Beyond Unity - Fighter's ZPM (Zero Point Module) failed replication by Itsu

Itsu posted this 07 November 2022

Hello all,

i opened this thread to discuss my replication of Fighter's ZPE (Zero Point Module).

I already opened a similar thread on OUR.com (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4374.msg101654#msg101654 ), but will transfer some data from there to here.

Initially i understood that the below diagram was correct and complete, but it turns out its not.
There is a ground connection somewhere, but i am not sure where it is exactly, hopefully someone can tell me.
The MOSFET is shown wrong as the Drain and Source should be swapped, which was corrected later in Fighter his thread so therefor the mentioning in red.

I have build up a similar circuit and the data is shown here:
(Be aware that the induction measurement was done at 10kHz, but due to the influence of the metglas core it can be (and is) completly different on other frequencies, see my thread on OUR.com for a VNA scan of the coil/core)

I am using a 12V battery for now as my PS (minus NOT grounded) was acting weird due to all the pulses coming back from the ZPE device.
Up till now no special effects or resonance in a 0 to 5MHz range are seen with this setup, but as said the grounding may be the problem here.

Itsu

zpm

Liked by
and 3 others

Admin

Fighter posted this 07 December 2022

Quoting:Itsu

i did suggest the same to Fighter some time ago and it seems he did, but the results were not conclusive he mentioned.

Yes, I tried that at the beginning but the wattmeter did shown trash, it shown a consumption which was more than my DC source can actually supply at its maximum power which was an totally non-sense, if that would've even be possible then the DC source should've been permanently in protection mode. A totaly failed experiment.

You compare region 1 with region 2, but you cannot do that IMO.

Why ?! 🙂 I mean where did this "rule" came from ? You know that 75% when the core is "ringing" with MOSFET off is a big part of that RMS your scope is showing, right ? Also you know that's what is powering your light bulbs while the MOSFET is off. By just simply eliminating region #2 from COP calculation makes that calculation really irrelevant.

the rest is reactive power coming from the resonance which is sloshing power back and forth between inductance (coils) and capacitance

...

This reactive power looks impressive but is no real power.

That "rest" is magnetic field variating and that's producing energy. That energy is powering your light bulbs while the MOSFET is off. Compare the amplitude of those variations with the amplitude of the the region #1, how can you say that's "no real power" ?

I'm sorry but you use some "rules" deciding what is relevant and what is not and those "rules" make no sense. It's like you just want to ignore everything what shows the input energy is much smaller than the produced energy while the MOSFET is off.

If you really want to come to a certain conclusion by eliminating everything what doesn't match that conclusion just let me know and I will not insist anymore in showing what's obvious.

We can simply move on to another subject, that's not a problem on my side. 🙂

Regards,

Fighter

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."
		Nikola Tesla

Liked by

Itsu posted this 08 December 2022 - Last Edited 08 December 2022

Hi Fighter,

i do not make up any rules to be convenient to me, i try to make sense of what i am seeing.

That region 2 you have drawn is way to big IMO because it should be "fenced" by the BEMF pulse seen by the Voltage trace.

Take a look at this same setup but at only 10kHz frequency (25% DC):

Here we see the decisive boundary from MOSFET active to MOSFET inactive followed by some ringing.

We have to zoom in to "see" the BEMF created when the magnetic field collapses, see here:

This BEMF area is where the power from the magnetic field is released and is only a fraction of the whole period, not 75% or so.

Back to my resonance frequency of 378kHz also zoomed in:

Here we see the same BEMF pulse area which i think is responsible for the power going back into the bulbs from the collapsing magnetic field (build up by the PS during MOSFET active time)

The rest of the signals are the resonance signals mixed in with the basic signals as seen at the 10kHz screenshots.

I am no Electronics Engineer i am also learning and interpreting what i see and expect anyone with knowledge to be brutally honest with me and to tell me if and where i am wrong.

Up till now is what i see very much in compliance with what the device on my bench is showing me.

Itsu

Liked by

Itsu posted this 08 December 2022 - Last Edited 08 December 2022

Quoting:Munny

Quoting:Itsu

There are pulses going back into the PS, but it depends on the design of the PS if it is registrated on the Volt- / Amp meters.
My present simple 24V volt PS has no meters, so i am using DMM's to measure them and the only thing i see is that the Voltmeter DMM is increasing to 31V due to influence of the (resonance?) pulses back into the PS, the Amp DDM does stay about the correct value, but again, DMM's and PS meters are no good for frequencies above 10 or 20kHz, they start deviate greatly both positive and negative so should not be used.

Itsu,

Do you have a method to measure the power draw of the power supply at the wall socket?

