DIY Electric Car Forums banner

2481 - 2488 of 2488 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Re: Unlimited Mileage Electric Vehicles (Part 2)

Don't the node voltages in chart #6 indicate current out of the battery, -49 Amps across the .15R?
My mistake. I tuned it wrong. Thanks for pointing it out.

If we compare a test case, we see that the same current polarity and node voltages occur. So, I had the tuning coil set to high blocking the power coming from the left-hand side.

Yet, if I reduce the inductance of this coil to be more similar to all of the other versions of this circuit, then I get a transference across it resulting in an overwhelming influence upon the battery requiring some throttling by raising the resistance of the resistor at the top of this loop.

This is what I have to show, so far. I'm in the midst of making adjustments to fine tune it. I want to believe that all I have to do is: reduce the self-inductance of the tuning coil and increase the resistance of the resistor at the top of this loop to get exactly, or nearly so, the results I want to achieve. But it may take a whole day to see if I can achieve it since my computer is very slow. So, I thought I'd post these preliminary results so as to answer your question right away.

Thanks!
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Sorry for the delay. It took a while to iron out all the "kinks".

Increasing the self-induction of VC1 & VC2 decreases the gaps in the duty cycle of the 1.81 Ohm resistor (which represents the dead battery pack of 182.5 milli Ohms of resistance - derived from 24 count NiMH batteries as read from a chart given to me by Toyota of Carlsbad who inspected my defunct RAV4EV from 2002) plus a small resistor placed in series with these dead batteries to reduce the amperage and increase the voltage to just the right amount. But there is a cost to increasing the self-induction of VC1 & VC2. The cost is an increase of nodal voltage throughout the circuit. So, I settled on this configuration, instead.

I forgot to mention that it is common knowledge that resistance corrects power factor, ergo: puts the current and voltage wave components of electricity back together again. This is why reactive power heats up a circuit. So, other than bringing back steam locomotives running on reactive power, my approach has been to see if I can simulate a process whereby electricity is stretched almost to the point of complete breakdown so as to take advantage of the ease with which reactive power may be manipulated to increase its amplitude, and then put its pieces back together again through a resistive load, such as: a spark gap, an arc lamp, or a chemical resistive load such as a dead pack of batteries. Ossie Callanan spoke of this last possibility in his treatise entitled...

A Working Radiant Free Energy System...
http://fluxite.com/WorkingRadiantEnergy.pdf

and

https://vdocuments.site/working-radiant-energy.html

and

https://archive.org/details/workingradiantenergyossiecallanan

What he calls "radiant" I call reactive 'cuz I think they're equivalent terms for the same phenomenon. But that's my opinion.

The funny looking step-wise surges of the input wattage at the sine wave generator are due to momentary spikes of amperage occurring there which warp their RMS average. But I hold these spikes to be of little consequence since they're very quick and immediately fall back to their nominal level which is very small -- far less than their peaks.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Reactance is our Friend

Someone's gonna wanna complain that "You can't get more from less", or worse: "You can't get something from nothing".

Well, to forestall their complaints, I'm gonna answer them right now and save them a bit of trouble going to the bother....

That last one is true. But I don't go there.

The first one is true for energy, but not true for reactance of energy. Here's why...

We use a couple of relations: the continuity of electricity (which is closely similar to conservation of energy) and current division.

The continuity of electricity is something we're familiar with: if frequency goes up, amplitude goes down. Or, if voltage goes up, current goes down. So that, overall, the entirety of electricity remains consistent with itself over time despite any changes to any of its particulars. So far, so good...

With current division, we know that if we add another branch load in parallel to any other branch loads, the current demanded of the lone voltage source goes up. In fact, we drain away the amp-hours of the voltage source that much faster with every additional parallel load of current branch added to a circuit supplied by a single voltage source. This is true for energy, but not true for reactance.

The opposite is true for reactance. Here's why...

As I cited in a previous post, reactance formulates a relationship among several factors: frequency, two times pi, and either capacitance paired with negative resistance or inductance paired with positive resistance. And negative resistance is derived from Mho's Law in which resistance divided by voltage gives negative current while positive resistance is derived from Ohm's Law in which voltage is divided by resistance giving a relationship with current which we are familiar with.

Hence, if I fly into a head-wind, this positive resistance slows me down. But if I fly a plane with a tail-wind, the opposite happens: I speed up. I suspect it's a little different with electricity in that it's not a tail-wind so much as it may be a vacuum appearing ahead of the current. So, I suspect there are two varieties of voltage: one related to pressure and positive resistance and another related to a vacuum and negative resistance.

Anyway...

The continuity of electricity demands a consistency to the overall result of reactance despite any changes to any of its individual factors. So, if frequency should go up, then resistance must go down, or else inductance or capacitance must reduce so that the total reactance is conserved. See how continuity is indelibly linked to conservation?

But this works in our favor if we are attempting to magnify electricity through a step-wise procedure of nearly splitting electricity (without splitting the atomic matter which is hosting electricity), increasing this lossless power, and then converting reactance back into usable electricity.

This is due to the law of continuity and its implication of conservation of all things! We get conservation to make possible the increase of energy OUT compared to what goes IN to a circuit! What a concept!!

