PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > bemf > Back-EMF Studies
2025-03-11, 05:07:27
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Back-EMF Studies  (Read 10486 times)
Topic Options img
img  floodrod
Back-EMF Studies « on: 2023-02-03, 15:25:53 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
I have been conducting many Back-EMF experiments in attempts to fully understand the process and determine if there may be a way to manipulate it to our advantage.  I know the textbooks and equations by the electrical gods have already covered all this, but the textbook answers are not compatible with the way my brain works. I do not seek the names given to the number patterns that the textbooks have declared, I seek to fully understand the flow and chain of events in each stage of a system so perhaps I can manipulate the chain of events to break the known patterns.

I am sure this log will have many erroneous statements and conclusions, but I truly feel something as basic as "Back-EMF" has many unknown properties and may be hiding surprises.

My View On Free Energy:

I have a different view on "Free Energy"  or even "Energy" than most.  A common question is always "where does the energy come from?"   In my view, it does matter if it's free energy or fossil fuel driven energy, ALL energy comes from the same source..  There is one great force in this world above all other forces.  In fact- it can be argued that all other forces are working in concert for this one "GREAT FORCE". 

This "Great Force" is the "Balance"..  When certain imbalances exist, nature unleashes GREAT POWER to restore the balance.  And all energy comes from this great force.

Lets take the combustion engine.  The power is not coming from the gasoline or petrol, but is coming from the great power nature unleashes to restore the balance.  So the gasoline ignites and creates great pressure in the combustion chamber. Now we have an imbalance that nature needs to correct.  One chamber has LOTS of pressure, the other chamber has LOW pressure.  So nature unleashes great power to equalize them to restore the balance.  So we put our hands into natures power and extract from the never-ending pool of Balancing Power nature is encoded with.  We force natures balancing power to push the piston down in the process of balancing, which sets off a chain of mechanical conversions to ultimately spin our wheels.

Back EMF follows the same pattern, as all electric.  When we pass a magnet over a coil, we create an imbalance.  Positive charges and negative charges get separated and polarized. Essentially mimicking the combustion engine- causing higher pressure in 1 chamber than the other. Nature doesn't like this imbalance and will attempt to balance if given a path.  So we put circuitry in the path forcing natures balancing power to route through components, thus doing work for us.

So I am not concerned with such questions like "Where does the energy come from"?...   My answer is,  it comes from the same place all energy comes from..  Which is we tap it from natures great force of balance.  Now the question evolves into "can we manipulate this process in which we create an imbalance causing the great force to unleash--> then re-route the unleashed energy to a destination we desire without allowing the difference to completely balance?   I believe that IF we could do this, nature would keep releasing energy to restore the balance that essentially never gets balanced.

BACK EMF STUDIES

Many of the effects I will be presenting may indeed be already known.  But I have not yet found simple breakdowns of the chain of events that cause the results to manifest without using cloudy terms and 1 line sentences that refer to a name that was given to a documented pattern.  People like to say stuff like "it's happening because of the "LC tank resonance"..  This kind of comment does me no good and I discourage vague comments like this.  I would rather be ignored than be sent on a wild goose chase from a one-liner..  I would much prefer a breakdown of chain of events that I can proof myself..

Example-  A capacitor sends 20V through a fully enclosed choke, each turn inducts into itself creating Back-EMF going towards the input. The sum of the back-EMF in a perfect situation could be >2X the terminal voltage at >1/2 the amperage of the input. The impedance created from the reverse current chokes down the input's current from the opposition against it.   Etc. Etc. Etc..

This type of answer and reply I really dig!  It lays out a chain of events I can follow and understand step by step.  Which allows me to proof each step, and possibly manipulate one step of the reaction. 

On To My First Data Experiment...

Enough blabbering..  Ok on to the experiment. I am using capacitors because I know exactly how many joules I am sending and collecting. If I can create an overunity effect with capacitors, it could be built into a machine..

All capacitors are the exact same Voltage and capacity rating.  25V @ 10,000 uf.  The capacitor with the yellow star is filled with 20V and is the source.  My pictures show what each capacitor ended up with once the source cap was connected to the circuit.  As you can see, the balance can be broken with an induction choke coil and a diode. 

Figure 1-  This is the control..  20V dumps between 2 caps.  The voltages balance..

