COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Joit]

>That's your opinion only and it's somewhat insulting. Fortunately, I don't put much faith in your opinions based on what I've seen you post. Get well soon.

1/99 It sounds more like you are pretty jealousy.



Mikehingle, when you go through all past Post, you could see, where the denying attitude come from.

When all would go after this Guys, you could close this Thread after Page10, because they are still sure, that it cant exist.
They dont do actually a research, they only disrupt any Progress for further Buildings and Rebuilder.
Where i ask what do they have actually lost here, when they allready know, that there is No Overunity at our Universe for them.

[witsend]

I have finally got FULL access to OU.com. Have just registered. So. Who ever finally organised this - many thanks. Spoke too soon. Not yet apparently.

EDIT Thanks Joit. I've tried everything. I'll try again tomorrow.
NO. they've banned me via my email. So I may have to bore our readers for posts to be transferred. Sorry in advance if this is needed

[Joit]

Sometimes Ou.com is overloaded, you need to click few times Refresh, then it loads mostly again.

[mikehingle]

Forum Participation Rules

>That's your opinion only and it's somewhat insulting. Fortunately, I don't put much faith in your opinions based on what I've seen you post. Get well soon.

1/99 It sounds more like you are pretty jealousy.

Mikehingle, when you go through all past Post, you could see, where the denying attitude come from.

When all would go after this Guys, you could close this Thread after Page10, because they are still sure, that it cant exist.
They dont do actually a research, they only disrupt any Progress for further Buildings and Rebuilder.
Where i ask what do they have actually lost here, when they allready know, that there is No Overunity at our Universe for them.

Hey Joit !

I wish that I had time to read all the posts, on all the threads,
but I'm not God, maybe just a piece of Him. So I don't have the time
to read & dwell on all things posted, especially the bickering.
I, like many others, just skip over all that repulsive dialog,
& try to find the more uplifting useful dialog.

Logistically, I have to search for the best way to occupy my time,
perusing only materials which will best serve God's purpose.
Some say that I already read too many science & technology journals.
I, & many others who could help in these threads, don't have the time
or desire to read all of it, especially if it has a repulsive tone.

Like all of you, I am a rookie builder, who has for the last 35+ years,
built many prototypes of experimental devices to try to solve problems we face in this world.
We are all rookies, & I can attest from personal past experience that "pride goes before the fall."
I have to work hard at keeping the Devil out of my thought processes.

I was referred to this site by someone who suggested that it was
an excellently designed platform by which progressive dialog could be held
to encourage & assist R&Ders in accomplishing good things,
that, obviously, the rest of the world isn't doing.

I think that this great platform could work even better !!!,
if we made it clearer to current participators & newcomers,
what type of conduct is desired & required (allowed) for participation.

Cheers !
Mike Hingle
PS: Please ! No Johny: "a rat with a XXX this large " respones.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Hi everyone,

I am not going to get into any arguement here, I am just posting so as all will know what I am doing at the moment, and that I am not just sitting on the side lines.

This is the basics which are very, very encouraging.

The mosfet has been changed for a triac and the coil resistor is a water heating element rated at 1.5kw at 230v and is heating a tank of water 50ltrs. The coil resistor is being triggered on by the triac at 30% on time. The inductive spike, and I meen BIG is being fed back to another heating element which is as pure resistance as is possible. I will not go into the electronics of this as it is not my circuit, albeit it is cheap to make and if my ee wants to claim one euro for each board produced, that is OK with me.

So fare on a one week test of cooling and heating of the water we have found that the consumption of energy on the input has droped by 40% and we belive that this can be reduced even more by tuning, but will take some time to do.
That is 40% drop against the base of straight 230v to the same temperature differencial in the same time span. The time span to temp: rise showed a change of about 1.3% and so is quite negligable in ratio to the 40% of consummed energy.

The measurement of the consummed energy was done with, A COMPANY POWER METER, the same as is used to bill everyone. This fore me is more important, a 40% reduction in my fuel bill.

Well I will keep you all posted on this as it is an ongoing experiment and now my EE has gone on Hols and left me with the baby to continue with the running tests.

Please do not ask me for the circuit, as I said above, the circuit design is not mine, only the idea.

Mike

[quantumuppercut]

Hi everyone,

I am not going to get into any arguement here, I am just posting so as all will know what I am doing at the moment, and that I am not just sitting on the side lines.

This is the basics which are very, very encouraging.

The mosfet has been changed for a triac and the coil resistor is a water heating element rated at 1.5kw at 230v and is heating a tank of water 50ltrs. The coil resistor is being triggered on by the triac at 30% on time. The inductive spike, and I meen BIG is being fed back to another heating element which is as pure resistance as is possible. I will not go into the electronics of this as it is not my circuit, albeit it is cheap to make and if my ee wants to claim one euro for each board produced, that is OK with me.

So fare on a one week test of cooling and heating of the water we have found that the consumption of energy on the input has droped by 40% and we belive that this can be reduced even more by tuning, but will take some time to do.
That is 40% drop against the base of straight 230v to the same temperature differencial in the same time span. The time span to temp: rise showed a change of about 1.3% and so is quite negligable in ratio to the 40% of consummed energy.

