ISLab's Replication of Basic POC Effect

  • 3.2K Views
  • Last Post 04 November 2022
ISLab posted this 10 January 2022

This is my first attempt to replicate the basic POC OU effect.

First I want to thank Chris for this extraordinary site and its amazing content! I only came across it recently and wish I had known of it for the last few years that I have been experimenting. But it is never too late, so I want to start from scratch with POC effect.

Since this is my first post and the interface is very new, please forgive any errors. I will learn and correct as I go along.

My goal is to document in a way that others can also replicate by following my mistakes and successes.

I wound three coils on a 8cm ferrite rod thus:

L2 99 turns CW followed by L3 99 turns CCW

Then L1 on top of L2 with 98 turns CW.

All coils made with 26 SWG.

I tried to pulse L1 with 3.6 volts from standard PSU using IC555 circuit. This did not give any effect as the frequency was too low and I had no idea of what would be the resonant frequency.

The solution was to use Jagau's SRO circuit which automatically oscillates at resonant frequency, which I found to be about 12KHz in this case.

Below are photos and oscilloscope captures.

Coil and SRO circuit by Jagau

In order to get any useful signal on L3, I had to add a resistor and diode in both L2 and L3.

With resistor value of 33 Ohms and diode in opposing directions, I got the following in L3:

Red is pulse going into L1

Yellow is floating signal in L3, without connecting ground which seems to kill the signal.

Zooming in on this:

Slight adjustments on R1 give the following two variations to the pulse:

All the above readings are taken in the junction of the resistor and diode. The following is taken at the junction between L3 and diode:

I'm thrilled to get the ringing waveform but am not sure if I see the OU effect clearly lasting beyond the end of the L1 pulse.

Hence I request your guidance on how to further optimise the effect.

Thank you for your help and guidance!

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
scalarpotential posted this 03 February 2022

My thoughts:

Study the polarities (why is the voltage negative? reversed probes?). The 1 and 2 on the left side of the screen shows the 0V bias of the signal.

I  think it's distorted because he 220V lamp is for mains power and has flyback circuitry inside. Test with high ohmic resistances.

Rising edge of the voltage is not important, the current must be steep and this is controlled by the input voltage level. (V/L=di/dt=current edge steepness, high input voltage gives a steeper, faster current change). Tesla got high intensity currents with HV  disruptive discharge using a spark gap for extreme current changes in the coil.

ISLab posted this 03 February 2022

Thank you ScalarPotential!

Study the polarities (why is the voltage negative? reversed probes?)

....... 220V lamp is for mains power and has flyback circuitry inside

Probes were correct, and same for all the readings. (I document with photos of the probes also, so can check back for reference.) So this is likely due to the flyback circuitry in the bulb.

 

Test with high ohmic resistances.

How high would be meaningful? 100Ω ? 1K ? 10K? Somewhat new area for me, so any guideline would be helpful.

 

high input voltage gives a steeper, faster current change

Looks like I will have to build a dedicated variable PSU for feeding the MOSFET for input pulse. Could you suggest the range of voltage and current that would be useful generally, for this and for further similar use with other (and perhaps larger) coils? For example: 100V and 3A would be too much or too little? Any guidelines would save having to rebuild another later on.

Thank you again!

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Augenblick
scalarpotential posted this 03 February 2022

Are you able to measure the inductances?

https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/non-inductive-experiment/

Try the original setup again with the 2 diodes and 2 the low resistors on the 2 output coils and simultaneously measure the voltage on the resistors of L2 & L3 to see how they interact, vary frequency and input voltage to get an idea how it influences the interaction.

The idea of a high resistor was to see how it reacts under a linear load, V and I will have the same shape, leds are non-linear loads. I was thinking 100ohm or less. Ohm's law can help determining what may be useful, V=R*I, Power=V*I (on the scope Vk is rms average, Vp is peak-to-peak voltage)

Let's see what other more experienced members will say, I'm not sure yet what to suggest. Will give your posts a  better look later on

Chris posted this 04 February 2022

Hello ISLab,

It is obvious to readers, you have lost the required Linearity in all shown Scope Shots, Here:

 

You need a Linear Decrease in Potential, which is what I have shown, and stated many times, which you managed to achieve here:

 

I made the comment a while back:

I have seen a few times now, some experiments, very close to the mark, and the experimenter panics and goes side ways, never to return to the main Objective! Which is: "Generate" Electric Power.

Ref: Here

 

Focus is required, there is an effect here, that can be greatly improved upon, and Excess Electrical Energy can be "Generated" very easily using this very simple Effect!

I must say, you're missing all the important aspects of which I have covered, one example:

Studding this, you will gain more insight! For example, what did I mean: "Important", What is Important?

Ref: Here

 

All the important material is being overlooked...

Those that Succeed, Focus and Pay attention to the Requirements outlined, those that Fail do not. I ask you to take a break, and think about your path forward.

Best Wishes,

   Chris

P.S: I want to see you Succeed, some comments have me some what concerned about your approach, thats the reason for this post. I want to see everyone Succeed!

