Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Investigations into the Radient Spike

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Investigations into the Radient Spike

    Posted this first video on a previous thread detailing efforts on a solid state charger but realized I am heading off into basic research about the spike so am devoting a thread to the topic. If you are curious from a theoretical standpoint why shorter pulses are good this video is for you.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wzK5DzX8Jo

    The second video covers more theory and spreadsheet work and sets the stage for gathering data.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BATRjDO-rbA

    Ideally, I will look to post some experimental data in near future.

  • #2
    Another video on inductors as I am mapping out the sorts of experiments I will look to do. One correction, I was saying the absolute ratio of input charge to output emf would be four times as good when you cut the pulse duration in half. I forgot to factor in that the emf would persist for twice as long with the twice as long pulse so "only" twice as good not four times. Some jeez, years back now I guess, I picked up a large prewound bifilar coil from r-charge or whatever it was called. What I consistently saw was I could never get a great inductive pulse to end up in a cap from that coil, about the same as most other coils, at the same time whenever I pulsed the damn thing it would always end up knocking out my wireless mouse and keyboard and whatnot so I knew there was a tremendous emf pulse occurring that I just wasn't getting at. With this video I would say I think I understand more clearly what was going on and I am looking forward now to gathering data. https://youtu.be/VXdYqVrQJF8

    Comment


    • #3
      An update: The spreadsheet work in the above video, based from the equations provided by the Texas Instruments sponsored Electronics Tutorials, is correct from all I can see. Nonetheless, I have gone to town on gathering data, and it is wrong (the spreadsheet work, not the data). Yet, once again things go off the rails into a parallel universe "your agonizer please Mr. Kyle" type scenario. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ydGv5XId4g. It is indeed again confirmed that things do improve with shorter pulses, yet it does not follow the absolute time value for coils that are not close to saturation as postulated in the above video. Slower coils, with greater inductance and less resistance do better for a given absolute length time pulse and I am not talking about oh is that a few percent better, I mean an order of magnitude type difference better. I looked at batteries, dc power supply and capacitors as input power, always the same trend, looked at paralleling the diode and transistor, no appreciable change. Could still be missing something what with the arduino, but no I think >inductance < resistance improves things. This also "feels" right from previous time I have spent tapping out spikes on different coils by hand. So I shouldn't be overly dramatic the concept of shorter pulses better is once again confirmed. The hypothesis that how much better things get with shorter pulses is independent of the inductor if you are not close to saturation is spectacularly wrong, though that is what one comes up with from the textbook equations. The Li-ion batteries also didn't behave at all the way I thought they would, basically they stunk for low amp fast pulses, don't know if this is just them or would be similar with other battery types. Basically when you got down to real quick low amp draw the batteries were just saying meh, get back to me when there is a real job. I imagine they could switch quicker if they were seeing a higher amp draw, but that is dependent on the coil you are using. Really to be on the safe side, might be best just to throw the whole kit and kaboodle in a cap before pulsing the coil. At least with Li-ion you either need a higher amp draw or a longer pulse time before the thing decides to get busy. Will try and post some video detailing what I looked at later, and for the "heck" of it (can't curse on this site, amen) may look at things at 36 volts instead of 12, though am pretty sure I have a decent idea what I will see. Have a "darn" good idea what two coils I will order next and after they arrive will have more data to share.

      Comment


      • #4
        A synopsis of the first tranche of data. I might have made it more clear at the start of the video I am doing a single pulse of a coil, "Give me a ping Vasily, one ping only please" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw5Tv8pTrfY The inductive spike from this pulse is rectified with a diode and placed in a cap, that is the data being gathered. Otw, should all be clear.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BZgKEMAD-0

        Comment


        • #5
          A lot of things are falling into place as it were and I just want to get them down in writing for myself and others, there is no appended video. Put something important together recently, in fact I would say this is the most important thing concerning energy, some might say only thing concerning energy, (gosh I hope it's correct) that I've to date contributed to this forum. I don't know if there is a clique where this is all old news and they are either unwilling or unable to share it or if they never formalized the concept. But you're wrong about me, I do share, I'm nice that way (Nick Fury: Winter Soldier). Seeing as no one has come out and just said the following, though I suspect some people know this, certainly Tesla and John did, and seeing as my middle name is Duffy, I hereby decree the following to be "Duff's Law". Not contrariwise, I would find reference to "The First of Law of Duff" acceptable as well. So this applies to a single pulse of an inductor where the the inductive/radiant spike off the inductor is rectified by diode and placed in a capacitor or other storage medium.

