This is it !

[sucahyo]

I only mentioned the third winding because it was explained to me to be important. So important that Bob was focusing completely on it...no need for HHO.

The book of TPU already mention the third winding. But sharing the book make Bob Boyce sad.

Unless you give permission for this TPU replicator Bob Boyce?

It seems the third winding act as magnetic amplifier. To limit output.

[sucahyo]

Here is link regarding Bob Boyce concern for the book:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...5298-orbo.html

As far as the recent publication of unauthorized research materials. I don't suppose you approve of the wasting of money by those that want to replicate something. The tried and tested design has been published, in the Patrick Kelly D9.pdf document. All of the older research in that private forum was part of a project to try to enhance performance. None of those alterations to the design proved effective. Fact of the matter is, the windings worked best when wound exactly as showed in the D9.pdf document. So it is a waste of time and money to wind bias windings, or 6 primaries, as they were proven to not improve the base design. Why confuse people further with extra windings when they turned out to be superfluous.

There was some good information in that file, as well as a lot of speculation and ideas to test and prove out. It was not intended as a how-to guide, nor was the content intended to be published outside of that private group of experimenters and researchers.

If one is looking towards that Bob_Boyce_TPU.pdf file for additional clues about the inner workings of the battery charging version of my TPS design, it will not be found there. The information is way too old. The hydroxy gas TPS was what I discussed there, and I was trying to improve upon it by adding other windings. They did not improve it, though they did permit some tweaking for other odd effects not related to energy or hydroxy gas production. They actually interfered - reduced output, made it less stable, and more dangerous as well. The battery charging version toroid is wound the same as the hydroxy gas version as shown in the D9.pdf document, only the pulsing parameters and wiring diagram are changed.

Probably the biggest tip that I can give you all is... this is not a normal inductive transformer. There are design parameters that are contrary to traditional inductive design. It's all about rapidly fluxing potentials in patterns to elicit desired responses. Everything in nature is based upon energy patterns and frequencies, including the very matter that makes up everything in the known universe. If we alter these energy patterns, we can alter that which relies upon those energy patterns.

Like gravity

[gmeast]

resistors and thermal considerations

Yes that is true for the gate charge to get to ground it will need to go back through the driver chip, unless a resister or PNP transistor is used externally to the driver chip. In order to use a PNP transistor a 1n4148 diode must be used so the PNP base can go to the diode-annode and the PNP collector to the diode cathode the PNP emmiter to ground, it won't work without the diode. If a resistor is used it would influence the pulse width, wouldn't it ?

Cheers

Yes it would ... the app notes say if you wish to limit the rise and fall rates then use a resistor between the output pin of the driver IC and the MOSFET gate. But it also says that as the chip is designed to give the gate a 'kick' with its high current nudge, without a resistor, the package must handle ALL of the power dissipation (heat rejection). So maybe an external 250Ohms or 500Ohms or so ... anything helps. According to the app notes, through plated pin holes in the PCB can increase the package's cooling by a bunch. The small outline packages can end up with 200% output capacity compared to the plastic DIP package because it can be better 'sinked' than a DIP... imagine that?

Later

[gmeast]

as is

Here is link regarding Bob Boyce concern for the book:

Quote:
As far as the recent publication of unauthorized research materials. I don't suppose you approve of the wasting of money by those that want to replicate something. The tried and tested design has been published, in the Patrick Kelly D9.pdf document. All of the older research in that private forum was part of a project to try to enhance performance. None of those alterations to the design proved effective. Fact of the matter is, the windings worked best when wound exactly as showed in the D9.pdf document. So it is a waste of time and money to wind bias windings, or 6 primaries, as they were proven to not improve the base design. Why confuse people further with extra windings when they turned out to be superfluous.

There was some good information in that file, as well as a lot of speculation and ideas to test and prove out. It was not intended as a how-to guide, nor was the content intended to be published outside of that private group of experimenters and researchers.

If one is looking towards that Bob_Boyce_TPU.pdf file for additional clues about the inner workings of the battery charging version of my TPS design, it will not be found there. The information is way too old. The hydroxy gas TPS was what I discussed there, and I was trying to improve upon it by adding other windings. They did not improve it, though they did permit some tweaking for other odd effects not related to energy or hydroxy gas production. They actually interfered - reduced output, made it less stable, and more dangerous as well. The battery charging version toroid is wound the same as the hydroxy gas version as shown in the D9.pdf document, only the pulsing parameters and wiring diagram are changed.

Probably the biggest tip that I can give you all is... this is not a normal inductive transformer. There are design parameters that are contrary to traditional inductive design. It's all about rapidly fluxing potentials in patterns to elicit desired responses. Everything in nature is based upon energy patterns and frequencies, including the very matter that makes up everything in the known universe. If we alter these energy patterns, we can alter that which relies upon those energy patterns.