Melendor posted this 04 February 2022

Hello IsLab.

I am sorry because I did not join in to help more , but this thread is getting too complicated for me.
SIC Mosfets, spark gaps , special gate drivers and lots of things I do not understand as a beginner in Electronics.

However :

I had some speaker wire in the closet , not much like 10 m for POC1 and 10 m for POC2 ,
I wound it direct on the core , without bobbin and it was a mess.
I did not post the experiment on the forum because I was ashamed  , how nice the coils look on Chris 's experiments .......and how silly mine was.

1 Mosfet + 2.5 m for trigger and 10 M for the POC1 and POC2 I got this :



Yellow = Mosfet Gate
Blue = Curent in a 5w load
Purple = Curent in POC3

I try to replicate Chris's work as much as I can , and when I say " Replicate " I mean Copycat .
1 mosfet , 3 coils , 1 C core.

I am aware that he can not help me a lot if a deviate from this path , use gate drivers , spark gaps etc.
I try to keep it as simple as I can.

In the last 2 weeks I have been working on the TWIN coils...and they are ready....they are beautifull and ready for the show.
320 Turns for POC1 and 320 Turns for POC2 in a perfect symmetry.



I will work now on my Trigger coils and than that is it...I will do the post , as many have done before me.

My advice to you IsLab , is to close this thread because you have done the work and you have got the effect there.
This is your title , this was your plan " Replication of Basic POC efect "

You have done it !
As Chris has said , you got the linear decay , the triangle wave...some posts ago.

Now it would be great if you would try to gather the tools for the Partnered output coil experiment.

"" IsLab  Partnered output coil experiment "