In order to maintain continuity of reactance, if frequency should go up, then resistance must go down. If this is positive resistance inside a coil, then the consequence will be that current must go up. But since reactance is lossless due to its exclusive quality of recycling, more current is not drained from the source. Instead, more current recirculates in the circuit since it's not going anywhere, nor is it being drained from anywhere. It can't drain anything, because it's lossless. Only energy could drain a source. Reactance can't drain any voltage source of its amp-hours. All it can do is zip around like light beams bouncing around inside of a laser device.

So, the current keeps going up along with its frequency and the voltage will go down as a consequence of the lowering of resistance and also to keep consistent with the increase of current -- everything being conserved, overall.

Meanwhile...

In order to maintain continuity of reactance, if frequency should go up, then negative resistance must go down resulting in a rise of voltage (since a decrease of negative resistance is equivalent to an increase of positive resistance). If this is negative resistance inside a capacitor, then the consequence will be that current must go down and voltage must go up. But since reactance is lossless due to its recycling, less current is not drained from the source. Instead, less current recirculates in the circuit since it's not going anywhere, nor is it being drained from anywhere. Instead, voltage goes up with the increase of frequency.

I suspect a condition of reactant inductance occurs within each self-looped set of two or more current coils since their current goes up while their voltage goes down due to their lack of windings giving far less surface area and less capacitance among their windings allowing their weak self-induction to flourish without being superseded by what would otherwise have been the capacitance of a massively wound coil.

And I also suspect a condition of capacitant reactance occurs among the two or more parallel-connected voltage coils since their voltage goes up while their current goes down. I suspect this capacitant reactance is due to the voltage coils possessing a significant level of capacitance among their windings.

We consider this to be standard behavior on either side of a step-up, or step-down, transformer. But this circuit exclusively possesses neither a step-up transformer, nor does it exclusively possess a step-down transformer, since we're not dealing with energy transfer moving in merely one direction from a source to a load. Instead, reactance is constantly being fed back and forth in both directions in a condition of the recycling of lossless power.

The weak ten percent coupling between the transfer coil and the voltage coils seems to favor the relationships described above along with the overall reversal of voltage polarity also contributing to this situation.

The reversal of voltage polarity seems to occur at the bottom of this circuit at the pair of capacitors being force-fed D/C current without any opportunity to discharge their buildup of voltage. What I think happens is that these capacitors (and the weak capacitance of the transformer sandwiched between them) retaliates by discharging a current-free signal of voltage whenever the four diodes are forcing them to accept voltage when they've already become saturated. This currentless discharge of a mere signal of voltage is in direct opposition to the phase relation of voltage being force-fed into them and at a slightly higher frequency. This is what instigates a rise of frequency in this circuit while the five coils at the top of the circuit amplify this "stressed" condition giving an eventual abundance of reactance stretching towards infinity if not cutoff by the periodic firing of the spark gap.

Whenever I zoom in for a closer look at the waveforms, I see a triangular wave appearing riding piggy back on top of the sine wave input. This triangular wave grows in amplitude -- and in frequency as well -- quickly dwarfing the amplitude of its carrier sine wave. So, instead of a wavy sine wave whose peaks and troughs are stable, we get a smooth hyperbolic arch bending upwards towards infinity as the oscilloscope tracing of the simulator stands further and further away from this in order to "take it all in".

At some point, the spark gap on the left kicks in acting as a resistive load for a split second putting back together the fragmented reactant waves of current and voltage which this circuit has been separating by 180 degrees of phase relation amounting to a one-half cycle of an A/C cycle of separation. This momentary departure from reactance serves to collapse this hyperbolic surge to a very low value of nano- or femto- units of measurement of power only to be superseded by another rising surge quickly escalating towards infinity. And this cycle of repetitive surges and collapses occurs 6k times a second in this particular circuit. Every variation of this circuit modifies the frequency of this cyclic occurrence to one degree or another.

So, for a 20% to 30% duty cycle of D/C output, I don't think a D/C to A/C sine wave inverter would mind too much, do you? Since it's accustomed to outputting a sine wave of 60 Hz while mine is hiccuping a D/C input at a rate of 100 times faster! This is what would happen if I position an actual build of this circuit simulation behind the battery pack of an EV sending this through, or partly in parallel across, a pack of dead batteries and then onward to the car's sine wave inverter before it reaches the twin A/C motors of a RAV4EV from 2002.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,141 Posts
This seems to be a "Bunch of Malarkey", but there are several obvious fallacies that have apparently not been taken into consideration or accurately simulated. In the separate text you say that the inductor will be 200 pounds per HP, so with 27.5 kW (37 HP) output, it would be 7400 pounds - obviously impractical even if it had any chance of working.

You specify 40 AWG for a 100 mH coil, 30 AWG for a 20 mH coil, and 70 AWG for a 1 uH coil. These windings will have significant resistance, and maximum RMS current well below 1 ampere. You show an output of 346 volts at 191 amps P-P, which is 23.3 kW, assuming a sine wave.

You show several diodes, which apparently must handle currents of over 100 amps, and require PIV of 400 volts or more. That eliminates Schottky devices, and silicon diodes will have a forward voltage drop of at least 1 volt at 100 amps, which is 100 watts per device. Has this been included in the simulation?

Do a simulation which accounts for these real-world parameters, including the material you will use for the magnetic core (hysteresis and saturation losses), and show your results. Better yet, build it, test it, and show your results.
 
2481 - 2488 of 2488 Posts
Top