Like gravity

Hey sucahyo,

Thanks for posting the quote. It's as I suspected. If we had needed that bias winding or other "secret ingredients" I'm sure he would have dropped a hint during his brief visit to this thread.

Thanks again.

Later

[Farmhand]

Yes it would ... the app notes say if you wish to limit the rise and fall rates then use a resistor between the output pin of the driver IC and the MOSFET gate. But it also says that as the chip is designed to give the gate a 'kick' with its high current nudge, without a resistor, the package must handle ALL of the power dissipation (heat rejection). So maybe an external 250Ohms or 500Ohms or so ... anything helps. According to the app notes, through plated pin holes in the PCB can increase the package's cooling by a bunch. The small outline packages can end up with 200% output capacity compared to the plastic DIP package because it can be better 'sinked' than a DIP... imagine that?

Later

All we can do is test it, try it with the value you think we will need like you said 500 ohms or 250 ohms, see what happens.

We should remember that while the application notes are extremely usefull they do refer to conventional applications. We may need to diverge from that in some key area's.

Maybe a resitor and a transistor in a "RTL" resistor transistor logic setup will be better than what has been previously tried. It's hard to tell.

I'll order some non-inverting driver chips and clocks and stuff and give it a whirl myself.

I'm actually thinking the power applied to get the pulsing we want will be a small fraction of what is conventionally used, but the noise will be lots more. Resistors do help with noise too I think.

Cheers.

P.S. The Gate resistance of a MOSFET is effectively infinite, a current kick should have no special effect, it is a field effect transistor, no current is required for full function. The infinite resistance of the gate is one reason the MOSFET is such an efficient switch, and also why the gate charge needs to be dissapated or effectively grounded.

[gmeast]

gate resistance

All we can do is test it, try it with the value you think we will need like you said 500 ohms or 250 ohms, see what happens.

We should remember that while the application notes are extremely usefull they do refer to conventional applications. We may need to diverge from that in some key area's.

Maybe a resitor and a transistor in a "RTL" resistor transistor logic setup will be better than what has been previously tried. It's hard to tell.

I'll order some non-inverting driver chips and clocks and stuff and give it a whirl myself.

I'm actually thinking the power applied to get the pulsing we want will be a small fraction of what is conventionally used, but the noise will be lots more. Resistors do help with noise too I think.

Cheers.

P.S. The Gate resistance of a MOSFET is effectively infinite, a current kick should have no special effect, it is a field effect transistor, no current is required for full function. The infinite resistance of the gate is one reason the MOSFET is such an efficient switch, and also why the gate charge needs to be dissapated or effectively grounded.

Hi Farmhand,

I realize that ... that's why you can turn it 'off' and 'on' just by touching the pin. I figured it must have more to do with IGBT's and other 'power' transistors than with MOSFETs, but the spec sheet never makes the distinction.

Fast switching requires the Drive IC to 'switch fast' and THAT power the Driver IC needs to 'switch fast' is what I believe they are talking about. From the app notes here:

The switching load presented by a power MOSFET can be converted to an equivalent capacitance by examining the gate charge required to switch the device. This gate charge includes the effects of the input capacitance plus the added charge needed to swing the drain of the device between the ON and OFF states. Most manufacturers provide specifications that provide the typical and maximum gate charge, in nC, to switch the device under specified conditions. Using the gate charge Qg, one can determine the power that must be dissipated when charging a capacitor. This is done by using the equivalence Qg=CeffV to provide the following equation for power:

P = C×V2×f = Qg×V×f

This equation allows a power designer to calculate the bias power required to drive a specific MOSFET gate at a specific bias voltage.

whatever that all really means ...and it goes on from there.

Anyway, the 'new' added time it will take to get the non-inverting UCC27322 IC's will allow me to finish the toroid ... one coil to go ... plus I will cascade some you-know-whats for our lower frequencies.

You noticed the quote posted by Sucahyo? ... like I said ... If it was important, Bob would have dropped the hint.

Later

[7imix]

Except that the gate has some capacitance, so that's why the current kick and thus the MOSFET driver is required, to both fill and drain the MOSFET gate capacitance.

I had calculated a 150-500 ohm resistor when I read the application notes and did the math, so it's good to get confirmation on that.

Jetijs uses a 82 ohm resistor, some 15 volt transient suppressors, and some larger transient suppressors around the mosfet

http://www.energeticforum.com/45176-post1138.html

[gmeast]

gate resistance

All we can do is test it, try it with the value you think we will need like you said 500 ohms or 250 ohms, see what happens.

We should remember that while the application notes are extremely usefull they do refer to conventional applications. We may need to diverge from that in some key area's.

Maybe a resitor and a transistor in a "RTL" resistor transistor logic setup will be better than what has been previously tried. It's hard to tell.