If you can get a solid reading there, next try a static DC load to match the same reading you get while powering the device. That will tell you the efficiency of the power supply and give you a pretty comfortable feeling of the actual wattage the power supply is delivering to your device on the input side.

If it's a switching power supply as I suspect it is, the rectification diodes may put a significant amount of noise on the line. If that's the case, see if you have an old linear power supply you can use and step through the same process. With a linear power supply and good current carrying wires to the wall socket, the waveforms should be quite clean since the line power is a low resistance current source.

Hope this helps. I used this method in the past when trying to figure out the goal wattage needed for the old Ruslan device NickZ has been working on for years now. It can be a bit of moving target, but the steps are always the same, so you just iterate until you are in the area of interest. You can be pretty confident what the actual power demand is or has to be.

Hi Munny,

My "Voltcraft energy 3000" meter says 4W when my 24V 10A LED PS is on without any load. (See picture for the used meter and 24V switched PS):

My Fluke 179 DMM (directly across the PS) says 24.17V then and a cheap DMM in the plus lead of the PS as Amp meter says 0A.

When powering only 2x 12V 21W bulbs (42W) in series i read 55W on the Voltcraft (so effectively 51W) .

My Fluke DMM says 24.02V and 1.83A on a cheap DMM amp meter (so 44W).

The scope connected with its yellow voltage probe directly across the PS and the green current probe directly at the minus lead of the PS shows in red (math function yellow x green) 44W, see here:

When activating my ZPM and setting it to 10kHz @ 25% DC i have my 57W bulbs (3x 12V 5W plus 2x 12V 21W al parallel) brightly on and the Voltcraft reads 74W (so effectively 70W).

My Fluke DMM says 24.14V and the cheap amp DMM 2.53A (roughly 61W).

The scope connected with its yellow voltage probe directly across the PS and the current probe directly at the minus lead of the PS shows in red 64W, see here:

When setting my ZPM to resonance at 378kHz @ 25% DC i have my 57W bulbs on rather dimly and the Voltcraft reads 37W (so effectively 33W).

My Fluke DMM says 24.53V and the cheap amp DMM 1.18A (roughly 29W).

The scope connected with its yellow voltage probe directly across the PS and the current probe directly at the minus lead of the PS shows in red 31W, see here:

I think these values show pretty accurate what power is going into the ZPM, and that the Voltcraft shows somewhat more then there is; roughly between 5 to 10% more.

Itsu

Liked by

Munny posted this 08 December 2022

Quoting:Itsu

I am no Electronics Engineer i am also learning and interpreting what i see and expect anyone with knowledge to be brutally honest with me and to tell me if and where i am wrong.

Up till now is what i see very much in compliance with what the device on my bench is showing me.

Itsu

What I See

What I see looking at the wattage is just a tiny fraction of the 25% duty cycle input wattage. I'm no electronic engineering expert either, but if I were, I doubt I would disagree with your conclusions.

On the upstream power supply analysis, I think you are right in the ballpark as well. Seems to me you have acquired the data, reduced it and we can see pretty clearly where the power is coming from.

Liked by

Itsu posted this 08 December 2022

Thanks Munny, 👍

the more people look, the more people notice things and if they comment about it , then we are going forward.

Itsu

Liked by

Itsu posted this 08 December 2022

One strange thing that caught my attention was the brightness of the bulbs.
At 10kHz they where fairly bright on and at 378kHz way lower, much lower then i would expect looking at the 31W input, so i now measured the voltage and the current and thus power across the bulbs only.

Here we have the voltage (yellow), current (green) and power (red) directly across the bulbs only, first for 10kHz where we see about 50W (fairly bright) with the input measured in above post to be 64W (so somewhere we loose 14W):

Next we do the same at 378kHz where we see about 4.4W (rather dimply) with the input measured in above post to be 31W (so somewhere we loose 26.6W):

I did put the 5 bulbs on 12V with a variable PS and it confirms that at that fairly dim brightness, the bulbs only pull around 4.5W DC.

I do notice that the MOSFET is heating up quickly at 378kHz, so i assume that that would be one of the major losses (also reported by Fighter) i guess.

Itsu

Liked by

Admin

Fighter posted this 08 December 2022

so somewhere we loose 14W

...

so somewhere we loose 26.6W

...

I think these values show pretty accurate what power is going into the ZPM, and that the Voltcraft shows somewhat more then there is; roughly between 5 to 10% more.

On the upstream power supply analysis, I think you are right in the ballpark as well. Seems to me you have acquired the data, reduced it and we can see pretty clearly where the power is coming from.

Are you guys kidding ?..