I would love to see the new thread , clear and without taking sideways from the main road.
Keep it simple man , you can do it !!!!

~~~ Melendor the wizard




Chris posted this 04 February 2022

Hey Melendor,

That's great work, very nice build!

You are right, the Correct Sawtooth Waveform is inherent of Electrical Energy "Generation"! Ohms Law: I = V / R as the Voltage Incrementally Decays, lets say by 0.5 of a Volt, we see the very same Incremental Decay in Current, as Resistance stays the same.

POC Peak Voltage is at POC Resonance:

 

The input Coil is responsible for providing the correct Frequency and Duty Cycle for this Resonance, which is Magnetic Resonance.

This is the reason we need a Linear Sawtooth Waveform and not an Exponential Curve, because the Curve is not correct for the "Generation" of Electrical Energy!

The effort I put in to help others is HUGE and I get frustrated and tired, sometimes I have a temper tantrum, but I try to always be fair!

I hope everyone see's I always mean well, and want for only one thing, Success of all who try! That's why I am here supporting this Technology, freely giving my time to help others!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

Chris posted this 05 February 2022

@ISLab,

I want to say, you're doing great work! I appreciate your Sharing, so please do not misinterpret my post here.

If you're loosing the Sawtooth Waveform, you have something wrong!

For a while, close the Ferrite Gap entirely, No Gap.

You need to revisit the basic layout and forget the Circuit Guff! Please understand, a Mosfet is just a switch! As long as it is On and Off when you need it to be, no other part of the Circuit is relevant!

Please understand, I am trying to help, take my last post as Constructive Criticism, please, and if you do, there is a lot to be learned from it! Forget about all the other things! They are Irrelevant and unnecessary!

Focus Specifically on Coil Interactions, Specifically the "Important" areas, then you will see more progress!

I get tired of Tangents on Circuits that are not Specifically Relevant to the Topic!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Augenblick
  • ISLab
ISLab posted this 05 February 2022

Dear Chris,

Thank you for pointing out my deviation from the Sawtooth waveform. I got distracted with circuit improvement along the way and failed to notice this. This won't happen again!

Yes, I take all your posts as constructive criticism, as I have seen your posts helping and guiding so many people on so many threads over so many years. Your guidance is invaluable, and I know it comes from genuine and compassionate commitment to help everyone and to disseminate this knowledge and Technology as widely as possible -- a goal that I too am fully committed to.

I can also understand your frustration in trying to help others for so many years, sometimes succeeding and often failing, all while fighting trolls and running your own server. This is like running three full-time jobs at the same time!

I hope you too can recognise that I'm here with a very different level of commitment to this work, and I hope that I have not only drawn full benefit of your guidance, but also by documenting in detail, made it easier for other newbies to implement with the necessary details that they may need to succeed while avoiding my mistakes.

Since discovering your website, my biggest difficulty has been insufficient details on implementation while being overloaded with so many rich and valuable threads of the theory and seeing others' final screenshots of results but without details of practical steps in between. Things which are obvious to you (from so many years of work, knowledge and expertise) are not so obvious to someone new to POC Tech. Although I come from a reasonably deep OU literature study and some active background of experimentation with OU, I still had to gather fragments from various threads and put them together with some guesswork until I got results. And most likely I would not have succeeded without your active guidance.

In part, this is the reason why I have been carefully documenting each step in as much detail as possible, so that others who come to this site with even less knowledge and skill than I have -- but with just as much commitment -- may find my documentation inspiring and helpful to successfully implement.

The other reason for documenting is because that is how I like to work in this kind of research so that one can always go back to an earlier stage of experiment without problem. Looking at my internal documentation (where I take images of each layout of circuit, probes and coils before taking each screenshot), I can now go back to exactly the point where I lost the linearity of Sawtooth, find the cause and make suitable corrections. I will do this and revert with a post soon, so that others can avoid making the same mistakes.

I got lost with circuit improvement because my first breakthrough came with using MOSFETS instead of transistors. And reading from your Timing and Nano Second Pulses threads gave the impression that circuit timing was critical. From my experimentation, I now realise that the basic POC effect may not need all that. But there was no context anywhere to gain this clarity except by experimenting and making mistakes.

Focus Specifically on Coil Interactions, Specifically the "Important" areas, then you will see more progress!

Yes, I shall. And with gratitude for your guidance and course-correction.

I will still have to rely on some guesswork as to what I need to do to improve coil interactions. But with feedback and guidance from you and others, I'm sure to succeed.

Dear Melendor,

Yes, I will close this thread soon, once I have fully "understood" the basic POC effect. I'm not satisfied with just an exact replication of Chris' construction because that is not enough to gain full understanding that will allow for developing the POC Tech. For this, I need to play with variations of all parameters, improve and optimise as far as possible. In the process and I will make mistakes and occasionally lose my way. But this is a small price to pay for steps towards mastery of any technology.

Once I take this to the level of satisfaction, I will close the thread with a summary and guidelines for those who want to replicate. The next thread will then be "efforts to amplify POC effect". And hopefully the third thread will be "efforts to close the loop".

Chris posted this 05 February 2022

@ISLab and All Readers,

Partnered Output Coils are no different to an Electrical "Generators" Rotor Coil / Magnet, and Stator Coil!

