Inductive Circuits - The "Classical" Approach

[Joit]

Btw, Wire is anyway only Wire and only an Inductor.
Then it should make not a different, when you use Coppercores or Alloycores or Ironcores at a Coil.
I would be interested at That Result..

[Altair]

@ .99,
OH, I see, you weren't after an efficient capacitive circuit, you were just looking for the "mirror" circuit for R.A.'s circuit.
I think this one would be awfully inefficient if built.

[Altair]

Oops ! I'm coming a bit late, I see. I forgot to read page 2 of the thread before posting. Anyway...

Regarding the supposed reversal of current in the inductor, yes this is a misconception that I would have wanted to point out many times earlier.
The inductor acts as a current source, and when the mosfet is turned OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the established flow of current. So there is no reversal of current, it is just the polarity on the inductor that reverses.

[Altair]

OK I'll take a bite...

From the power source, the load is in series with a capacitor connected to ground. The Mosfet is in parallel with the capacitor, discharging it rapidly when fully charged through the load.
Of course, there is no advantage in doing this...
Unless an inductor is being put in series with the Mosfet, which could be a way to discharge the capacitor "below ground" (reverse charge), with correct timing.

But as your question did not mention the use of a second inductor, I wonder if it would not be possible to build some kind of bridge with 2 mosfets and a capacitor, and swing the current twice in the load for each input pulse.
There would be a P-channel Mosfet at the positive supply, then the inductive load, then a capacitor to ground. Then, from the junction of the P-channel mosfet and the load, there is a second Mosfet (N-channel) to ground. Operation is: P-channel turns ON, charging capacitor through the load. Then it turns OFF and the N-channel Mosfet turns ON, discharging the capacitor through the load again, to ground.


That was my 2 cents.

[Joit]

I dont think, that Caps do replace Coils.
With Caps you only rumbel the Current/Energy around, and with a Coil you have a EM Field what is more 'elastic' and has inductive Current still.

A Resistor additional to the Coil looks like a good Idea, Size should maybe about double, as the Coil has.

But i dont think too, that one Simulation take care, if you put a Teslacoil or a Standard Coil in there.
There are still other Devices, what do make Coils after a golden Ratio.
Or the same, when you loop a Coil once with a Diode.
But anyway, just Caps i think dont match to this.

[poynt99]

The Capacitive Circuit

It looks like there's only going to be the one response from MileHigh.

You got pretty darn close MileHigh.

See the attached diagram:

Inductive Circuit: Voltage Source
Capacitive Circuit: Current Source

Inductive Circuit: Series Switch
Capacitive Circuit: Shunt Switch (it's valid to short a current source)

Inductive Circuit: Instant voltage, ramping current
Capacitive Circuit:Instant current, ramping voltage

Inductive Circuit: Unlimited current from source
Capacitive Circuit: Unlimited voltage from source

Inductive Circuit: Inductive Kickback = voltage kickback
Capacitive Circuit: Capacitive Kickback = current kickback

RLOAD can be anything, including a battery or capacitor (with noted polarity) as shown. For even better efficiency, replace RC with a wire.

Note that the duty cycle has to be inverted with the current source. Current is being diverted away from the capacitor C6 for 96.3% of the time. Charging current is 2.4A, but the reversed "flyback" current can be as high as 90A.

I can show scope shots is requested. Does anyone not understand how this capacitive circuit works and how it is indeed a true inversion of the inductive circuit?

.99

[Aaron]

oscillation

Perhaps the HF oscillation does give better results, but for now since most have not been able to get the HF oscillation, I am going on the premise that Rosemary's statement about the HF oscillation not been required to achieve COP>1, is true.

Mosfets are used in many applications specifically because they oscillate so well. I have done the research after learning about Rosemary's circuit and it is all over the web from industry references, massive amount of patents on self oscillating mosfet circuits, audio circuits, etc...

Even on IRF's website in all the technical docs, they give you many scenarios and values of components for the mosfet to oscillate at different frequencies. It is all right there. I know because I took the time to look it up.

I agree the oscillation should not be required to achieve a gain according to how the circuit is supposed to work.