You say the light bulbs are 57W, a difference in measurement of 26.6W is closing to 50% ! What "5 to 10%" ?

When you have 50% error in measurements that's not a "yeah, sounds about right" situation, that's a failed measurement. At least that's how I consider it when I'm in that situation. That percentage should tell you there is something very wrong with that measurement. It's like my powermeter shown to me that my DC source was providing more power that it can actually provide. That's why that was a failed measurement too. Probably because it's a switching power supply (see the quote below) ?

And what happened with:

If it's a switching power supply as I suspect it is, the rectification diodes may put a significant amount of noise on the line.

The "significant amount of noise" just dissapeared and everything is okay now ?

You have visualy the situation right in front of your eyes:

Look at the projected input area over the output area while the MOSFET is off !

I projected it lower so you can compare the two areas. Everything you see around the projected area is energy produced while the MOSFET if off ! And no, that's not "looks impressive but is no real power", seriously, we can't just invent "rules" like that when we need them to contradict what everyone see.

Itsu, the initial question was why your replication doesn't produce the input reduction effect I presented so many times and which was also presented by Atti in his successful replication. Instead of that we entered in an endless "measurement error" discussion just like it's happening on overunity site for so many years, that being the cause why there is no progress for, I don't know, 10...15 years ? Everyone there is struggling not to see the results but to enforce every device presented there to fit in the "measurement error" scenario.

Isn't it right, Munny ? I don't know, your name sounds familiar, are you from overunity site ? Didn't checked, just asking.

Seriously, when I see measurements errors of almost 50%, tens of wats more or less in measurements and phrases like "Seems to me you have acquired the data, reduced it and we can see pretty clearly where the power is coming from" I feel like I'm just wasting my time trying to assist with the replication.

I do notice that the MOSFET is heating up quickly at 378kHz, so i assume that that would be one of the major losses (also reported by Fighter) i guess.

Even with those loses my input is still in miliamperes which is not the case here.

So for now I presented my evaluation, I shown the difference between the consumed energy and the produced energy visually on Itsu's scope and no, "looks impressive but is no real power" is really not a valid argument to dismiss the power produced by a variating magnetic field for 75% of the time while the MOSFET is off. That is real power making the light bulbs shine while the MOSFET is off.

Anyway, you guys let me know when the "measurement errors" discussion ends so, maybe, we can try to find out why the input reduction effect is not present in this case like I presented or Atti presented and to find out what's blocking it.

Until then you may also take a look on a calculation method I agree with presented by Jagau, a very experienced member of our core team:

https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/energy-in-a-pwm/

Jagau is telling you with documentation and details what I'm trying to show you on that scope image. That's how you manually calculate the real input power based on input voltage, current, frequency and duty-cycle.

In the Jagau's thread you will find out there is even a calculator online on Vishay's site, that's a very big/professional manufacturer of electronic components I'm sure everyone knows:

https://www.vishay.com/en/resistors/pulse-energy-calculator/

Try it, probably you'll be surprised/shocked but then you'll start to see what I'm showing on Itsu's scope.

Have a nice day/evening everyone.

Regards,

Fighter

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."
		Nikola Tesla

Liked by

Itsu posted this 08 December 2022 - Last Edited 08 December 2022

Hi Fighter,

it sounds to me you are comparing apples with pears.

You say "the light bulbs are 57W, a difference in measurement of 26.6W is closing to 50% ! What "5 to 10%" ?"

1st, the bulbs are RATED for 57W (3x 5W plus 2x 21W) but that does not mean they ALWAYS pull 57W.

2nd, the 26.6W are "losses" compared between the measured input of 31W @ 378kHz measured with the scope and the measured 4.4W through the bulbs also with the scope, not the Voltcraft.

3th, the stated 5 to 10% difference is about the difference the Voltcraft shows compared to the scope measurement, see here:

1st case the 24V PS ONLY with 2x 12V 21W bulbs in series: Voltcraft 51W, scope 44W, difference 7W = 16%

2nd case ZPM at 10kHz with all 57W of bulbs parallel: Voltcraft 70W, scope 64W, difference 6W = 9%

3th case ZPM at 378kHz with all 57W of bulbs parallel: Voltcraft 33W, scope 31W, difference 2W = 6%

But you are right there, it’s not 5 to 10%, but 6 to 16%.

The term losses i handle loosely as those are not all losses, its mere the difference between the measured input power and the power measured going into the bulbs.

I could respond more, but it’s enough, i see you get rather upset about this and (new?) members are being questioned when they seem to agree with some statements, which in my book is a NONO.