The exact same analogy applies!

Electrical Energy is "Generated" the exact same way an Electrical "Generator", "Generates" Energy!

Input Power reduces because we have no Direct opposition against our Input, we offset the Forces of Torque in an Electrical "Generator", or MMF in a Transformer because we have no real Opposing force, where we normally see: 1 + -1 = 0, all Force is consummed, we have 1 + -1 + 1 = 1, we have offset all Force, making the torque, or MMF we would normally see entirely between POCOne and POCTwo. Input Current drops as a factor of how well your Partnered Output Coils are Functioning!

We have evolved past Symmetrical Electromagnetic Induction to Asymmetrical Electromagnetic Induction, an area of Electromagnetic Induction Science has Never Learned about and thus never investigated! Of course due to Dogma and Arrogance!

Maximum POC Voltage is reached at POC Resonance, already explained, and your Input Coil is this Catalyst for ths excitation.

Best Wishes,

   Chris

ISLab posted this 06 February 2022

Note on documentation

As a routine, I take images of the circuits, coils, probes layout before taking any oscilloscope screenshot. The purpose is to be able to know what the screenshot represents even if seen a year hence. Separately, I make detailed notes of each step of the experimentation with enough detail that I should be able to reconstruct any effect just from the notes.

I would highly recommend for those who wish to research (and not just replicate) to keep similar documentation.

Correction to Sawtooth Waveform linearity

As pointed out by Chris, my last report had distorted Sawtooth Waveform (SW). I was able to go through my notes and photos to find that I lost the straight line SW after I changed coils and dropped frequency below 1KHz. On recreating the changes, I observed the following:

  • placing L1 between L2 and L3 gave the most robust SW across all frequencies and duty cycle. But on the lowest frequency around 400Hz the line was beginning to curve.
  • placing L1 on top of L2 also gave stable SW, but the lower end where distortion begins was now about 1KHz. In choosing to test at 800Hz in the last report, I had lost the straight line.
  • E-cores need to have a slight gap to get linear SW. Experimenting with paper layers shows this must be a minimum of 0.25mm for my coils/cores. This varies according to frequency and duty cycle. So will keep 1mm as gap for safety.

Raising voltage and current

My current effort is to raise voltage and consequently current by finding the resonant frequency and best duty cycle. To this end I changed the capacitor and resistor on the TL494 Swagatam circuit to give it a range from 700Hz to 300KHz. Then I separated the PSU for the circuit from the PSU for pulsing current that feeds into the MOSFET and set it to 7 volts initially.

Another change: my new L1 has a centre tap to be able to test different ratios. So far I was using half the winding (to get the maximum transformer ratio). But for the following series, I mistakenly connected the entire L1 coil, giving better K factor but lower voltage ratio.

Increasing duty cycle increased the voltage on L2 proportionally until about 50%, but it also drew higher current in input coil L1. So I left it at about 10% throughout.

Sweeping through the full range, the best current and voltage on L2 were found to be around 2.1KHz (Red is L2 current, Yellow is L1 pulse):

Then measuring voltage across L2 gave this (Red is current, Yellow is voltage):

Warning to newbies. The image above is deceptive as the scope adjusts to show very high spikes and so loses the detail that is relevant for us. You have to manually zoom in to the voltage pulse above the 0v line, giving this:

This is the actual generated voltage and current pulse. Looks like 1.5V x 0.5A conservatively.

Beyond this I can easily increase the input pulse voltage, and the current rises proportionally. Increasing pulse from 7.2V to 13.2V gives:

Looks like 2V x 1A conservatively. The diode on L2 gets hot fast.

Raising further to 23.3V gives:

Looks like 2V x 1.5A conservatively. This is lower than expected. The voltage waveform is also curved although current is straight. Very likely I need to adjust the frequency here to get the voltage waveform straight also. But I did not change F just to keep the measurements consistent with previous ones. (This measurement needs to be redone at higher F.)

The cost of higher voltage on the pulse is nominal. But the gain of current is substantial! Is this the way to OU?

Unfortunately I could not measure power flow into the PSU for the pulse, as the digital current display fluctuates too much and this may need an ammeter on the side of the mains supply.

Was this the resonant frequency?

This is the question now: do the measurements above represent the resonant frequency and hence the best that these coils can output? Chris and others, please guide and tell me if this is it.

I wanted to check if Jagau's SRO can help verify this, so I tested each coil with it. The results were interesting:

L1 (full coil) gave resonance at about 12KHz with L2 and L3 disconnected from diodes. But it was 52KHz with diodes connected.

L2 gave resonance at 2.125KHz

L3 gave resonance at 2.168KHz

Then rechecking, I got L1 resonating only between 300KHz and 400KHz (with L2/L3 diodes connected) depending on the position of the R1 potentiometer. Somehow I could not get back the 12KHz or 52KHz again. It seems there are several possible resonant harmonics but the SRO locks on to whichever is closest to its starting point.

Can you please explain? Are L2/L3 resonances actually around 2.1KHz or around 300KHz?

My L2 and L3 coils are exactly 15m in length each including the 2x10cm leads to connect them. Their impedances while sitting on the E-core are 91mH and 85mH respectively. Impedance of L1 on the core is 16mH.

Unfortunately L1 is not 1/4 of L2, and I don't know its actual length (although I can get an estimate by calculating from the number of turns). Is this critical now? Should I  rewind it?

Moving ahead

Moving ahead, I would like to further raise the generated power until there is visible OU. Should I:

1) rewind L1 to be exactly 1/4 of L2

2) increase voltage to still higher values? How much is safe? Already spikes are very high.

3) wind a new coil on a larger core?

At this point I need your advice to be able to proceed meaningfully. Thank you for your guidance!

Chris posted this 06 February 2022

Hey ISLab,

Good Work! For the mean time, do not change anything, study, closer, what you have! Understand as much as you can before changing anything.

