of submitting anything at all.  What if I were to forward you my device for measurement and evaluation - and then I'm left at the mercy of your decision as to its validity when you are intending to apply current probes - or worse still - when you stick to the cycle mean average to determine the actual wattage.  In our case it wouldn't matter that much because our numbers are extreme.  But what if Lawrence, for example, submitted his apparatus to you for evaluation.  And then the actual measure of current flow - or vi power analysis was based on your use of a current probe?  Or what if you ignored the integral value - and insisted on the mean average.?  In both cases those results would be ignored by mainstream and endorsed only by you.  And then Lawrence would be required to withdraw his claim because you determined that it was baseless?  And yet your protocols are flawed and his claim may yet be valid? 

This is precisely why I'm not prepared to submit anything for endorsement on any forum ever again.  Certainly not until that protocol has been established.  And then Poynty - you'll find that our own protocols as detailed in that IEEE and TIE papers are actually fully compliant.  Except that our numbers were never properly integrated.  But as the spreadsheets were submitted with that data then the reviewers would have been able to apply their own analysis and that would most certainly have included that integral evaluation.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
I am just talking about the output part.  The output scope reading will not show correct power.  The heat will be less than what is read on the output scope.  

I missed this.  Output?  Output from the battery or output from the load resistor?  the output on the scope across the load resistor is related to voltage measurements.  Those voltage measurements need to be related to the Ohms value of the resistor to establish volts times amps (vi) to establish its wattage.  The Ohms value is impossible to determine.  Or nearly impossible.  So it's a meaningless exercise.  I am still not sure of your point.  But there is absolutely no way that the voltage measurements are wrong.  They are usually correct within certain very small error margin parameters.  It would be entirely feasible to determine the energy dissipated at the resistor - which is what I think you mean - provided only that it's determined calorimetrically.  It's heat will be a precise measure of the energy it is dissipating. Are we even on the same page here Gibbs?  I seem to be missing your point here.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
And while I'm on the subject - there is another groundless concern about 'groundloop'.  That's Stefan's preferrred excuse.  It's easy to addess in that 'protocol' list.  Just take out the 'earth pin' on the plugs of your functions generators - and your DSO's.  They work fine.  And the numbers do not vary.  It's just a bit risky.  In our case we had to apply for permission in case it put our instruments at risk.

Rosemary
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2964
 My colleague Les and I put together a Tseung-replica device and have made repeated measurements on it over the course of about a week.  It has the highest "FLEET index" of any we have tested, including the prototypes sent to us for testing by Lawrence (which we appreciate!).


For reference, here is a photo of Prototype A, which we patterned our replica after, including same size 1" ferrite toroid.



We measured the "FLEET index" (basically as defined by Lawrence above) by comparing RMS values for input and output, with the device operating -- as follows, with values in parentheses taken last Saturday:

INPUT voltage, measured across the older battery (1.0 V).  Input current is determined by the voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor shown in the photo. (0.076 V)  
  

OUTPUT voltage measured across the added winding on the toroid, wires labeled 5 and 6. (1.14 V)  (The LED lit up, and the P-P voltage is higher than 3 V.)
  We replaced the 10 ohm and 100 ohm resistors on the output circuit with a single 1 ohm resistor, for our replication (0.823 V).  We have tried 110 ohm versus 1 ohm resistors in the output (in series with the LED shown) and have found that the FLEET index is higher (each time) for the 1 ohm resistor on the output.  This also facilitates measure of the output circuit current...  
  Note that this change can easily be restored back to the original at any time.

We remeasured the values and confirmed them, with small deviations, on Tuesday morning and captured the oscilloscope traces.  We are using a BitScope BS326UO for these rather straightforward measurements, planning to take the device to the Tektronix 3032 for more precise measurements...

Then, as a means of preliminary evaluation of the device as described before (NOT the final evaluation), we calculate the FLEET Index as
  FI = Vout * I out / Vin * I in  -- using all RMS values
      =  1.14 * 0.823 / 1.0 * 0.076 = 0.94 / 0.076 = 12.3  (preliminary)

So far so good.  Lawrence should be pleased that we have a high Index value and have replicated his device.  