I did find some interesting anomalies like the FLUKE 179 measures 24V right at the PS exits, but 31V when put 0.5m away from it and the 2x 21W bulbs both on unequal lengths of wires showing a strong difference in brightness (also shown by Fighter), but i think i will put my ZPM in a box, as the goal to have the "effect" being bulbs on brightly with no (or little) current on the PS meter is not seen by me in any of my experiments which makes it a failed replication.

CORRECTION, i do see this "decrease of input current to 0" when tuning into (parallel?) resonance, but ALSO the bulbs go out then, which i consider normal parallel resonance behavour (high impedance, low current) and not the effect mentioned above.

Itsu

Liked by

Admin

Fighter posted this 09 December 2022

Hi Itsu,

i see you get rather upset about this and (new?) members are being questioned when they seem to agree with some statements, which in my book is a NONO.

Of course I am upset when I see "rules" like "looks impressive but is no real power" and excluding almost all of the 75% region from what the scope clearly see and I shown multiple times. I mean it's clear there is power sent to the light bulbs while the MOSFET is off. That's the idea of any zero-point energy harvesting device, to gather energy while the input is off. That's the way they do it. If you ignore that on every device you try to replicate then you can just say from the beginning there will be no successful replication ever.

About my question related to the overunity site, I have my reasons and I was talking about them, I check the overunity for many years, I go there a few times on year and all the time all I see are endless and useless "measurement errors" discussions. Everyone there seems to make big efforts to fit any device in that "measurement errors" scenario. There also appear new "rules" when it's necessary to enforce a device to fit in that scenario. I didn't expected to see them here too.

I tried to help to identify the cause why the input decreasing effect is not present in your device and what's blocking it but seems we ended up with the same kind of discussions even before having that effect.

I did find some interesting anomalies like the FLUKE 179 measures 24V right at the PS exits, but 31V when put 0.5m away from it and the 2x 21W bulbs both on unequal lengths of wires showing a strong difference in brightness (also shown by Fighter)

Of course, your ZPM replication is creating standing waves on the output how I presented here:

https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/romanian-zpm-zero-point-module/?order=all#comment-43ec651e-9132-468e-8459-aab1011d77a1

You can find higher difference in voltage, I had 36 volts differences.

on the same wire there is a Vpp difference of 36 volts between its beginning and its end. I didn't knew it's possible to have voltage difference in the same wire when its length is just 30-40 centimeters.

I suppose that happens on bigger coils like 150/300 turns ratio. By the way did you tried increasing your coils turns to this ratio ?..

but i think i will put my ZPM in a box, as the goal to have the "effect" being bulbs on brightly with no (or little) current on the PS meter is not seen by me in any of my experiments which makes it a failed replication.

As you wish, I thought the current direction was to find the cause of the missing input decreasing effect but instead we entered in the "measurement errors" discussion type like the ones from overunity site. How do you think your measurements would look like when that effect is present ?

Talking about overunity site, this is just a sample of the site's general attitude there in your ZPM thread:

For people used to HF currents, this nonsense is frightening, nothing is mastered in this setup.

...

I suspect that the author of the setup does not understand what he is doing, since he has not provided essential data.

Really ? Did he even try to check the data I presented before speaking ? I bet he didn't presented that much data in his entire life about all his experiements he (eventually) did.

That guy makes me smile, he didn't saw the things I saw in my experiments. Do you think he ever saw one of his experiments producing standing waves on output ? I don't think so... And that attitude is a explanation why nothing new came from there in 10-15 years. Why do you think I never joined that site ?..

Anyway, I'm sorry but I don't intend to lose my time in a endless "masurement errors" discussion like it happens on that site. Got better things to do with my already very limited time.

Imagine how it is after the daily 8 hours of work to try to help, to analyze the data, to show you on oyur own scope screenshots where the extra-energy is coming from and to hear "nah, that current looks impressive but it's no real power, let's just ignore that". 🙂

Would you continue ? I bet you also wouldn't...

So no hard feelings, let's just say we don't agree on many things, I presented my arguments and I explained them.

What you gonna do with what I presented and with my explanations - that's entirely up to you.

Have a nice evening.

Regards,

Fighter

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."
		Nikola Tesla

Liked by

Admin

cd_sharp posted this 09 December 2022

Quoting:Itsu

I have removed the ground from the Power Supply (so the DUT is floating as is the FG) to be able to measure the voltage across the load / bulbs (57W).

I also measure the current through the load / bulbs using my current probe see diagram:

Hi, Itsu

That means there is no ground connection in your circuit. ZPM needs a good ground connection as any device in Kapanadze devices family.

Stay strong!

If you know how to build such a device and you're not sharing, you're a schmuck! - Graham Gunderson

Liked by