Zoom right in to Mosfet TOn and study Current to Voltage Relationships, this is where you will see a lot of progress, thats why I marked this area "Important".

The Change in Current, di/dt, in Coil X creates a Change in Voltage, dv/dt, in Coil Y, this Relationship can be seen Asymmetrically, right through the DUT. It is these very simple areas of study other forums ignore and never move forward on, the most important area in all of Electromagnetic Induction!

Once these very simple relationships are observed and studdied, and then understood, then real progress can be made! We have missed these simple relationships in Main Stream Science, thus why we have a very Imcomplete Science to deal with today!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

ISLab posted this 07 February 2022

Thank you Chris!

I will begin with an important observation that I missed in my last post.

Jagau SRO as pulsing circuit

While testing L1 with Jagau's SRO running at 3.6V, when L1 began to oscillate at about 55KHz (with diodes connected on L2 and L3), the L2 current graph was a near-perfect Sawtooth Waveform!

Later when I tried again the resonance stayed above 200KHz and refused to return to the original value (as reported last time). Even then the L2 current was a near-perfect Sawtooth, although with lots of noise:

The implications of this are surprising, if I have understood this right. It means the basic POC effect depends only on coil configuration and frequency, and does not depend on sharp pulses, etc. It works with practically any pulse shape if the frequency is right. The sharp pulse will only make the effect stronger due to higher dV/dt. Hence for getting this to work, (1) focus on the coils first, as Chris has been saying for so long, and then (2) get the frequency right. The voltage, circuits, pulses, etc., can be improved later to amplify the OU to a more substantial level.

Change in Current and Voltage

As advised by Chris, I went through in detail in each of the steps from MOSFET pulse to L1 to L2 to L3 observing the change in current and its effect on change in voltage on the next step. It was tempting to put this into a single image, which I did for my study and which I'm sharing below. All the screenshots have been aligned exactly with reference to the original pulse. It makes for an interesting study in sequence. The image is large but the file size is very small, about 700K. You may like to download it to view on full screen.

At the end I have repeated the L1 current next to the L3 current, and we can see that the waveform is a near-exact mirror image.

  • It is interesting to see that the pulse duration keeps narrowing with each induction from L1 to L2, then L2 to L3.
  • L2 current is seen to rise before L3 voltage since L3 is induced by L2. But I could not understand why L2 is lagging in relation to the main pulse. I'm not sure if this was a mistake on my part with oscilloscope settings. But all other readings were in sync. Is this because L2 current is being built up by opposition from L3? Is it the result of current generation in L2?
  • L3 current is seen to rise during the coils opposition phase. For a moment I thought I had the probes in the wrong direction, but they are correct according to the diode direction, and the voltages are positive too. Is this also indication that more current is being generated as L3 opposes L2?
  • Induction in L3 seems to cause some kind of ringing during the pulse stage, but not in the generation stage.

I also took separate measurements of the following which also are helpful for study.

Currents and voltages seen in relation to each other both in L2 and in L3:

In both coils current is seen to be dropping and rising before the voltage of the same coil. Is this due to current generation or is it from an artefact from oscilloscope's measurement or setting?

In the first image L3 current is clearly seen to grow after L3 voltage has been induced, but when zooming in, the oscilloscope makes the current rise before the voltage. So it seems the displacement in L2 and L3 are possibly artefacts of the oscilloscope's working or something in my settings. Or is there more to this?

I also found it useful to compare the currents of L2 & L3 seen next to each other in symmetry, as also their voltages:

Their symmetry is obvious, but more interesting are their differences.

  • Something that stands out surprisingly is that the sharpness of the rising edge -- in both voltage and current -- is never lost all the way in induction from L1 to L2 and L2 to L3, whereas the falling edge keeps growing less steep with each induction.
  • The rising and falling edges of L2 and L3 currents are perfectly matched in timing, although the falling edge of L3 is less sharp.
  • As L2 current drops, the L3 current grows.
  • The rising and falling edges of L3 appear before L2. Not sure if this is artefact of reading/setting.
  • Pulse width in L3 voltage is narrower.
  • The timing of currents between L2 and L3 match so well, but the timing of voltages is so different.

This has been a useful study to better "understand" the whole process.

Dear Chris, please do enlighten with your instruction and comments.

Jagau posted this 07 February 2022

great my friend
just a question, you know the adjustment of the 5K pot in my circuit is critical right?

Jagau

Chris posted this 08 February 2022

Hello ISLab,

This is correct:

 

I believe the other scope shots are incorrect, this area needs more study and checking for polarity and so on.

For example, this:

 

There are phasing issues, there is something wrong here.

Phases are very important, as Input Current is bought down by the Assistance, almost entirely In Phase, with the POCTwo Coil, meaning that POCTwo has a Magnetic Field that assists the Input Coi, In phase alomst exactly, with the Input Coil, but only when in Resonance.

In the thread: Some Coils Buck and some Coils DONT, I show how interactions can be observed with "Generational" aspects. This is where we must take some time to observe with care. Moving forward with this Technology is just a simple Understanding past the Electrical "Generator"!

Moving from Symmetrial "Generation" to Asymmetrical "Generation" of Electrical Energy!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

ISLab posted this 10 February 2022

The last three days I've been working on solving this, checking everything in detail and also replicated the circuit and effect from "Some Coils Buck and some Coils DONT". Here is the summary of key observations.

Corrections made

Chris: There are phasing issues, there is something wrong here.