Figure 2-  A fully enclosed low ohm choke is place between.  Again the voltages balance..

Figure 3-  We block the receiving cap from sending back to the source.  Now we broke the balance...  But the same experiment was done in figure 1 without the choke and they did balance.  We know the choke is responsible for the change because it's the only component that figure 1 did not have.

Figure 4-  We assume the choke's Back-EMF is causing this effect. So Now we add another diode and a 3rd cap to route the Back-EMF through a different path and catch it.  And behold, the Back-EMF catching cap ends up with 5V in it.. But the main source and main catch caps balance.

Now we ask-  where did this 5V in the Back-EMF cap come from?  Again- I do not seek a simple answer as in- "we caught the back EMF"..  I need more than that- the full chain of events..

One thing I know for sure is every drop of current that goes in one side must come out the other..  This statement is of upmost importance..  Meaning the grounds can not be overlooked or ignored..  Any current that comes out of the positive, the exact same amount of current went into the negative side.

So lets follow the path in figure 4..  And it gets complicated.  The main Cap sent it's current through a diode and into the choke.  Out of the choke into the positive of a catch cap. Any current that made it to the main catch cap, also was sent out the negative terminal to the source cap's negative terminal. Now the Back-EMF Cap also caught 5V..  And we know it came from the coil..  Now lets follow that path.  Since it came from the coil, it pulled that current from the positive of the 2nd catch cap. And that current was pulled from the negative of the source cap.  Which in-turn came from the positive of the source cap, and following the directions of the diodes, brings us back to the coil!

Does that mean the Choke Created more power?

I believe so..  Although I do not claim it is as I have not proved it.  Comparing figure 3 to 4, it would seem we can "force" the back-emf towards the sending cap or the catch cap by blocking the path as we choose.  So how can we exploit this more?

I am not sure yet..  More experimenting is needed..  But I can say for certain if I put diodes on the negative terminal of a battery- I am able to run a magnet motor off the negative terminal of a battery.  I do not claim overunity though because it is taking power to create the Back-EMF.  I feel confident to say Back-EMF flows through the whole circuit, meaning any Back-EMF also flows out of the source batteries negative terminal towards the positive. If anyone desires to see a video of these effects, I can post some.

Anyway- this log will document my studies and conclusions of how Back-EMF works and possible ways to exploit it.  I will most likely not be including maxwell's equations or complicated math because as I stated above, I need a fresh view and understanding of the chain of events I can fully understand and comprehend.

Some may see this as waste of time- I encourage such individuals to move along then. And I do realize ALL 4 models showed a loss in power. No overunity has been proven here.  Only speculation at this point.
   
img  Excelsior
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #1 on: 2023-02-03, 18:18:08 »

Full Member
***

Posts: 246
Be the change you wish to see in the world
.
« Last Edit: 2025-01-19, 01:04:01 by Excelsior »
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #2 on: 2023-02-03, 19:48:25 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Thanks RR..  Some of your investigation mentions I have heard of, some are new to me.  I will be looking at what they offer..

This statement you said resonated with me, as I have tried to explain this before.  "that COP appears to be above 1 (ignoring loop)"

Lets say we did create Overunity and pulled power in from outside..  The gain would hide itself because the "gain" ultimately ends up in the negative side of the source (whether it be a coil or a battery ~ matters not).  And current that goes in the negative -->  must come out the positive..  Thus it appears that the source is still powering it all.

This is why I feel it is highly unlikely a FE machine can loop to feed the source.  When we tie the negatives together, the potentials of the negatives equalize- thus killing any gain (if there were any).

If it is possible to loop- I feel most systems (if not all) would need 2 storage devices.  1 source and 1 catch.  The catch can re-charge the source, BUT only if we disconnect the source and catch from the circuit to make the transfer.  As soon as we connect both together- the act of balance occurs and we can not maintain the imbalance.

Another option MAY be to swap the catch and source in intervals.  As long as they are never tied together.

I attached a picture below of a very simple experiment that demonstrates the "Balance".  It's funny I work in a technical field where we are multiplexing fiber, fusion splicing, and diagnosing RF plant problems all day every day..  When I ask this basic question (attached in the pic) I can't remember anyone who predicted correctly..  Electricity has no care if there is a "ground"...  All it want's to do is "Balance"...   
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #3 on: 2023-02-03, 20:13:49 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Here is my next test that is Pretty Damn Convincing!