The problem -- we moved parts of the device to the breadboard where some parts were already located, and the Index dropped dramatically, to less than one.

Something clearly changed...  Basically all the values cited above stayed the same (within reasonable error bars), except for the voltage drop across the output resistor, which decreased from 823 mV to 50 mV ( the value this evening, Thursday 13 Jan 2011).  That's enormous!  This drops the FLEET Index from 12 to 0.75 !   Hmmm... I thought it was a bad connection, somehow the resistance on the output circuit went up.  No, everything seemed to check out.  We even replaced the output LED -- no increase in the current (stuck at the new value of about 50 mA).  

Again, we captured the oscilloscope trace for the output resistor (now 1 ohm) last Tuesday, when the Index was still high, so it is not that we misread it.  

We don't understand it...  Tomorrow we plan to re-check resistances and connections, probably will solder the connections, eliminating the breadboard, to see if we can restore the values of last Saturday and Tuesday morning.

Any other suggestions for things to check would be most appreciated.  

I have decided to let you know the "dirty laundry" aspects of our efforts at testing as we go along...  Quite a bit more difficult than I expected, I must say.


« Last Edit: 2011-01-14, 07:07:07 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Guest
Great news Professor.  Perhaps the wiring on the breadboard added extra resistance in that second config?   And at these voltages that may make a big difference.  My guess is that you'll restore the result with direct connections.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf,

I don't recall the wavelength or the rise/fall times but as those become shorter the added capacitance of the breadboard has more effect.
   
Group: Guest
My colleague Les and I put together a Tseung-replica device and have made repeated measurements on it over the course of about a week.  It has the highest "FLEET index" of any we have tested, including the prototypes sent to us for testing by Lawrence (which we appreciate!).

……

Then, as a means of preliminary evaluation of the device as described before (NOT the final evaluation), we calculate the FLEET Index as
  FI = Vout * I out / Vin * I in  -- using all RMS values
      =  1.14 * 0.823 / 1.0 * 0.076 = 0.94 / 0.076 = 12.3  (preliminary)

So far so good.  Lawrence should be pleased that we have a high Index value and have replicated his device. 

The problem -- we moved parts of the device to the breadboard where some parts were already located, and the Index dropped dramatically, to less than one.

Something clearly changed...  Basically all the values cited above stayed the same (within reasonable error bars), except for the voltage drop across the output resistor, which decreased from 823 mV to 50 mV ( the value this evening, Thursday 13 Jan 2011).  That's enormous!  This drops the FLEET Index from 12 to 0.75 !   Hmmm... I thought it was a bad connection, somehow the resistance on the output circuit went up.  No, everything seemed to check out.  We even replaced the output LED -- no increase in the current (stuck at the new value of about 50 mA). 

Again, we captured the oscilloscope trace for the output resistor (now 1 ohm) last Tuesday, when the Index was still high, so it is not that we misread it. 

We don't understand it...  Tomorrow we plan to re-check resistances and connections, probably will solder the connections, eliminating the breadboard, to see if we can restore the values of last Saturday and Tuesday morning.

Any other suggestions for things to check would be most appreciated. 

I have decided to let you know the "dirty laundry" aspects of our efforts at testing as we go along...  Quite a bit more difficult than I expected, I must say.




Dear PhysicsProf,

Thank you for bringing the ‘strange phenomenon’ up.  We experienced and knew about it early on in our tests.   If you check my previous post (reply 129) here, you will find that I used the term pseudo resonance.

The FLEET prototypes exhibit resonance characteristics in that a small change – including placing a hand closely can affect the frequency and waveform significantly as seen on the oscilloscopes.  That is why I strongly advise the use of two oscilloscopes simultaneously. (I have not used a 4 channel scope yet.)

The trick is to keep modifying the holes used on the breadboard, the length of the connecting wires, the position of the various electronic components or the value of the actual components until a high Tseung FLEET comparison Index is again found. 