          "For a given time length pulse of sufficiently brief duration as to not approach saturating the coil, and for a given input voltage, the ratio of the input charge expended to the output charge collected is directly proportional to the ratio of the inductance of the coil to its resistance"

          As L/R defines the time constant of the inductor another way of saying this is the efficiency of your input charge to output charge is determined by the time constant of the coil. Aside from seeing this showing up experimentally, I'll confess only on two coils that I've kept data on so far, how do I know this is true? It follows directly from Faraday's Law of Induction. EMF is the product of magnetic flux per unit time, change in flux density determined by coil Henries, rate of change by coil resistance. This is nothing more than a corollary of Faraday's law of Induction. What do we see from this plugging in some real world numbers. Consider two coils from Remington Industries (aside: Remington Industries great wire, don't have both ends of the wire available on their shipped coils grrrr, Temco FTW) then:

          Coil 1) weight 1 lb, gauge 22, wire length 507 ft, resistance per 1000 feet 16.14 ohms.
          Coil 2) weight 1 lb, gauge 24, wire length 803 ft, resistance per 1000 feet 25.67 ohms.

          Now if each length of wire is put onto a coil where one wind equals one foot, coil 1 will have 507 winds and coil 2, 803. Inductance is proportional to the square of the winds. There are 803/507 1.58 more winds in coil 2 then coil 1, hence if the inductance of coil 1 is declared 1, coil 2 will have 1.58*1.58 = 2.509 times more inductance. Now let's consider the resistance in each coil, for coil 1 (507/1000)*16.14 = 8.18 ohms, for coil 2 (803/1000)*25.67 = 20.61 ohms. Let's revisit each coil

          Coil 1) Inductance "1" resistance 8.18 ohms 1/8.18 = 0.122
          Coil 2) Inductance "2.509" resistance 20.61 ohms 2.509/20.61 = 0.122

          These two coils have the same ratio of inductance/resistance, they have the same inductor time constant. For a given pulse length and a given voltage the ratio of input charge to collected charge will be identical in both coils, the only difference is there will be a larger pulse with the lower resistance coil, but input/output ratio identical. Are there any questions?/there should be no questions at this time. Sorry, haha, that was a favorite line of an Army ranger I went to Med school with, I would imagine referring to his time in training.

          Now let's do the same exercise and double the weight of coil 1.

          Coil 1) weight 2 lb, gauge 22, wire length 1014 ft, resistance per 1000 feet 16.14 ohms.
          Coil 2) weight 1 lb, gauge 24, wire length 803 ft, resistance per 1000 feet 25.67 ohms.

          Doing the same calculations as previously:
          Coil 1) Inductance "1.595" resistance 16.36 ohms L/R = 0.0975
          Coil 2) Inductance "1" resistance 20.61 ohms L/R = 0.485

          Please note I've set induction as "1" as two different arbitrary figures we are concerned with the ratio of inductance between the two coils as determined by turns squared, however in this case the ratio of inductance to resistance is twice as high in coil 1 (0.0975/0.485) = 2.0. Coil 1 is now twice as slow, the time constant is twice as high, and per Duff's Law the ratio of output charge to input charge is twice as high. Don't quote me but I think I read either Tesla or someone talking about Tesla saying it is the mass of the coils that is important. That is what is seen here. With each doubling of mass the ratio of input charge to output charge halves.