Yes, I also mentioned in my report that I suspected something wrong with the oscilloscope settings, and finally found this cause. My Owon oscilloscope resets the trigger every now and then to ALT mode which separates the triggers for both channels, hence losing their time sync. I need to check every now and then while taking readings and manually set it back to SINGLE mode. Unfortunately most of my images posted so far may have this problem. I will watch for this and ensure this will not happen again.

Testing with Jagau's SRO

Jagau: you know the adjustment of the 5K pot in my circuit is critical right?

I was adjusting it, but did not realise just how critical it is. Following your note I was able to find that very tiny edge, just as the circuit hits saturation, where one finds the lowest resonant frequency (F). Around this, I can shift F just a little bit ranging between 0.5KHz on each side to find one value at which the waveform peaks by nearly 20% more than before or after. The actual value shown on the scope is quite stable with minor variations possibly from noise. This peak for me was between 55.02KHz and 55.07KHz with duty cycle (D) between 14.3% and 14.4% with SRO on L1 (with L2 and L3 connected to diodes). Is this is the best resonant F for driving the coils?

I also placed the SRO directly on L2 (with L3 connected to diode). Sweeping through the pot, I got a wide range of F which jumped as if in little steps to lower value and narrower duty cycle pulses. Something like this:

7.4KHz at 26%, 4.8KHz at 13%, 3.9KHz at 9%, etc until 3.6KHz at 1%. Then turning the pot further the F dropped but duty cycle rose again to 1.5KHz at 3%.

Are these values special for running the coils? Are they more important than the 55KHz? Is 3.6Khz the optimum?

Changing the direction of the L2 diode still gives the Sawtooth Waveform (SW), but the wrong side showed distorted pulse and SW every 4th pulse and worked on a wider range of F, whereas the correct direction gave clean and stable pulses, but was extremely sensitive to the position of the pot and worked on a very narrow range of F.

Caveat for newbies: most often the SRO does not start on its own. Turning the pot gets it going sometimes, but you lose your position. Then I discovered that it starts easily if you kick it by removing and reconnecting the L2 diode. This needs to be done each time that power is connected. Without doing this, one could easily mistake the no-pulsation as meaning the pot needs to be adjusted, when in fact it is already in the right position. For newbies, this tip will hopefully save you the hours that I wasted until I figured this out!

The SRO pulsing continues stably even when the E-cores are separated by more than 3cm.

SRO vs MOSFET Circuit

Having found what seems to be the optimum frequency with SRO for the correct SW output on L2 like this (Yellow is SRO pulse, Red is L2 current):

I then set up my regular MOSFET circuit to the same F and D values and carefully transferred the L2 connection.

The result was disappointing:

I played with W and it only raised or lowered the level. Changing F did not change the waveform until below 15KHz where it gradually began to take the good SW form, but with steep rise time and without the regauging that Chris marked as important.

Approaching 1.5KHz it got the highest, and below 1.5KHz it lost linearity.

So what changed between SRO and the regular MOSFET circuits? Only the shape of the pulse that is put out.

So I measured the currents of SRO pulse in L1 (Yellow) and L2 (Red):

Perfect mirror image!

With MOSFET circuit the currents in L1 (Yellow) and L2 (Red):

Again, perfect mirror image!

SRO voltage waveform in L1 (Yellow) measured across L1:

This is odd because we see a drop in voltage during the pulse (actually a negative pulse), and a positive voltage for the rest of the time when power should be generated.

MOSFET voltage waveform in L1 (Yellow) measured across L1:

We see a voltage across L1 during the pulse and a fall to 0v after the pulse is over. This is as should be logically expected.

But this is the very opposite (inversion) of the SRO voltage.

So I tried to invert the pulse to the MOSFET to make voltage across L1 to be 0v during short pulse duration and stay high for the rest of the time. Result with voltage across L1 (Yellow) and current in L2 (Red):

Regained the perfect Sawtooth Waveform!

But I'm confused as this means we are feeding power into L1 during the greater length of time and switching it off during the shorter pulse duration. Or have I misunderstood something?

I've gone through the documentation of IRF540 etc in detail. It should turn on when a positive pulse comes in, and when it turns on the MOSFET conducts and allows current to flow through L1. This should be the shorter period for asymmetrical re-gauging. But with SRO and with the inverted pulse we have L1 receiving power for the longer period of the pulse.

Can you please explain this? It seems I'm missing something very important here.

For your reference both circuits are as below.

Jagau's SRO:

Swagatam output (not shown) fed to IR2110 MOSFET driver at LIN which drives MOSFET:

I have verified the correct pulse all the way to LOUT and MOSFET Gate, etc. There are no inversions of the pulse in the circuit. The pulse comes to the Gate as intended. MOSFET is IRF540N. Both circuits are high-side switch.

Thank you for explanation!

Jagau posted this 10 February 2022

Hi Islab


One explanation is that the switching time of a MOSFET is much faster than a BJT, so the rise and fall times are faster.
Another consideration is that the BJT is base current controlled and while a mosfet the gate is voltage controlled. This makes quite a difference in the design of the circuit and in its consumption.
Hope this answers some of your questions.


Jagau

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Augenblick
ISLab posted this 10 February 2022

Thanks Jagau! It still does not explain the odd voltage / current across L1. Perhaps it has to do with coil currents being out of phase with their voltage. Perhaps also my current readings are not accurate as I'm still using 1Ω resistors (as my order for 0.1 has not yet arrived).

I made further tests with these three pulse outputs.

BJT vs MOSFET vs Inverted pulse

I made a comparison of all three Sawtooth Waveform (SW) outputs that I have so far.

First took the pulse through two BJTs in push-pull to L1 as my original circuit was. Peak of SW was at about 2KHz with duty 18% at the lowest (Yellow is BJT collector voltage, Red is L2 current):