[Aaron]

oscillation

Aaron wrote: -

Maybe not but this sidesteps the fact that there are mosfets specifically designed to self-oscillate as there are mosfets that are designed to specifically not oscillate. When it oscillates, it may encounter avalanche.

Aaron, you are getting very confused about this. Mosfets's are not designed to self-oscillate, this is nonsense! Repetative avalanche simply means that the physical build of the mosfet can withstand multiple high energy pulses to a certain rated level without breaking down.

Hoppy

I think you're the one that is confused. You know how many circuits are out there that specifically take advantage of the oscillation? Many. Stop production of all mosfets that oscillate and you'll have a riot. Whether or not the company makes them to be able to oscillate or not is irrelevant. If they oscillate, that is an intrinsic characteristic of the mosfet, period, plain and simple.

This is like drugs with side effects - there is no such thing as a "side effect." They are all 100% direct effects of the drug. It doesn't matter if it happens to be an effect, it is an innate part of the mosfet.

Avalanche is problem with breakdown and oscillation is oscillation. And it can oscillate without breakdown.

[poynt99]

Something a lot of people misunderstand;

The inductive discharge does NOT switch polarity.

If you imagine the currents (two separate ones) going into an inductor with directionality, you can more easily understand the inductive discharge.

Positive charge will enter the positive terminal, and exit the negative terminal. What is coming out of the negative, is positive.

Negative charge enters the negative terminal, and exits the positive terminal. What is coming out of the positive terminal is negative.

When an inductor sees a "change" its efforts are in resisting that change. When you cut power to an inductor, it tries harder to continue putting positive out the negative terminal, and negative out the positive terminal, just as it had been doing.

I hope this is still not a confusing issue with anyone. I as well as others have hammered this issue to death several times on the other thread.

Put simply, when the inductor is disconnected from the source, the voltage polarity across its terminals reverses, and the current ramps down. How quickly the current ramps down, and how high (in the reverse polarity) the voltage goes depends on how much load is seen by the inductor after it is disconnected. Simple as that.

.99

[Armagdn03]

Something a lot of people misunderstand;

The inductive discharge does NOT switch polarity.

If you imagine the currents (two separate ones) going into an inductor with directionality, you can more easily understand the inductive discharge.

Positive charge will enter the positive terminal, and exit the negative terminal. What is coming out of the negative, is positive.

Negative charge enters the negative terminal, and exits the positive terminal. What is coming out of the positive terminal is negative.

When an inductor sees a "change" its efforts are in resisting that change. When you cut power to an inductor, it tries harder to continue putting positive out the negative terminal, and negative out the positive terminal, just as it had been doing.

[wantfreeenergy]

Tesla Switch

I suppose I'm not in the same league as you all. But as far as inductive goes you are talking about using coils to extract the energy right.? "See I don't know much." When the wire is given a deliberate sharp pulse at the moment it switches off excess energy rushes in.

And the same with the TS. When you stack the voltage above what it's going into then create a pulse from it, when it turns off excess energy rushes in. But there is a space/material needed for it to rush into/on. So you use batteries/caps. I've seen the replications where people used one battery and the rest caps.

Maybe this can help?

[poynt99]

I've yet to see an LC circuit that is given a little push like the veljko oscillator pendulum - at the apex of it's swing. I've bought a cheap scope on ebay with which I intend to investigate the possibility of an LC circuit that mirrors a veljko oscillator.

As for a capacitive analogue to the inductive OU circuit, point 99, I think it's fairly clear that we don't know what you're hinting at..

Throw a dog a bone

Love and light

Keep your eye on Luc's "Resonance effects for everyone to share" thread. You will soon have your "little push" circuit

The capacitive circuit is not too difficult, but it does require some thought. It is somewhat unconventional relative to what we are used to seeing and using, but it is possible to build and use. MileHigh gave his input on it, are there any others?

.99

[poynt99]

Maybe not but this sidesteps the fact that there are mosfets specifically designed to self-oscillate as there are mosfets that are designed to specifically not oscillate. When it oscillates, it may encounter avalanche.

IRFPG50 allows for oscillation and repetitive avalanche IF it should occur.

Aaron, first of all, thanks for taking the time to participate in this thread. I know you're a very busy guy.