          I previously posited that for each halving of the time of the input spike the ratio of input charge to output charge should halve and this finding is only constrained by the limits of ones components. With a single spike I have confirmed this down to 3 uSec and one sees an absurd excess of output charge. The problem is with a short spike and a brief single pulse one ends up with seeing 0.01 V in a cap with an input of 12V. Well no problem just have a constant pulse train. Nuh, uh, uh, ahhhhhh. In the two coils I have looked at there is a sweet spot around 1/16th to 1/32nd the inductor time constant. Faster than that, things first start to go off the rails then just go kerfluey, meaning while one pulse looks great, you try pulsing fast there, 1) you can't transform voltage and 2) amp draw goes through the roof compared to what it "should" be theoretically. I've been puzzling about this like the Grinch on Christmas morning, well, okay let's not get carried away, maybe not like that, but I've been thinking about it and what I strongly suspect now is the component that prevents you from having fast pulse trains is the inductor itself, namely the skin effect and proximity effect within the inductor. Are there ways to mitigate this yes, Litz wire, pancake coil, perhaps, perhaps, eliminate with counterwound pancake. I'm not going there yet. I have had two cols where the coil starts to go kerfluey about at the same point in terms of the pulse length in relation to the coil Tau. Now then, if the place where the skin effects/proximity effects doesn't start migrating with a more massive coil, as it didn't seem to with the two coils I've looked at so far then good. That is to say if the proximity effect checks in twice as soon, doesn't matter if your coil is twice as good, I don't think the proximity effect will check in twice as soon from the little I've seen experimentally and from considering things like Big Eureka/Wydencliff tower. While there may be more elegant ways to approach it, if the "kerfluey point" in relation to the Tau, doesn't migrate you can really just brute force the thing. "Big Eureka!" Jeez man zip it up, I think he had a half ton of wire or something though, so would be hard for me to have my Big, Big, Big, Big Eureka, so maybe a its "really pretty good sized and works damn well Eureka" machine.
          Last edited by ZPDM; 05-15-2020, 09:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well Duff's law is falling apart, that didn't take long. I have a coil twice as heavy that is working maybe 20% better than one half its weight, unless some component issue shows up which I am doubting there is no way to pretend it is twice as good. Duffman! Making Mistakes, Duffman sad. Well its not bad news it just means we learned something, what did we learn? We learned I'm full of it and have no clue what I am talking about. More seriously I would still say it should be a general trend that a heavier coil works better. EMF is magnetic flux/time. Unless I am wrong induction, for a given amp input, should determine B field strength, i.e flux density. You have a coil with more induction you have a larger magnetic flux that occurs over the inductor's transient. Resistance should factor into how fast the flux occurs. Again being serious, I would say what this means is proximity effect and skin effect are in play with a single DC pulse of a coil. Where I may have made my mistake was I was thinking inductive reactance occurs with sinusoidal AC current, so if you look at a single DC pulse you should avoid all that. However it is current flow and change in magnetic field strength that is causing skin effects/proximity effects so it would make sense they are showing up even with a single DC pulse and apparently these effects are far from insignificant. I don't know, that's all I got to work with. So moving on and getting over, need to read on skin effect, proximity effect and look at litz wire and different coil shapes/designs, winding and rewinding coils, oh what fun!

            Comment


            • #7
              To think out-loud a bit and jot down where I want to go with this next, as I understand it, might be wrong:
              Proximity effect is primarily the inter-layer effect in a multilayer coil, though I believe also the effect between adjacent turns. It has the effect of pushing conduction to the outside of the coil.
              Skin effect is that which pushes the conduction in a single strand of wire towards the periphery of the wire.

              These terms are used with respect to a coil being powered with alternating AC current. Both are frequency dependent and more predominant at higher frequencies. Though generally mentioned with AC, when you think about it what is causing each is the current flow and the magnetic flux. Even with a single DC pulse that doesn't spend most of its time powering a saturated coil you have just like with AC, magnetic flux. So for a pulsed coil, analogous to what is said about AC frequency, one might say at briefer and briefer pulses, proximity effect and skin effect begin to predominate in comparison to DC resistance. I previously pointed out that for briefer and briefer pulses the ratio of output charge to input charge improves theoretically ad infinitum until one runs into real world component issues. The component issue I think one is most likely to run into is the coil itself, namely proximity/skin effects are altering coil resistance.

              I'll pause for a moment here to say quite politely I find this stuff so darn confusing. When I am pulsing a coil there is what I now call a kerfluey point. It is when I am running with a 10% duty cycle and the predicted amp draw no longer matches the observed amp draw. The observed amp draw first begins to creep up versus the previously perfectly accurate predicted then soon is ten times or more higher. That has got to be where the skin effects and proximity effects are beginning to become predominant. This kerfluey point varies with different coils both in regards to absolute time length of the pulse and in regards to the pulse length as a function of the inductor time constant. So far so good, the problem is the skin/proximity effects are increasing the coils functional resistance as compared to its DC resistance, shouldn't amp draw just start choking off completely and the coil sort of die off at very fast pulse trains? I don't understand this but will throw out some pretzel logic. This is weak, but who knows maybe its right, it does seem clear after the kerfluey point things are off the rails (though oddly if you keep going faster and faster, things do start to right themselves a bit, I just haven't had a slow enough coil yet to see if that continues to hold up as I can't go faster than 1uSec with the arduino). So when a coil is fully saturated the wire serves as a short, current flow limited only by the DC resistance of the wire. The time it takes to transition to saturation is determined by coil induction and resistance, if resistance increases the coil reaches saturation more quickly. Well, with shorter pulses, if S/P effects are kicking in the functional resistance in the wire is increasing, maybe the amp draw as compared to predicted gets worse because the increased functional resistance means it is seeing something more like a saturated coil. Again, I don't know, maybe a weak explanation but what I've got at the moment. I mean I get it, the coil isn't saturated, but the functional wire resistance is also dynamic during the inductor transient.