Only using 1 Cap- I can make it send MORE through the circuit than it has stored..

I charge a Cap to 20V.  Use a diode and a choke.  Now dump it through the choke and diode to it's own Negative terminal.. 
The CAP now has NEGATIVE 5 Volts...

My theory is it transferred it's full 20V to the negative side to balance, but the Choke created 5V more in BEMF, which we forced into the negative terminal with a diode.  Thus transferring 25V through the circuit with a source of only 20V.

If anyone is going to replicate, use a Full iron core surrounding a thick Low Ohm Coil.  My Choke is like 0.3 Ohms. 

This seems to be the exact effect I have been honing in on for the last 2 months or so. 
   
img  Cadman
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #4 on: 2023-02-03, 20:14:59 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 152
floodrod

Thanks for starting this topic. It supports the experimental results I had here. https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4295.0

The explanation I have for the apparent OU results rests entirely with the magnetic field of the coil boosted by the iron core.
Here is how I see it, and it’s all old news and it’s easier to understand using a simple old time view of magnetic field lines, and ignoring normal electrical losses.

DC current pulse only.
Electricity is brought forth by a magnetic field passing across a wire. Induction.
The current passing through the coil causes a magnetic field to propagate from the center of the core outward inducing a CEMF, but this is irrelevant to this explanation.
The iron core multiplies the number of field lines. The current passing through the coil has NOT been stored in the magnetic field, it continues on to the capacitor, charging it.
Once the magnetic field has reached it’s maximum the current ceases to flow and the field collapses, just as in a joule thief.
This induces a NEW current, the BEMF, because the field lines are crossing the coil wire as they collapse into the core. This is the source of the extra that shows up in the capacitors, an EMF that was NOT created by current from the source capacitor.

Almost everyone ignores the current that passes through the coil, they dissipate it to ground. We captured it in both of our experiments.





---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #5 on: 2023-02-03, 23:07:32 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Thanks Cadman...  I am going to build upon the idea in attempts to harness it..

Here is the circuit I am trying now. 

I want to complete the circuit sending as little to the source negative lead as possible..  So I need to ground back into the positive of the source..  And on the catch battery, ground that into the hot of the source battery also.. So I am doing everything I can think to keep everything bouncing between hot legs as possible..

1. 6V battery as a source..  Boost it then connect the battery hot and the boosted leg to feed an H-bridge.  (using the battery hot as ground).
2. H-bridge sends alternating DC to the choke to create the Back-EMF.  With the diodes in place for Back-EMF recovery.
3. Boosted Hot leg of booster also splits with a diode to the hot terminal of a 12V battery.
4. 12V negative terminal goes into the 6V source positive terminal. 

Basically using a 6V battery to charge a 12V battery + itself with the use of a booster.  While creating Back-EMF to harness.

I tested with a depleted 6V battery to see it the circuit works.  And it operates just fine.  Holding a magnet by the choke I can feel good pulsing and the scope clearly shows the coil pulsing at over 12V. 

The 6V battery voltage immediately drops when loaded (it's depleted)..  The 12V starts charging.  Once the 12V battery starts taking a charge, it sends current to the 6V and they both start to charge.

When the 12V battery reaches about 12V, the charging current starts to drop as the voltage in the 12V raises, then the 6V starts bleeding voltage..

All quite interesting....  Now I am charging up the 6V to repeat the test.  I think I should load the 12V battery to keep the volts in the battery low, thus allowing more amperage to run to the 6V battery, in turn this allows the 6V to pump more amps to the choke increasing the Back-EMF.

At first glance, there appeared to be a sweet spot where both batteries were charging.  But it was short-lived and questionable..  If it is goin to work, I think there will be a balance point. Because the choke definitely has an "amperage window" it needs to be operating within to send decent back-EMF.  So I think I need to be pulling an exact load off the 12V catch to keep the source sending enough to keep the process alive.

We will see..
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #6 on: 2023-02-04, 02:24:28 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Well that circuit was not a success.   ???

But here is a video I just made where I am quite sure documents the effect.  I short a charged cap into itself (through the coil + diode) and that 5V BEMF I discussed before ends up in the negative side.  The cap is about -5V when complete.