Anyway, Hoppy pretty much nailed it. MOSFET's really aren't designed to oscillate. There are however some high frequency JFET devices designed to be used as RF oscillators (VCO's etc.), but that's about as close as it gets.

The required level of oscillation is achieved by setting the duty cycle at 3.7% 'on' at a frequency of 2.4 kHz.

Reducing the gate current of the mosfet results in an oscillation that
overrides the predetermined frequency and duty cycle. The frequency
oscillates between 143 kHz and 200 kHz and the duty cycle defaults
to approximately 1.3% on.

So here is a fact. Does the circuit claim of 17.0 COP come from the circuit
running at 3.7% duty cycle and 2.4 kHz frequency. The answer is NO; it does NOT.

That is what the timing signal was set at when it was triggered into
self-oscillation - the circuit ran in self-oscillation and the high gains came from self-oscillation.

And what was the circuit running at when in oscillation?

143 kHz to 200 kHz at about 1.3% duty cycle. There is a big difference.

Take that all into account first, then re-edit your explanation based on
the 3.7% and 2.4 kHz because the fact above contradicts the point
you make about 3.7% at 2.4 kHz frequency.

I am aware of all that. My point was merely to state that should folks NOT be able to get their circuit to oscillate at the 143-200kHz range, and are relying only on conventional IK, then it would be prudent to reduce the Duty Cycle to 1.2% from 3.7% for better efficiency. This is indeed supplementing what Harvey already posted about this.

You don't even discuss what the circuit was running at for the high COP claim.

You started this thread, do what you want, you invited me and I'm just
pointing out this one very important fact that continues to be sidestepped
by everyone that is skeptical of these claims.

In any case, the above is all I have to say for now.

Perhaps the HF oscillation does give better results, but for now since most have not been able to get the HF oscillation, I am going on the premise that Rosemary's statement about the HF oscillation not been required to achieve COP>1, is true.

.99

[poynt99]

Okay, I will try to answer as many questions as possible with my point of view.

First of all, is Milhigh your buddy? Your name is David, right? Anyway, he got a good point. A wire is an inductor, even if it straight. That lead to your point of view about an inductor is the opposite a capacitor is somewhat not exactly correct. An inductor and a capacitor are like springs with different stiffness. Pure capacitor is spring with high stiffness. That means it has a very high vibrating frequency, the opposite is true for inductor. A mechanical view is that they're pipes with differnt diameter. High pressure, low volumetric flow (inductor) or low pressure, high volumetric flow(capacitor). This is the opposite you're thinking.

OK, What's wrong with conventional EM theory.

It states that P=IV
it also state that P=I^2R

This is the mistake I spot in conventional theory. Those are different P. IV is electrical current while I^2R are EM waves. They're two totally different things.

What is the equilvalent OU capacitor? All AC capacitors are OU with EM waves feed back. The reason is as stated above about conventional theory.

Well, first of all, I see MileHigh, as well as Hoppy, Gyula etc. as peers. I am familiar with Gyula from OU, but I did not "meet" MileHigh until I participated in Rosemary's thread. You seem to think you know me? No the name is not David.

Inductors and Capacitors are indeed true opposites. That I will try to show.

I'm not sure about your EM theory there...seems a little "off".

.99

[MileHigh]

.99:

How about this:

Replace the resistor-coil with a capacitor in series with a 10-ohm resistor.
Replace the fly-back diode with a 100-ohm resistor.
Assume SW2 is connected to "A", the battery positive/cap positive node.

When the MOSFET switch closes, the cap charges fairly quickly through the 10-ohm resistor and some current flows through the 100-ohm resistor.

When the MOSFET switch opens, the cap discharges more slowly through the 10-ohm and 100-ohm resistors.

This at least is a look-alike for the charging-discharging of the energy storing element in the circuit. No OU in sight.

There is no easy way to get a charging battery setup going in the alternative circuit unless you add another timed switch to connect the charged capacitor to the charging battery and the charging battery is at a lower voltage than the source battery. No OU in sight.

MileHigh

P.S.: If you short out the capacitor you get a spike of high current with rapidly decreasing voltage. It's almost the same as open-circuiting an inductor giving you a spike of high voltage with rapidly decreasing current. So perhaps if you remove the 10-ohm resistor and then when the MOSFET switches on.........