              Want to look at three things, really the last one is the one I am really interested in. So the first two are lets go the extremes.
              1) A single layer coil, this should get rid of 90% of the proximity effects, though not sure if it has much effect on skin effect. Did wind about a quarter lb of 26 gauge wire on two feet of one inch diameter PVC pipe and results were interesting. Getting back to Duff's Law the ratio of inductance to resistance of this coil was more than times worse than a 5 lb coil of 20 gauge wire I have. So didn't look good at first, however, again faster pulses better. This one layer coil could switch about ten times faster than the other before things went kerfluey. So if you picked the sweet spot for pulse length for each coil, the 0.25lb one was nearly as good as the five pound one. The confounding variable is the 26 gauge versus 20 gauge wire, I don't know I'm pretty sure the improvement in switching speed was nearly all due to the one layer not the difference in wire gauge, would have been nice if they had matched though.
              2) A very thin coil, I'll use the same length of wire from 1) and wind it, not as a one layer pancake cause I don't want to go nuts trying to make a great pancake coil from 26 gauge wire, but a real thin coil with lots and lots of layers. I have a sneaking suspicion that for this same given length of wire it will work better than the one layer coil from 1) but I would also guess it will be slower. Don't know, haven't done it yet.
              3) This is what I am most interested in. I will skip the math unless there are inquires but both from Texas Instruments Electronics Tutorials equation for self induced voltage and from Wheeler's formula for induction it is seen that if one has 2 turns of wire on a one inch diameter coil or 1 turn of wire on a two inch diameter coil the inductance (and self-induced voltage) is identical. Well that really is quite interesting isn't it. That means if you had 500 feet of coil in a 20 layer coil you could just wrap it wound the house in one turn and have the same inductance. As their is only one turn by definition you have gotten rid of proximity effect, no adjacent wire is proximate now is it? There would still be skin effect but oh well, we can worry about that another time. If you could go from a 12 layer coil to a 2 layer coil the difference in proximity effect would be enormous. I would guess there has to be a practical limit to this as there must be many 100 mile plus loops in the power distribution system. The thing doesn't blow up every time they turn it on and off, so I would guess the amps through the loop perhaps have to be sufficient to form a coherent thing in space. That said if you can go from inches to feet while letting the coil diameter make up for lessened coil turns, you can use that to mitigate/eliminate proximity effect. So I'll take the same length of wire from part 1) and wrap it on a coil with a 1/4 inch diameter and then on a coil with a 2 inch diameter. If the inductance measures the same with fewer turns ... Yea Baby! ... Yea!! ... Groovy!!!
              Last edited by ZPDM; 05-17-2020, 11:21 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I've completed this set of investigations and it has been a success. There is a lot to cover and this may be lengthy, for those who enjoy experimenting I would say there are at least a couple nugets here if you are willing to wade through the dross concerning the work involved. Though a success, by no means am I saying I understand things entirely, I just understand more clearly certain consistent patterns. So I may not know what I am talking about, but the more I read and experiment the more I am convinced neither does anyone else, hahaha, including (maybe especially) the career guy with the PhD. So I feel free to B.S. ad infinitum and enjoy it.

                So much to cover, so first I was talking about looking into different coil shapes, sizes wire gauges ... doesn't matter, how's dat? Hardly a whit, (as a caveat this applies only to being powered with batteries or DC power supply, more later). You will do a bit better with more wire, what you run into is as winds increase (inductance increases) or wire is thicker (resistance decreases) the coil slows down. What I have been calling the kerfluey point, anyone whose diddled around with this has seen this as you go faster there comes a point where amp draw increases, decreases a bit if it is not shorted but no longer is decreasing smoothly. I think, not adamant about this, but would guess this kerfluey point is the self resonance frequency of the coil. That is the frequency to tune for and as it slows down with more or thicker wire, you pretty much are close to the same in/out efficiency in any case. If you tune for this frequency you can recapture 80 maybe 90% at 24 volts, as a very generalizable theme things improve at higher voltage you would likely be at CoP >1 somewhere before hitting 600- 800 volts the limit that you could switch with transistors, but at 12- 24 volts nuh uh and doesn't matter your coil. This is not to dispute the success people obviously have with CoP>1 battery charging at this voltage only to reiterate what Bearden and Bedini have said that much of the magic is going on in the batteries and your meters won't be able to pick this up if you are calculating charge in/charge out with capacitors.