I also do it through a air coil load and catch almost -4 volts. I am pretty damn sure the load processed 24V through it from a source only charged to 20V.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVnB4cXrdM4

The choke coil must be Low resistance as well as the load.  If you use a higher ohm load, the source sends lower current which does not produce noticeable Back-EMF.
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #7 on: 2023-02-04, 16:10:27 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Here is a cool experiment with scope shots of each.  I find it very telling..

LEFT COLUMN- Voltage Only

Test 1- Shorting a cap into itself.  I charged a cap to 20V then discharged it into itself (shorted)..  As you can see, it had 20V and discharged 20V.  No extra voltage present.

Test 2-  Cap and Choke (LC Tank Circuit).  Charged cap to 20V then discharged into itself through the coil.  Now more voltage was sent. The cap discharged to zero and beyond causing negative charge in the cap. The cap now needs to balance so this negative charge bounces to the positive, back and forth and rings out.

Test 3-  Same tank circuit, but now with a blocking diode.  The diode stops the oscillations and allows the cap to store the charge in the negative side.  We see extra voltage and we stored it.

RIGHT COLUMN- Voltage and Current

The Blue Trace is Current..

Test 1- Cap shorted sends out 1 big quick burst of current.  And voltage lands on zero with no extra going into the negative of the cap.

Test 2-  Tank Circuit..  Cap sends out less current, BUT for a considerably longer period of time before it reaches it's first bottom.  Although I did not and can not confirm, I assume the first burst of current in test 2 is equal to the total current in test 1 if we take the time variable into account.

Test 3-  Tank circuit with Diode to prevent oscillations and store possible gain.  Again, the first burst of current is less than if we had no coil, but it sends current for a longer duration of time. Now we have some extra charge in the cap on the negative side collection.

At first glance it looks like we gain voltage from the sacrifice of current.  (due to impedance).  Until we take the time variable into account.  As stated above, less current was sent- BUT it was sent for a longer duration of time. 

If it can be conclusively verified that the amperage in figure 1 and 3 are the same with regards to time variable, then I think it can be concluded the rebound ringing (oscillations) are gain that has no place to go but peter out within the coil.  But with a storage device and a diode, that possible extra energy gain can be caught instead of letting it peter itself out.

I believe under 100% perfect conditions- a coil has the capability to produce and equal and opposite reaction up to 100% of the energy that was sent into it, through the very act of self-induction. If correct, this leaves us with a maximum value of COP2, which will be much lower due to losses and inefficiencies in the core's flux, resistance, etc etc.

Am I chasing a ghost?  Probably..  LOL..  But I am still going to chase because I am a stubborn SOB.


 

   
img  F6FLT
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #8 on: 2023-02-05, 08:17:09 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2124
Quote from: floodrod on 2023-02-03, 15:25:53
...
Enough blabbering..  Ok on to the experiment. I am using capacitors because I know exactly how many joules I am sending and collecting. If I can create an overunity effect with capacitors, it could be built into a machine..
...

What do you find amazing about these montages? I only see normal and banal effects, and moreover with a lot of losses, for example the setup (3) should give almost 0v on the left and almost 20v on the right, I think that's what you would have with a higher value choke.
All these setups redistribute the charges from one capacitor to the other, there is no original idea on how this process could bring overunity, or else it will have to be explained.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  chief kolbacict
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #9 on: 2023-02-05, 09:44:14 »

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
F6FLT, I will asked you as radioamator,what is this device?
What could it be, what product ?
This is something of the old Soviet equipment.
And the diagram I drew.
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #10 on: 2023-02-05, 12:06:11 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023-02-05, 08:17:09
What do you find amazing about these montages? I only see normal and banal effects, and moreover with a lot of losses, for example the setup (3) should give almost 0v on the left and almost 20v on the right, I think that's what you would have with a higher value choke.
All these setups redistribute the charges from one capacitor to the other, there is no original idea on how this process could bring overunity, or else it will have to be explained.


Dear Sir,

These "montages" are examining the inner workings of a process that allows me to catch or use extreme amounts of Back EMF in a circuit. I can manipulate Back-EMF to be > 2.5X the positive terminal voltage.  And this BEMF is real power that can be used to do real work.

