Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

[mr.clean]

Yes, Don Smith described the purpose of those windings were for feeding back power to the input for making the device self running. I believe Don mentioned the second winding was used to inductively pickup from the first winding and then connect back to the input. So, in this case it seems the windings weren't being used as an RF choke, but as transformer windings to feed a portion of the output voltage back to the input.

ok cool, but if you have tried using one of those, it really does "choke" whatever is running thru it to some degree

[mr.clean]

The choke gets my attention because SM used a choke on top of his TPU.
A choke allows only specific frequency's to pass into the circuit, but what is happening to the other frequency's that are blocked, are they converted or do they create a standing wave around the choke.
dave

I believe the choke was the cause of the TV implosions that SM made reference to, I think the flyback arced over to the choke. If a choke is wound right it has cw and ccw windings.

thats cool stuff! im gonna look into that

and maybe even add serial resonance to it for low impedance at resonance and tune the choke to operating freq ? idea

[mr.clean]

WoW i see Dynatron here, hello

do you have your device in self-loop here?

Очень правильный инвертор !!!)))) - YouTube

[mr.clean]

Dynatron on tv

check this out, pretty sweet !!!

Динатрон 1 Украина вперёд! - YouTube

[Bob Smith]

check this out, pretty sweet !!!

Динатрон 1 Украина вперёд! - YouTube

Here's the link to the accompanying schematic (from YT page)
Генератор Теслы | Мастер Инженерных Систем

Humbly observing (and cheering on) from the sidelines. Very cool stuff you're doing.
Bob

[mr.clean]

Here's the link to the accompanying schematic (from YT page)
Генератор Теслы | Мастер Инженерных Систем

Humbly observing (and cheering on) from the sidelines. Very cool stuff you're doing.
Bob

Good work Bob, stay "tuned"

very cool Dynatron!

[T-1000]

Kurt:
In the last Dunatron video was resonant inverter running on cold electricity from capacitor. The inverter uses push-pull transistors there and 1:1 output transformer to bulb. I also have contact with Dynatron on Skype just in case if you will need something.

Dave45:
In regards to SM TPU you probably would love to see this treasure:
http://web.archive.org/web/200612122...pplication.pdf
http://www.thewaterengine.com/pdf/stevenmarktpu.pdf

Cheers!

[quantumuppercut]

Yes, sure that is what the skin effect is. RF current concentrates more and more towards the outer surface of a conductor as frequency increases. However, skin effect is not related to changes in voltage. Skin effect is a function of frequency.

To say that the skin effect is a function of frequency is only half correct. It is also a function of voltage.

The mechanism for the skin effect is the change in current density which create a change in magnetic field. In another word, di/dt is what cause the skin effect. When we apply an AC signal to a conductor with resistance R, the governing equation is:

V=IR

To observe the skin effect, take the derivative with respect to time:

dV/dt = R(di/dt)

When frequency increase, the bottom part dt becomes smaller thus di/dt becomes larger. The skin effect becomes greater. However, one could have the same frequency but have a higher voltage. dV/dt becomes larger with higher voltage thus di/dt becomes higher and skin effect becomes greater.

[quantumuppercut]

No, not at all. To be exact, the skin depth is a function of the resistivity of the conductor, the relative permeability of the conductor, and the frequency of operation. So for a given conductor, skin depth is dependant on the frequency. So the skin depth is not dependent on the current or voltage. Anyway, it is not too critical for me if anyone chooses to think otherwise.

Yes, I agree that skin depth is not the same as skin effect. lol

[ewizard]

That's funny Farmhand as I never got the impression Lasersaber was claiming overunity on any of his devices I've seen in the last couple years. Well other than his April Fools day device -- LOL.

Still waiting on parts for the bitoroid stuff that I thought were coming from the states but turns out they ship from overseas. Not a thing on their site which is in the U.S. said anything about oversea supplier....

[Tinmanpower]

ultimately TinMan is correct as i was using 1khz - 5 khz, regardless of what is exactly the cause...it happens

and i was using parallel LC, which as u said causes a higher impedance as well as the skin effect in play

Thank you Mr clean.
Like i said,as we were refering to your system-i thought it would be obvious that i was refering to a pulsed system.
AC-or pulsed DC-but DC would be the last one on the list i would have thought.
All that would give you is an electromagnet and heater.

But anyway,it dosnt realy matter,i was just trying to point something out.

In reguards to measuring the input watt's-FarmHand is absolutly correct.
You do not need a scope to get accurate measurments,two decent DMM's and a large cap will do the job.

[Tinmanpower]

To say that the skin effect is a function of frequency is only half correct. It is also a function of voltage.

The mechanism for the skin effect is the change in current density which create a change in magnetic field. In another word, di/dt is what cause the skin effect. When we apply an AC signal to a conductor with resistance R, the governing equation is:

V=IR

To observe the skin effect, take the derivative with respect to time:

dV/dt = R(di/dt)

When frequency increase, the bottom part dt becomes smaller thus di/dt becomes larger. The skin effect becomes greater. However, one could have the same frequency but have a higher voltage. dV/dt becomes larger with higher voltage thus di/dt becomes higher and skin effect becomes greater.