                Beyond the Kerfluey point/SRF, the inductor is acting less and less like an inductor and more like a capacitor. I spent some time going over how the effective resistance of the inductor is varying during its transient time. At this point I am fairly well convinced the effective capacitance and inductance are likewise varying during this time as well. This is unconscionable! "How dare you!" haha. So I have my new $200 LCR meter from a company that supplies sensors to BMW, the U.S. military etc., it samples at 120 Hz and 1 kHz. Now if you measure the inductance of an inductor at the two frequencies it is stable, the capacitance of the inductorr varies by an order of magnitude depending on the frequency sample. Conversely if you measure the capacitance of a capacitor it is stable at the two frequencies but the caps inductance varies by an order of magnitude. Good meter from reputable company.

                Now we get to some good stuff though more to follow. A first important generalization is that capacitors are not batteries or DC power supplies, you got that? If you look at what is going on at the SRF with a single pulse from a DC power supply, yes got it makes no sense just consider the pulse duration as half the sine wave if you were to go into AC frequency. So again at this sweet spot one might see 5 fold excess charge though at 1/4 the input voltage. Doesn't matter what you do with your coil, you'll see something around there, not orders of magnitude type improvement no matter what you do with your coil. Now if you pulse faster it appears better until you actually run more than one pulse and see you are drawing much more power than would be predicted once past the SRF.

                This doesn't happen with capacitors into a coil, I'd seen it before and I confirmed it earlier today. I saw 25 fold excess charge with a capacitor straight to another (granted at much lower resultant voltage than the input), real hard to argue with it and it is better than from a DC power supply or battery, also the transient time for the cap is like 0.1 uSec (way, way faster than the coils SRF) but there is still this improvement also from a larger slower cap. What is going on? Well I will tell you something, not sure what it means but I am only sometimes a moron. When I sample a 0.01 uF cap at 120 Hz the reading is 2.61 Henries at 1 kHz the reading is 172.37 Henries!!! That's 4 orders of magnitude more inductance than in the inductor! Whateva, I don't think I am using the meter wrong and this is why you can go faster with caps as you get past the self-resonance frequency of the coil the inductance is now coming from the cap. If the reading is correct could you imagine if you could capture that 172 big Henries as it fluxed? So caps and coils play well together in ways that DC power supplies and batteries do not. You can go faster with caps but to Alice in Wonderland absurd as you speed up the cap is the inductor and the inductor is the cap, as you slow down (the amp flow in a single pulse) the inductor kicks in with what it usually does. So again they play well together and one also sees a nicer more smooth improvement with increasing voltage.

                I started this investigation partly because I was curious and also because I wanted to have a more clear picture of how things behaved before I started on the Mark 3.14 Solid State battery charger. I had an idea for that charger which I also confirmed today so I, ... I'll just give it to you. At this point I know that capacitor discharges can work equally well to far superior to pulses from a battery or DC power supply. Now, like Gandalf and Bilbo in the Shire, stick this in your pipe and smoke it. The radiant spike off a capacitor being charged is of equal magnitude to the radiant spike off a capacitor being discharged. You should be dreaming of the undying lands, are you dreaming of the undying lands?

                The implementation of this with transistors is one of those things which appears so trivial but quickly looks like "no not the agonizer Mr. Spock". You just want to charge a cap then discharge it, how simple. But you are reversing what is the positive and what is the negative when you go from charging to discharging. So really this is another job for the Bedini-Cole bipolar commutator circuit. However, I have a cheat, work around, or perhaps very elegant solution depending on how you look at it. Depending on whether that
                work around solution works figures into how quickly I'll release the Mark 3.14. Again, and you're welcome, "The radiant spike off a capacitor being charged is of equal magnitude to the radiant spike off a capacitor being discharged."
                Last edited by ZPDM; 05-21-2020, 12:10 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X