The BEMF can be taken from the positive side while using the batteries positive terminal as a ground, or the negative side while using the negative terminal as a source. Please view the images. I can create a situation where the negative leg of the choke is 12V Lower than the negative terminal of the 12V battery.  And I can certainly run motors, lights, or simply charge Caps using only the negative terminal separated with a diode.  If you wish to view me doing so, you may watch this-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKpx0bT_14s&t=3s

I can also run a motor with the main circuit's forward current while tapping and collecting the BEMF.  Or even run 2 motors- 1 from the forward driving current and 1 from the isolated BEMF.

I "believe" this back-emf is being introduced into the circuit from the outside. And it becomes hard to deny that you can use a choke to send current through a load, and you still end up sending sending negative voltage into the negative terminal of the source.  Using a diode on a 12V battery, I can get over 27V reading from the hot after a diode to the negative terminals.

I am not making OU claims, just stating my belief which you are entirely free to dismiss.  And before trying to derail my research- please perform the tests of your theories yourself and gather the results to present.  Statements like "Use a better choke and you should catch the full 20V" do me no good and I shrug off..

It is very very difficult to catch as much as you send with Caps because they are non-ohmic. Meaning their internal resistance changes drastically as they charge. Same as an inductor- both Non-ohmic due to the changing impedance / resistance values. Charged cap dumped to empty cap will lose roughly 66% of what it sends because of this fact.  When measuring the total between both caps, we find transferring to an empty cap causes us to lose 1/2 the joules.

If you can demonstrate dumping 20V from one cap to another of the came capacitance rating- Please show me proof. 

   
img  F6FLT
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #11 on: 2023-02-05, 13:57:51 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2124
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023-02-05, 09:44:14
F6FLT, I will asked you as radioamator,what is this device?
What could it be, what product ?
This is something of the old Soviet equipment.
And the diagram I drew.

Never seen this before. From the diagram, it looks like a line. From the inductances, it looks like it's for VHF frequencies.
An adjustable filter or a phase modulator or shifter?



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #12 on: 2023-02-05, 14:58:00 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2124
Quote from: floodrod on 2023-02-05, 12:06:11
...
These "montages" are examining the inner workings of a process that allows me to catch or use extreme amounts of Back EMF in a circuit.
...
I am not making OU claims, just stating my belief which you are entirely free to dismiss.  And before trying to derail my research- please perform the tests of your theories yourself and gather the results to present.
...

The "back emf" being, as its name indicates, only the return of what you put in an inductor, there is no reason for overunity.

You yourself say that you don't claim overunity. So why should I reproduce your setups, which are extremely common, if it's to get conventional results? Well, I could do them if there is a concept idea, and that's what I was asking, not the detail of the realization. Why should we get overunity from these setups, what is the idea behind it, is there one?



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  chief kolbacict
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #13 on: 2023-02-05, 15:19:24 »

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
I don't know it myself.  that's why I'm asking.
I got it as is, from what equipment it is not known.
It is obvious that something is a radio receiver, a transmitter.
For a tunable kontur, it is not necessary
so many coils, one is enough.
Obviously, when changing the capacitance of the varicaps, the time delay will change.
Did the Russians come up with it themselves, and did not copy it from anyone? ???
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #14 on: 2023-02-05, 16:13:49 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023-02-05, 14:58:00
Why should we get overunity from these setups, what is the idea behind it, is there one?
I will answer your question.

The reaction of sending current into a coil is back EMF. The amount of back EMF it produces is dependent on how much of the electromagnetic field the coil can capture. Surrounding a coil by a full core allows back EMF to be substantially increased because almost all of the magnetic field can be directed back to itself.

My research and questions are as follows. Can the equal and opposite reaction be diverted, or redirected to flow in the same direction as the input action that caused it?  I believe I have demonstrated at least some of it can. I am not asking anyone to answer this for me, I am conducting my own research to answer this for myself.

It very well might end up being erroneous as I previously stated. And that is okay because the studies ultimately lead to greater understanding of the subjects. For instance, when I run a motor off back EMF only, the more I load the motor, the lower the source input power is required.

Knowing this, what happens if we harvest the back EMF from a motor that we are driving with back EMF? Or since we already determined that loading a back EMF driven motor causes the first motor to consume less input power, what if we load the back EMF driven motor with generator coils? Then the act of generating power starts to lower the input required to do so.