Second, I took the pulse from the new MOSFET circuit with pulse as normally expected. Peak of SW was at about 1KHz with duty 18% at the lowest (Yellow is MOSFET current, Red is L2 current):

In both cases there was no SW or any waveform possible above 1 KHz.

Third, I took the pulse from the MOSFET circuit with the inverted pulse. Below 10Khz there was no SW. But going to 50KHz the clean SW formed with highest peak at about 2% duty cycle (Yellow is MOSFET voltage, Red is L2 current):

Contrary to the first two cases where increasing duty cycle raised the SW, in this case the SW drops in height if you increase duty cycle:

But the pulse to MOSFET gate is also the longest (Yellow is MOSFET gate voltage, Red is L2 current):

This configuration also keeps SW wave up to 160KHz at least:

At this point I need your guidance to tell me which of these to go ahead with.

Based on whatever I have read, it seems it is the third options which alone works at 50KHz and which alone rises to highest with narrowest duty cycle. But it is also the option where it looks like the pulse is inverted and theoretically the MOSFET stays on the longest. So I'm in a dilemma.

I've come as far as I could on my own. Please advise which is the right waveform and how to proceed. Thanking you!

Chris posted this 11 February 2022

Hello ISLab,

You're doing great work! Very well documented and very good images! I commend you for this, and for your efforts!

I believe you would greatly benefit from an In-depth Study of Electromagnetic Induction. Gaining more detail and a better understanding of How a Voltage is Generated, and How a Current is Pumped.

I also believe a greater study of Antenna Theory would help you along! All information you require is here on My Forum!

This link: Builders Guide to Aboveunity Machines gives you all the necessary information on each topic!

It is very important to keep going, that is if you have that desire to Succeed! Never Give Up! Its all in the Understanding, and once you gain that understanding, it is Very Simple to Build Above Unity machines! We will help you best we can, but the effort must start from those that desire to have the Technology for themselves!

NOTE: Some people come here to Fail, some to Succeed, we can not ensure all experiments Succeed, it is obvious that some will not, and if the Researcher carrying out the Experiments does Not Desire to Succeed, then we can not change that! However, I do get the feeling you do have the desire to Succeed, by observing your work.

One thing is for sure, we will support you in your effort to gain an understanding that has evaded so many for many Decades!

You must always keep in mind, there is no difference between Partnered Output Coils and an Electric Generator, the basic Processes are exactly the same, only we have taken Electromagnetic Induction further, applying Asymmetry! Currently, All Electromagnetic Machines are Symmetrical, and Below Unity!

We are here for you if you desire to continue!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

ISLab posted this 11 February 2022

You're doing great work! Very well documented and very good images! I commend you for this, and for your efforts!

Thank you Chris! I hope to be much more useful with my contributions over time.

It is very important to keep going, that is if you have that desire to Succeed!

Yes. My commitment to this is lifelong. At a very early age I "knew" that if humanity has to survive we would need two things: 1) free energy and 2) anti-gravity. Since then I have been studying and experimenting with these objectives. Your work on POC, that I only discovered recently, is a milestone in the field, and I really wish many more people knew of it.

One thing is for sure, we will support you in your effort to gain an understanding that has evaded so many for many Decades!

I'm grateful for this assurance, and will do my part in supporting others as I grow in capabilities.

I believe you would greatly benefit from an In-depth Study of Electromagnetic Induction. Gaining more detail and a better understanding of How a Voltage is Generated, and How a Current is Pumped. I also believe a greater study of Antenna Theory would help you along!

Yes, I will deepen my knowledge in these. My problem with re-reading these threads is that something like 90% of their content is familiar to me from past studies over many years, so I tend to skim through what is already known. So sometimes I miss some key points mentioned in passing that are specific to POC or for implementation. I really wish the many key points could be put together in a single post with links to the threads for elaboration. I hope to be able to do this someday.

With a little hand-holding initially, I hope to give back much more to the community.

scalarpotential posted this 28 March 2022

Hi ISLab, your next step could be figuring out the power and energy values and conversions of your current setup of any pulse mode. Ask why is the output voltage millivolts and how can it amplify beyond input voltage? Look into the definition of volt-seconds and how it relates to Flux, Webers.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Augenblick
ISLab posted this 28 March 2022

Hi ScalaPotential! Thank you for your valuable suggestions!

I have in fact been toying with this work off and on, but could not do anything sustained due to other urgent things coming in the way. I do hope to revert soon with many more useful results.

For the brief time that I can get free, I have been reading more and also reviewing the important threads on this site which now make so much more sense after having worked with the coils hands-on.

Look into the definition of volt-seconds and how it relates to Flux, Webers.

Yes, I will make these my immediate focus.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Augenblick
ISLab posted this 04 November 2022

Dear Friends,

I've been able to get back to work on this in the last one month, and used the time in between for deeper study, reading antenna theory, magnetic resonance, ferro-resonance, etc. Pursuing ferro-resonance articles I finally found Google throwing me back to AboveUnity.com and Chris' thread where he points out that magnetic resonance is always way stronger than ferro-resonance. So I came back a full circle to AU. 😁

Continuing lab work, the following are my steps and observations:

  • First I tested for the magnetic resonance frequency using Chris' method in:
    This is critical to do right at the beginning, and I had not done this before as I had missed the video. In mind I was always confusing LC resonance with magnetic resonance. This serious mistake was corrected.