Most previous researchers did not realize this important ‘tuning’ step.  When I shipped out Prototype A, I soldered the components together as the connections on a breadboard are easily disconnected.  I was hoping that your good oscilloscope could indicate at least a small COP > 1 value with the integration function.  We can then do more tuning afterwards.

Do not try to understand by staring at the circuit diagram.  The circuit diagram does not tell you anything about this pseudo resonance effect.  Play around more until you hit on a configuration that can demonstrate COP > 1.  Some configurations will yield very high COP values.

Your experience and detailed descriptions will help the many verifiers and replicators in the very near future.  Thank you in advance.

Lawrence
   
Group: Guest
Just to add:

One of the Professors in Hong Kong believed that the breadboard had significant capacitance that was NOT shown in any circuit diagram.  The FLEET is essentially a LCR circuit with pulsing.  The physical aspects such as dimension, position of components, length of wires and obviously the toroid characteristics are factors that can affect the frequency.

The primitive circuit has its subtlies.

Lawrence
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3182
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
May I suggest that breadboarding is not the way to go with these circuits. They do exhibit high stray capacitance, and so can throw off your design. Of course resonant circuits will be the worst victims in this case.

I also advocate very short wiring; as short as possible. Excessively long wires introduce stray inductance, which may not be accounted for in the circuit. Pictures of test setups are important to show for this reason. Prof, I would encourage you to post those pictures of not only your scope shots, but the test setup as well. On a related issue, if the option is there, use the shortest probe ground lead you have available.

Regarding your results so far, I am weary of those numbers. Keep in mind that these scopes are only 8-bit machines, and taking measurements of signals that are down in the noise won't be accurate. Could you also explain exactly how you are acquiring the rms voltage and current? Keep in mind that once you convert a  measurement to RMS, all the phase information is gone, and therefore multiplying an RMS-converted voltage by a RMS-converted current will produce a result that has no meaning whatsoever in terms of the REAL power being used or dissipated. This is why when using the oscilloscope method, the currents and voltages must remain in their raw state before being multiplied together. After that, you may apply any processing you wish, such as averaging and integration.

Never disable the ground prong on any of your test equipment! Isolate properly by using an isolation transformer.

.99
   
Group: Guest
Dear PhysicsProf,

Please take photos as you go along.  With pseudo resonance circuits, you may not be able to reproduce the same results later.  This caused us much confusion at the early stages.  There were even accusation of "producing false results on purpose".  Now you have experienced the phenomenon yourself, you can be much more objective.

Share the process as well as the results.  Thank you.
   
Group: Guest
Why bother with worrying about power factor and phase when the input is a DC voltage from a battery (in regard to Pin measurement)?  Especially when the claimed COP is an order of magnitude higher than 1?  Is not a simple shunt with an appropriate low-pass RC filter at the meter and a decent DMM or a Simpson 260 sufficient to measure true total average actually hardware-integrated current into/out of the battery?  

The battery voltage, unless the battery is far undersized capacity-wise or ruined (high impedance), will remain constant within a few percent under pulsed loading, will it not?  If not, get a lower impedance battery or stick a big fat low Z cap across it!  If battery voltage drops significantly over the few moments it takes to do a test, your battery is too small!

When people are claiming efficiencies of 1000% or more, what's a 5 or even 10% error in measurement?  Just measure the battery DC voltage under load, even if it jumps around under pulsing and or modest noise...take the low number to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt, and multiply by the integrated (low-pass RC filtered with time constant 10x or more lower than lowest pulsing frequency) current and there you go...input power.

Output power may be more complex, I agree, if the output has a predominantly AC component (this of course includes so-called pulsed DC which I prefer to consider as pure AC with a DC offset) and the "load" is other than an essentially (say 99%)pure resistance at the fundamental frequency involved.  But it ain't ever as persnickity and elaborate as most here seem to make it out to be.  Remember:  We're looking at claims of COP10 and more.  That makes it much easier to rule out absolutely and usually with very simple tests and equipment.