Is there a point where it becomes possible to harvest more than we use? That's what we are all here to find out.


   
img  Cadman
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #15 on: 2023-02-05, 17:24:53 »
Full Member
***

Posts: 152
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023-02-05, 14:58:00
The "back emf" being, as its name indicates, only the return of what you put in an inductor, there is no reason for overunity.

You yourself say that you don't claim overunity. So why should I reproduce your setups, which are extremely common, if it's to get conventional results? Well, I could do them if there is a concept idea, and that's what I was asking, not the detail of the realization. Why should we get overunity from these setups, what is the idea behind it, is there one?

F6
Explain how the results in this image are not OU. The source cap being initially charged to 20V.

It’s clear that the BEMF by itself is not overunity. It’s the BEMF plus the charge sent through the inductance added together that equals more than the charge taken from the source cap. And the self inductance does not have to be the load.



---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
img  Grumpy
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #16 on: 2023-02-05, 19:48:58 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Measure the energy not just the voltage.
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #17 on: 2023-02-05, 20:18:35 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Quote from: Grumpy on 2023-02-05, 19:48:58
Measure the energy not just the voltage.


Yes. The energy absolutely comes out at a loss on all of those capacitor tests. They are intriguing, but not conclusive because of this loss.

First we must understand that even with no circuitry, dumping from capacitor to capacitor incurs a 50% loss. Or 66% of what is actually sent. So we cannot tell for certain if this apparent gain was an actual gain, or just recovering energy that was lost due to the capacitors non-ohmic design.

The next test was the clencher for me. I attached the image again below. This was simply to demonstrate I can still harvest the extra power in negative values with one capacitor.

Although this is also not solid proof but it does add quite a bit of credibility to the belief.

And even if it was confirmed, there would be no guarantee that the input power to create the self induction would be usable without killing or limiting the self-induction effect that caused it to happen.

The closest builds I have seen all resemble this exact method though. Some say the batteries charge from the chemical makeup, other say from the flyback.  If they do work, I am leaning towards this concept as being the reason why. Examples would be the gap motor, Joel's newest video on self-charging a battery, and many others.
   
img  TommeyReed
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #18 on: 2023-02-06, 00:23:09 »
Newbie
*

Posts: 2
Hi All,

This is my best results so far recovering some power back into the same battery using flyback effects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4jF6xTbA04

Tom
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #19 on: 2023-02-06, 01:16:13 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Please watch this. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgolS20Y1JY

15V source to cap.   =  Cap catches 14.9 Volts

15V source through diode and choke = Cap catches 17+ Volts

Proving it is not a capacitor-source anomaly. 

Still not claiming "proof of OU"... 

Next test coming soon...  Will use no caps..  Power supply to 12V battery, pulse charge through choke and diode.  I need to verify I can charge a 12V battery with less than a 12V source.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #20 on: 2023-02-06, 07:51:38 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2124
@kolbacict

A single coil is not enough if you want to control the phase over a wide frequency range.
I found a phase shifter scheme that looks like yours but is made for much higher frequencies:
https://www.apc.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~rosset/qubic_old/uploads/Documents/Documents/Varactor_overview.pdf



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #21 on: 2023-02-06, 08:34:59 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2124
Quote from: floodrod on 2023-02-05, 16:13:49
...
The amount of back EMF it produces is dependent on how much of the electromagnetic field the coil can capture. Surrounding a coil by a full core allows back EMF to be substantially increased because almost all of the magnetic field can be directed back to itself.
...

This remark is irrelevant. The energy that the coil can return is proportional to the energy that can be injected into it, and the maximum energy that can be injected  at equal current into it is proportional to its inductance. W=1/2.L.I².
So the higher the inductance, which is the case when you add a core to a coil, the more energy it will be able to store, but the more energy you will have to put into it. It's not a question of the core, you can have an inductance without a core, with more windings, which has the same value as an other inductance with a core, and the effect will be the same.


Quote from: Cadman on 2023-02-05, 17:24:53
F6
Explain how the results in this image are not OU. The source cap being initially charged to 20V.
...

It's easy! Why don't you do the calculations yourself before talking about OU, it's at a child's level?