You are indeed correct.
And i dont say this because i read book's or done some training course in electronic's-i say this because i actualy build the devices,and see the results for myself.
If i pulse a coil with a square wave at a 50% duty cycle ,useing a 12 volt supply-it will draw a set amount of current.
Without changing anything else other than the voltage to a 24 volt supply-the current used is not double that of the 12 volt supply.
Infact it would only be a 70% rise in current total.

I have also carried out this test many time's useing air core coils-and the results are much the same.
So the conclusion must be that resistance rises with voltage in a pulsed coil.

Im not saying any one is wrong in what they say.I am just saying what i have seen with my own eyes.

[Farmhand]

That's funny Farmhand as I never got the impression Lasersaber was claiming overunity on any of his devices I've seen in the last couple years. Well other than his April Fools day device -- LOL.

Still waiting on parts for the bitoroid stuff that I thought were coming from the states but turns out they ship from overseas. Not a thing on their site which is in the U.S. said anything about oversea supplier....

As I said, I was not saying Laser Saber was claiming OU, What I said was it is
implied, and many people are touting his stuff as likely OU. I just said it would
go a long was to dispel the hype or to justify it if actual efficiency figures
were shown, It's not hard to do and is information many think is necessary for
evaluating circuit's.

In all fairness when Zilano posted a picture of Laser Saber's setup and claimed
it was an OU device, somebody asked him and he did set the story straight at
the time.

My Oscillator efficiency test showed 76 % efficiency, or so and I did a
comparison between the scope VRMS measurement and my True RMS DMM
measurement. My upload attempt failed last night I'll try again tonight, I
probably went overboard with the caps and stuff to try to smooth the input
and output, and I went with a battery for a load with a 0.1 Ohm current
sensing resistor. But I believe the measurement is accurate and I am open to
qualified advice and constructive criticisms. I'm no movie maker, or presenter.
But the meat is in the numbers.

I might test some other things too.

Can you show me where I said Laser Saber claimed OU and I will retract it and
apologize. My ego allows me to be wrong and to apologize to people. If I have
inadvertently offended anyone I am sorry. But I have the right to my opinion
if it is not intentionally abusive.

He still avoided the question of the run time at full power concerning the
transistor heating issues, if there is any issue, maybe there isn't, just asking.

Anyway I'm glad you found it funny, it'll be even funnier if I didn't say he
claimed OU. I can't say for sure I didn't, it is possible, but I don't remember.

Some time ago I was asked on this forum which device I thought was the
best for people to build for a useful and efficient setup for lighting.
I recommended Laser Saber's setup back then, even though the ringing noise
would drive both me and my little dog nuts. I thought it was the best efficient
lighting setup to build with the best instructions for building. I guess no one
remembers that. My opinions are unbiased in my opinion.

Laser Saber sets an example of a person who can answer a straight question
asked. People just need to ask.

Cheers

[quantumuppercut]

You are indeed correct.
And i dont say this because i read book's or done some training course in electronic's-i say this because i actualy build the devices,and see the results for myself.
If i pulse a coil with a square wave at a 50% duty cycle ,useing a 12 volt supply-it will draw a set amount of current.
Without changing anything else other than the voltage to a 24 volt supply-the current used is not double that of the 12 volt supply.
Infact it would only be a 70% rise in current total.

I have also carried out this test many time's useing air core coils-and the results are much the same.
So the conclusion must be that resistance rises with voltage in a pulsed coil.

Im not saying any one is wrong in what they say.I am just saying what i have seen with my own eyes.

Well, this is interesting result. I see the increase in resistance as inductive reactance for coil. What fighting the current is the back EMF. Back EMF is not necessary related to frequency. Inductive reactance is defined as wL, for a pulse coil like that, I'm not sure what w is. I'll think about it, thanks for sharing.

[Farmhand]

Hi Tinmanpower. Not sure if you have a scope or not, but if you looked at the pulse generator input waveform on a scope when driving the coil, and compare the pulse waveform shape between the 12V and 24V settings, most likely you would find that the pulse waveform is distorting a fair bit, and this is most likely why you are not seeing an exact proportional increase in the current with the increase in the pulse supply voltage. This is a common occurrence when driving inductors with squarewave or rectangular pulses.

If we calculate the power dissipated by a coil with 5 Ohms resistance and
12 volts applied it is 12/5 = 2.4 A x 12 = 28.8 Watts but with 5 Ohms and
24 volts applied it is 24/5 = 4.8 A, which should show double current but the
power dissipated is 4.8 x 24 = 115.2 which is four time 28.8 Watts.

Could that have something to do with it ? is it even correct ? What about the
voltage drop across the coil ? Seems what I calculated above must be wrong.

Cheers