It's when claims involve COPs of 1.001 that testing requires the ultimate in accuracy and forethought to stay above the noise.  Let's get real here!  Again, I state that the only reason I can think of that these outrageous COP claims are not always very quickly disproven with simple tests is that the forums are actually social chat rooms and there wouldn't be much left to chat about if all these wild claims were quickly and efficiently scrutinized and batted down!  But I love it just as much as you do!
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3182
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
You can start a new topic here if you like, or I can create a bench of your own, which you can moderate and post as you wish.

Which would you like to do...or both?

.99
   
Group: Guest
You can start a new topic here if you like, or I can create a bench of your own, which you can moderate and post as you wish.

Which would you like to do...or both?

.99

To whom is this directed, please?  If it's me, you must be speaking in regard to my question to you about Ms. Ainslee's project over on the Magnacoaster thread? 

Please delete if you edit your previous post to clarify who you are addressing...thanks.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
My I extend compliments to all who are participating in the
present discussion?

This process is developing nicely.  The various obstacles
which arise are being clearly presented.  The potential
solutions to unexpected variations in measurement are
very instructional.

Many will benefit from all that transpires as the process
continues to a conclusion.

A most fascinating work in progress!


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3539
It's turtles all the way down
For what it's worth, here's how I measure blocking oscillator efficiency. I use this standardized test setup when tweaking the many parameters of a blocking oscillator aka Joule Thief.

TV guys will recognize the output as a boosted B+, but measurement is made inside the current loop.

All flyback energy (minus losses in the diode and copper) is captured by the output capacitor and fed to the load as DC, therefore easily measured against input.

Input energy is also easily measured as DC

The circuit shown has a 50 to 1 turns ratio so that base drive current is optimized and charge carriers are efficiently pumped. There are other improvements I could add to the circuit but for simplicity, these were not included in this rudimentary schematic.

The standard blocking oscillator can be finessed in many ways, the subject of a thread I hope to start as time permits.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Greetings,

Hello LT, Physics Prof, Poynt and the Rest.
I made the switch and am happy to be here.   ;o)

I plan on doing some experiments on my new bench in the near future.

Some of which are...

1. Resonate an Ignition Coil from a regular Joule Thief and Observe output.
       (I already found the Resonant Frequency of a $13 Ignition Coil from Checker)
    * 1.33Khz... a 1 volt DC pulse turns into 240 V Peak to Peak Sine Wave at resonance.

2. Experiment with unmodified Disposable Camera Circuits and Identical Capacitors.
    * Take identical capacitors --> charge 1st to 1.5 V --> use it in place of the battery in Camera Circuit.
       After 1st Cap is completely drained, measure the voltage in the 2nd Cap.
    * Because a 1.5 V battery can charge the cap to 100 V in 1 Second (through Camera Circuit)...
       the end result may be more energy in the 2nd Cap.   E=(1/2)*CV2
       - This would be clear and undeniable proof of a USE (Unrecognized Source of Energy).

3. Set up a Joule Ringer that uses an Ignition Coil as the Bifilar Coil.

Best Regards,
                    The Observer
   
Group: Guest
Greetings,

Hello LT, Physics Prof, Poynt and the Rest.
I made the switch and am happy to be here.   ;o)

I plan on doing some experiments on my new bench in the near future.

Some of which are...

1. Resonate an Ignition Coil from a regular Joule Thief and Observe output.
       (I already found the Resonant Frequency of a $13 Ignition Coil from Checker)
    * 1.33Khz... a 1 volt DC pulse turns into 240 V Peak to Peak Sine Wave at resonance.

2. Experiment with unmodified Disposable Camera Circuits and Identical Capacitors.
    * Take identical capacitors --> charge 1st to 1.5 V --> use it in place of the battery in Camera Circuit.
       After 1st Cap is completely drained, measure the voltage in the 2nd Cap.
    * Because a 1.5 V battery can charge the cap to 100 V in 1 Second (through Camera Circuit)...
       the end result may be more energy in the 2nd Cap.   E=(1/2)*CV2
       - This would be clear and undeniable proof of a USE (Unrecognized Source of Energy).