At the beginning: W0 = C.U²/2 with U=20V

Case 1 and 2: 
W = 2 * 1/2.C.(U/2)² = C.U²/4 = W0/2: we lost half of the energy

Case 3:
With an ideal diode and a larger inductance, we would have very low losses, this is the ideal setup for transferring charges from one capacitor into another. But in this particular case, we see that we have a lot of losses:
W = 1/2.C.(U/4)² + 1/2.C.(3*U/4)² = 1/2.C.(U²/16 + 9 * U²/ 16) = 1/2*C*10*U²/16 = 5/16*C*U² = 5/8 * W0 : we have lost almost half of the energy

Case 4:
W = 2 * 1/2.C.(U/2)² + 1/2.C.(U/4)² = C.U²/4 + 1/2.C.U²/16 = W0/2 + W0/16: almost half of the energy is still lost.

If such simplistic setups provided free energy, it would be known since the 19th century. You have to stop taking the engineers who preceded you for idiots, they are not the idiots, they know that the energy of the capacitor is not proportional to the voltage, but to the square of the voltage. If the voltage is divided by two, the energy is divided by four!




« Last Edit: 2023-02-06, 09:42:11 by F6FLT »


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #22 on: 2023-02-06, 12:01:28 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023-02-06, 08:34:59

It's easy! Why don't you do the calculations yourself before talking about OU, it's at a child's level?

At the beginning: W0 = C.U²/2 with U=20V

Case 1 and 2: 
W = 2 * 1/2.C.(U/2)² = C.U²/4 = W0/2: we lost half of the energy

Case 3:
With an ideal diode and a larger inductance, we would have very low losses, this is the ideal setup for transferring charges from one capacitor into another. But in this particular case, we see that we have a lot of losses:
W = 1/2.C.(U/4)² + 1/2.C.(3*U/4)² = 1/2.C.(U²/16 + 9 * U²/ 16) = 1/2*C*10*U²/16 = 5/16*C*U² = 5/8 * W0 : we have lost almost half of the energy

Case 4:
W = 2 * 1/2.C.(U/2)² + 1/2.C.(U/4)² = C.U²/4 + 1/2.C.U²/16 = W0/2 + W0/16: almost half of the energy is still lost.


You're answer omits the test where the energy sent through shorting results in 5 extra volts in the negative side.   
The coil was shorted and in all other circumstances, balances at zero.  But the coil causes it to "more than balance", or "overbalance"..

And you also omit my last post- where sending 15V into a Cap raises the cap to 14.9V.  But sending 15V through a coil to a cap causes the cap to catch 17.5V.

In both cases, higher potential is coming out the other side than the source had to send.

Please take the time to explain the above anomalies. How can we short a charge into itself and end up catching extra in the negative side?

The capacitor was charged to 2 Joules. Is it not correct to assume when we short out a regular capacitor, we send that full 2 joules to the negative terminal and it balances at zero?   And if that is correct, how did the negative side gain an additional 0.125 Joules?

I look forward to your answer.
   
img  F6FLT
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #23 on: 2023-02-06, 12:38:12 »
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2124
Quote from: floodrod on 2023-02-06, 12:01:28
You're answer omits the test where the energy sent through shorting results in 5 extra volts in the negative side.   
...

Instead of thanking me for having done the energy assessment, by far underunity, you blame me for not having done all your work?!
All this is obvious. There is no "extra volts". No back emf is involved. Write the differential equations of charge of the capacitors using i(t) = C.dU(t)/dt, the one of the inductance using u(t) = L.di/dt and apply Kirchhoff's laws.

This is the rudiments of electrical circuits, you should learn them and then use them instead of drawing false conclusions from your games with capacitors, because you do not calculate anything.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
img  floodrod
Re: Back-EMF Studies « Reply #24 on: 2023-02-06, 13:29:17 »
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 80
Quote from: F6FLT on 2023-02-06, 12:38:12
There is no "extra volts". No back emf is involved.

Again you omit.

15 volt power supply. Diode. Inductor. Capacitor.

Capacitor absorbs 17.5 volts from 15 volt supply. No sparking, no pulsing, no fly back.

Extra voltage appeared in the system.

At the expense of Les amperage? I cannot confirm.
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2025-03-11, 05:07:27