  • Got F = 192 KHz, and a lower output with F = 559 KHz. 
  • The coils and cores need to be wound and bound tight to keep the resonance F stable. But variations +-2 KHz are not a problem to get the higher voltages.
  • When close to the magnetic resonance F the Sawtooth Waveform (SW) is easy to get and keep.
  • Variations in core spacing made little difference to the SW.
  • Diodes are no more needed and the SW stays on its own without needing diodes!

Further testing with alternate configurations shows:

  • Upper-side switching gives substantially better results than lower-side switching. From my reading, this is because the coil L1 gives a negative pulse output when switched off.
  • Using two MOSFETS in push-pull to trigger L1 gives half the output as upper-side MOSFET only. This is because when upper-side MOSFET switches off, L1 can ring freely and trigger L2 multiple times (if they are in resonance), without lower MOSFET damping it.
  • Raising pulse voltage from 3V to 12V gives higher SW initially, but then gradually the generated power begins to reduce in proportion to induced power.

In conclusion, the entire focus now must be on optimising the coils and increasing their magnetic resonance. All else seems secondary.

One nagging observation through all these experiments was that separating the cores made little difference on the results. It seems the magnetism is saturated and perhaps the arms of the E-cores are interfering with the free resonance of the coils. As mentioned before, removing the L3 circuit still kept the output SW intact but only weaker. This showed POC effect, but too much coupling between L1 and L3 (and obviously L2 also) thus preventing free and full POC resonance.

Chris' advice (here: magnetic-coefficient-of-coupling-k) is to keep the magnetic coefficient of coupling "between 0.5 and 0.8". So finally I took measurements of these using the method described and found:

k (L1-L2) = 0.964

k (L1-L3) = 0.775

k (L2-L3) = 0.762

Although POC effect was there and attained easily, I could not raise it to higher levels due to too high a K between all three coils which is preventing full and free magnetic resonance.

I believe that in a large part this is because my coils are as close to the E-core arms as they are to the core itself. For further exploration, I will remain with C-cores only (or if using E-cores, make the coils much smaller in proportion to cores).

With this I will close this thread with the following lessons learnt:

  • Use high-side switching and NOT push-pull or low-side.
  • Prefer C-cores and avoid E-cores.
  • Test magnetic coefficient of coupling first and rewind coils if needed to optimise.
  • Find magnetic resonance (and not LC resonance) frequency first without wasting time on unrelated frequencies.
  • Wind coils L2 and L3 with the same length of wire without concern for number of turns (ideally both may match) and ensure same inductance in both for best POC effect.
  • Find the right ratio of L1 to L2 by turns, by inductance and/or by length. Which is more critical?
  • Focus on optimising coils for highest magnetic resonance.

This will be my focus for the next experiments which will be in the new thread here: ISLab maximising magnetic resonance in POC

I've tried to document all my steps here in detail in the hope that it will help others to avoid my mistakes and share in my learning.

Bye for now on this thread! 😇

Chris posted this 04 November 2022

Hello ISLAB,

A good read, I see much attention paid, nice to see.

If I may; I have always tried to share exactly what I have seen, however, as time has gone on, My Understanding has increased, and sometimes, in some cases, I have seen some limits change or even disappear entirely.

All I ask of people, is for an open mind, and I always try to do the best I can to provide useful accurate information, but please understand, this is a broad technology and as design changes, parameters can also change.

Don't limit your adventure in any way!

Good to see such progress! Thank You for sharing!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

We're Light Years Ahead!
Our Above Unity Machines:

Asymmetrical EMI

Wistiti's Bucking Joule Thief
Non-Inductive Coil Experiment
CD's Non-Inductive Coil Rep
Baerndorfer's Experiment
Captainloz's A-R-E
Aetherholic's COP>4.0

Resonant EMI

Yo's Ferro Resonance
Jagau's Non-linear Resonance
Ferrite at work
Recomended Protocol:
Measurement
Switching System
Measurement Block
Current Observation
Current Sensing Resolution
Members Online:

No one online at the moment

What is a Scalar:

In physics, scalars are physical quantities that are unaffected by changes to a vector space basis. Scalars are often accompanied by units of measurement, as in "10 cm". Examples of scalar quantities are mass, distance, charge, volume, time, speed, and the magnitude of physical vectors in general.

You need to forget the Non-Sense that some spout with out knowing the actual Definition of the word Scalar! Some people talk absolute Bull Sh*t!

The pressure P in the formula P = pgh, pgh is a scalar that tells you the amount of this squashing force per unit area in a fluid.

A Scalar, having both direction and magnitude, can be anything! The Magnetic Field, a Charge moving, yet some Numb Nuts think it means Magic Science!

Start Here:
Help with using the Forum.
Message from God:

Hello my children. This is Yahweh, the one true Lord. You have found creation's secret. Now share it peacefully with the world.

Ref: Message from God written inside the Human Genome

God be in my head, and in my thinking.

God be in my eyes, and in my looking.

God be in my mouth, and in my speaking.

Oh, God be in my heart, and in my understanding.

Your Support:

More than anything else, your contributions to this forum are most important! We are trying to actively get all visitors involved, but we do only have a few main contributors, which are very much appreciated! If you would like to see more pages with more detailed experiments and answers, perhaps a contribution of another type maybe possible:

PayPal De-Platformed me!

They REFUSE to tell me why!

We now use Wise!

Donate
Use E-Mail: Chris at aboveunity.com

The content I am sharing is not only unique, but is changing the world as we know it! Please Support Us!

Thank You So Much!

Browse by Category:
Weeks High Earners:
The great Nikola Tesla:

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason. It has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who drives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians, and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency (February 1892).

Close