I'll order some non-inverting driver chips and clocks and stuff and give it a whirl myself.

I'm actually thinking the power applied to get the pulsing we want will be a small fraction of what is conventionally used, but the noise will be lots more. Resistors do help with noise too I think.

Cheers.

P.S. The Gate resistance of a MOSFET is effectively infinite, a current kick should have no special effect, it is a field effect transistor, no current is required for full function. The infinite resistance of the gate is one reason the MOSFET is such an efficient switch, and also why the gate charge needs to be dissapated or effectively grounded.

Hi Farmhand,

I realize that ... that's why you can turn it 'off' and 'on' just by touching the pin. I figured it must have more to do with IGBT's and other 'power' transistors than with MOSFETs, but the spec sheet never makes the distinction.

Fast switching requires the Drive IC to 'switch fast' and THAT power the Driver IC needs to 'switch fast' is what I believe they are talking about. From the app notes here:

The switching load presented by a power MOSFET can be converted to an equivalent capacitance by examining the gate charge required to switch the device. This gate charge includes the effects of the input capacitance plus the added charge needed to swing the drain of the device between the ON and OFF states. Most manufacturers provide specifications that provide the typical and maximum gate charge, in nC, to switch the device under specified conditions. Using the gate charge Qg, one can determine the power that must be dissipated when charging a capacitor. This is done by using the equivalence Qg=CeffV to provide the following equation for power:

P = C×V2×f = Qg×V×f

This equation allows a power designer to calculate the bias power required to drive a specific MOSFET gate at a specific bias voltage.

whatever that all really means ...and it goes on from there.

Anyway, the 'new' added time it will take to get the non-inverting UCC27322 IC's will allow me to finish the toroid ... one coil to go ... plus I will cascade some you-know-whats for our lower frequencies.

You noticed the quote posted by Sucahyo? ... like I said ... If it was important, Bob would have dropped the hint.

Later

[7imix]

This equation allows a power designer to calculate the bias power required to drive a specific MOSFET gate at a specific bias voltage.

When they say power here, are they talking about watts? So given the voltage we are using in the circuit we can calculate the amount of resistance required to provide the amps to fill the gate capacitance in the amount of time we want.

[gmeast]

Watt did you say?

When they say power here, are they talking about watts? So given the voltage we are using in the circuit we can calculate the amount of resistance required to provide the amps to fill the gate capacitance in the amount of time we want.

Hi 7imix,

Yes .. I think this is correct. The units for "Watts" are probably hidden in the computations somewhere. Too much resistance will begin to affect the rise and fall times, so less resistance is better, but 'some' resistance assists with heat dissipation by bringing some of it to the outside of the IC so the package doesn't have to handle all of it.

I guess when you start treating a MOSFET gate as a capacitor, you begin to see that actual power is required to operate it at higher frequencies in spite of the fact that the gate has nearly 'infinite resistance'.

[Farmhand]

Hi Guys, I guess my whole point is, if a resistor affects the rise and fall time too much, there is always the diode and PNP transistor to fall back on, a PNP and diode will ground the gate charge so it doesn't need to get dissapated in the driver or a resistor and it won't affect the pulse width. Remember we are trying for near instantanious turn on and off. And a resistor is recommended to slow that down. I'm not a big fan of resistors in the path of the gate signal. But thats just my little bit of strangeness, I can't help it. It's not just about amps and power dissapation there is a time componant to consider as well. We do want as quick as humanly possible, in switching times and frequency. Maybe i'm just fussy but I think a resitor will slow it down, I would go so far as to say that by design it would have to slow it down some, just how much and wheather it's too much is beyond me.

I do understand that current will occur with the equalisation of potentials weather it is needed or not and it probably is needed.

Our driver uses Bipolars transistors in parallel with the internal mosfets to supply power at voltage levels below that which will switch the internal mosfets. I don't think another external transistor will hamper the operation.

Basically these UCC27322 are a bunch of switch's that we could have put together ourselves, If I had my way I wouldn't use any resistors, resistance is our enemy unless it's negative. I don't like money either but I still use it.

Yes I already quoted the formula a few posts back to calculate the reqired power, but I wouldn't have a clue how to figure it.

But having said that I think you guys will try it out first so i'm happy to go with what is decided.

My back and neck is giving me some trouble, I feel a bit like a pretzel in a spagetti factory. Outa shape.

Yes I did see sucayho's quote and i read Bobs posts in the other thread.
Interesting. We did discuss the other windings and how they might work, well I did I can't remember if anyone else joined in that coversation I think you did Greg. People will come up with all kinds of funny idea's I do it myself but without testing thay are only idea's.