3. Set up a Joule Ringer that uses an Ignition Coil as the Bifilar Coil.

Best Regards,
                    The Observer

Welcome Observer.  The Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets at overunity.com has been taken over by ….!  It was impossible to follow or post any sensible discussions.  Unmoderated Forums have their drawbacks.

You come at a right time.  The PhysicsProf is doing confirmation experiments on my FLEET prototypes.  He managed to produce his own prototype with high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index.  He is running into the same problems we faced of “pseudo resonance measurements”.  Your experience will help.

I look forward to the experiments on your new bench.  Now that you have concrete results that 1 volt DC pulse turns into 240 V peak-to-peak sine wave at resonance, I hope to work with you to produce one of the Conclusive Experiments to be shown in one of the US-China projects later.

Lawrence
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2964
Lawrence, thank you for the input --
  
Quote
He is running into the same problems we faced  
I was feeling quite frustrated yesterday with the results, but what you said makes some sense...  and yes, I need to take more photos as we go along.

.99 -- agreed that even RMS values are not reliable for measuring power, but I carefully said our numbers are
  1. preliminary
  2. a means of comparing devices
  3.  -- and let me add:  I tested the RMS "Tseung FLEET Comparison Index" or "Index value" with the heating of a resistor about ten days ago, as described in an earlier post.  Let me add that the RMS value was close to but somewhat (about 25%) LESS than the heat output of the resistor, compared to a test resistor driven by a known power source.  As for the input, the Vin,rms is close to the battery voltage measure by a multimeter,  and the Iin, rms is close to that which I read by an analog mA-meter, which provides averaging.  So although I do not claim that the rms-Index is the SAME as COP, don't claim that at all, I have taken some pains to check it as a means of getting preliminary values for purposes of comparing various Tseung-devices.  That is all.

If I had an multiplying and integrating oscilloscope handy, I would use it!  Indeed, if anyone can tell me how to get a Tektronix 3032 to do these functions "automatically" (without using Matlab, for example, although I could do that in time) -- I'd appreciate it.

@Observer -- welcome, and yes I agree that the Joule Ringer is mighty interesting... Is there a thread here about that?  best thread on the Joule-ringer right now seems to be over at EnergeticForum....  but I do like this forum!
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3182
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Professor,

Regarding the use of the DPO3032 Tek scope, go here to download the manual, then go to page 108 and follow the steps to create a multiply math function. It even shows an example of "power" by multiplying the voltage and current.

Then go to the "Measurement" menu and select "Mean" (not "Cycle Mean") as shown on page 99 of the manual. This of course is applied to the math wave form. Now you will have a running average of the REAL power.

As I have stated a couple times now, integration is not necessary to obtain a COP value.

.99

   
Group: Guest
My colleague Les and I put together a Tseung-replica device and have made repeated measurements on it over the course of about a week.  It has the highest "FLEET index" of any we have tested, including the prototypes sent to us for testing by Lawrence (which we appreciate!).


For reference, here is a photo of Prototype A, which we patterned our replica after, including same size 1" ferrite toroid.



We measured the "FLEET index" (basically as defined by Lawrence above) by comparing RMS values for input and output, with the device operating -- as follows, with values in parentheses taken last Saturday:



      Well I stand corrected it looks like you can slip in the new term "Fleet Index" to circumvent the OUR rule and add a new layer of confusion all at the same time.
   Congratulations  Pete
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3182
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
vonwolf,

I'm not concerned about the Prof's use of Lawrence's new comparative term. Since they are converting voltages and currents to RMS, the power computations not only have no real meaning at all, but it is somewhat presumptuous to say that the so-called "FLEET index" even allows for a true performance comparison between prototypes. In fact I very much doubt it does.

Professor, you really should move on to a more proper method of testing. Respectfully, what you are doing now is pretty much a waste of time if you are truly interested in obtaining a COP figure for this device.

.99
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-11-29, 08:43:53