I boxed up one of my little desulfators last night it uses 65 -70 Ma at 12.6 volts at 1024 Hz, and has raised a brand new 24Ahr battery to 13.6 volts, the battery was already charged but 70 Ma I think it is OU for sure. It has a on/off switch, on/off indicator LED and a open circuit inicator neon. Using that small amount of power I should be able to set it aside to desulfate a battery for weeks without having to worry about recharging it's source battery. And it stays cool enough to totally enclose it. I'll get some piccies and a scope shot later.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

More inconsistancies in the video's

Well well, I was just watching the video's because I remembered something that didn't add up.

At 1.30 to 2.00mins in the video 0 he says that the voltage gets so high so quick he must use a light or something to use some power. Yet in video 4 of the four part video's he says that by morning the battery is at 13.8 - 13.9 volts, That is contradictory !

Also I noticed in video three he connected the right hand side of the coils to the circuit and the left hand side to the battery positive for a CCW rotation not Clockwise if he was in the southern hemisphere and following the BB method he would have the coil positive's to (the right side leads) to the battery and the left side leads to the circuit. I can see the outline of the primary segments and where the leads are coming from. That is contradictory !

Also the way he just hooked the wire on to charge looks bodgey too, maybe the loose connection has something to do with it. I hope we are not going to replicate that part.

Another thing is the way he is charging batteries that are fully charged only.
They are over 12.8 volts and he is running them down a little with the toroid disconnected then connecting the toroid. The effect of doing that is obvious.

So even though I just noticed that his toroid was wound the wrong way for South Africa. And the inconsistancy of him saying that the voltage gets so high so quick he has to use a light on it then that it never really go's over 13.8 - 13.9 volts. Which he says is fully charged too, but it isn't in my opinion, not for cycled use anyway.

I was already aware of the bodgy charge wire connection and that he was using already charged batteries.

I still believe that we can do this and this is a very good way to do it, AND if anyone can do it we can. And we will.

Cheers

[gmeast]

charging rate

Well well, I was just watching the video's because I remembered something that didn't add up.

At 1.30 to 2.00mins in the video 0 he says that the voltage gets so high so quick he must use a light or something to use some power. Yet in video 4 of the four part video's he says that by morning the battery is at 13.8 - 13.9 volts, That is contradictory !

Also I noticed in video three he connected the right hand side of the coils to the circuit and the left hand side to the battery positive for a CCW rotation not Clockwise if he was in the southern hemisphere and following the BB method he would have the coil positive's to (the right side leads) to the battery and the left side leads to the circuit. I can see the outline of the primary segments and where the leads are coming from. That is contradictory !

Also the way he just hooked the wire on to charge looks bodgey too, maybe the loose connection has something to do with it. I hope we are not going to replicate that part.

Another thing is the way he is charging batteries that are fully charged only.
They are over 12.8 volts and he is running them down a little with the toroid disconnected then connecting the toroid. The effect of doing that is obvious.

So even though I just noticed that his toroid was wound the wrong way for South Africa. And the inconsistency of him saying that the voltage gets so high so quick he has to use a light on it then that it never really go's over 13.8 - 13.9 volts. Which he says is fully charged too, but it isn't in my opinion, not for cycled use anyway.

I was already aware of the bodgy charge wire connection and that he was using already charged batteries.

I still believe that we can do this and this is a very good way to do it, AND if anyone can do it we can. And we will.

Cheers

Hi Farmhand,

Wow Farmhand ... you don't miss a thing! I never noticed the wrongly wrapped coils on the toroid. I'm ashamed.

I did a rate computation based on the the short time I observed the DVM in the video. At the rate he was charging, it could not have been to 13.8 volts by morning ... let's say an 8-hour charge. Others have concluded likewise I'm sure ... but still, the effect is theoretically 'real'. Look up non-Hertzian (waves). There's a decent amount of peer reviewed material ... and Myth Busters isn't trying to debunk it yet. That should instill some confidence.

Later

[7imix]

I did the calculations for the resistor and it comes out to 60 ohms... It literally is resistance (power into heat) that would be provided by the driver if it wasn't provided by the resistor between the out and the MOSFET gate. Literally the resistor is meant to turn the power into heat before it gets into the driver and turns to heat there, burning up the driver.

How are you going to find a transistor that can switch fast enough to use a transistor instead of resistor to dissipate the MOSFET gate charge? I think that would end up being squishier than using the resistor.

The specs on the sheet for switch times take the resistor into account, I'm sure, otherwise they would burn them up in testing.

[7imix]

Search this page

Paul & Alexandra Correa ~ Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharges (PAGD)

For longitudinal. There are many documented longitudinal phenomena, and there are many competing theories to explain them, but none of the theories are general enough to explain it yet.

I wonder if anyone has ever done an analysis of maxwell's original equations (24 of them or so?) compared to lorenz's simplified 4 equations.