The measurement of the consummed energy was done with, A COMPANY POWER METER, the same as is used to bill everyone. This fore me is more important, a 40% reduction in my fuel bill.

Well I will keep you all posted on this as it is an ongoing experiment and now my EE has gone on Hols and left me with the baby to continue with the running tests.

Please do not ask me for the circuit, as I said above, the circuit design is not mine, only the idea.

Mike

Great, this is what I'm talking about, some real life applied physics. 40% is alot!

PS:
Rosemary, thanks for the last compliment. It makes me really happy.

[poynt99]

1/99 It sounds more like you are pretty jealousy.

No need to be jealous Joit--I'm not THAT pretty But thanks for the compliment anyway

.99

[quantumuppercut]

Quantum:

There is a real life applied physics explanation for Michael's cost savings. Any thoughts as to what it is? Anybody else out there? It's easy to believe that Michael's test is a confirmation of the alleged effect that we are discussing in this thread, but you have to think twice before you come to a conclusion. That's all I will say, perhaps someone will get it.

MileHigh

Yup, my thought is that it comes from something similar to Rosemary concept. What else would Michael's talking about? It could be that he's doing something totally different than what I'm thinking or even he doesn't know that he is doing something different. The chance is 20% to 80%. I'll take the big chance of 80%. If it is indeed the 20% chance out to be I'm wrong. I'll admit it and laugh hehe. The bottom line to your questions is yes, I had it in mind, not twice, but probably looping in my head 1000 thousand times a sec if ya know what I mean.

[Harvey]

Guys. I'm actually answering a point here raised by spinner on OU.Com. Poynt and Hoppy and just about everyone on this thread and off it will be proposing something different to explain the gains on our circuit. My own answers are different to Peter's, Aaron's and probably everyone's. In any event, I think the answer will eventually have to be resolved by mainstream as that is where the authority lies.

But for the record. If any explanation is attempted that resolves OU around some strange interaction of electrons - in any way, shape or form, then I'm afraid we are still going to be banging our heads and going nowhere. It is critically important, that at it's least, it is conceded that current flow has nothing to do with the flow of electrons. We really need to move beyond this - regardless as to which hypothesis eventually carries the day. When that theory is eventually put to bed, then physics can get back on track. The flow of current being attributed to the flow of electrons is quite simply nonsense.

Well said. The definition of current relates to the charge moving past a given point in a certain period. The actual movement of the electron particles themselves has been measured as slow as meters per hour. The charge exchanges however can travel at near C. Newtons Cradle, the first electron may never propagate at all - and yet current flows.

[Joit]

Milehigh you are talking about the 30% ON time, thats, compared to the normal Use is the 40% Gain, you Think.
And at this Circuit, its the 3,9% ON Time with what you explain the savings,
and the Rest are for you Experts wrong calculations.
Congrats and now you could actually leave from here, you did solve it for you.


1/99
When i want to set a comma in that Sentence, i surely had done that.

[Aaron]

@MH

I explained to Aaron that his proposed method for measuring the power in the inductive resistor was wrong. Did you see that posting? Do you have any comments?

I ALREADY commented but you ignore that and misdirect people's attention to other things. The AC measurement on load doesn't take into account inductance or the power factor.

When you get the shunt measurement of what is leaving the battery, you can simply put a control supply on the resistor to make equivalent heat and whatever wattage the supply is putting to the load is the baseline.

If the wattage leaving battery is less for the same temperature, then you are over 1.0 COP.

There are "points" that your skeptical group bring up - and is on record to show how much you, Poynt, Hoppy, Tinsel Koala and any other skeptics have a strong consistency in being wrong and making false claims.

1. TK's (Tinsel Koala) claim the Quantum article timer is wrong (FACT - it works)
2. TK's claim the Quantum article circuit won't oscillate (FACT - it does)
3. TK's claim the oscillation is a red herring (FACT - it isn't)
4. Poynt99 and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is in the load inductive resistor)
5. All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)
6. All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet IRFPG50 is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)
7. All claims that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)
8. All claims that when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct and therefore won't receive a charge (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)
9. All claims that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)
10. All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)
11. Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)
12. When skeptics analyzed my waveform of the shunt - it was determined all the ringing was above the 0 line in the positive including the bottom half of the ringing. (FACT - The middle of the positive and amplitude of the ringing after the negative spike is in fact the zero line - and by not knowing this, they admit they don't understand how to read a waveform.)
13. The skeptics claimed that the ringing cancels out any charging effect the negative spike will give. (FACT - The negative spike reduces what the battery delivers in net - the ringing down itself cancels itself out as far as battery charging ability but provides extra heat to the coil.)

The above points and COUNTLESS other points and claims you and your crew have brought up show that you skeptics simply have zero credibility and zero background necessary to review this circuit in any capacity whatsoever.

Quite simply put, you're not even qualified to be skeptical about this circuit because you have no valid frame of reference through which to analyze this circuit.

Poynt claims a few posts ago that he knows this circuit well enough! That's ridiculous and some of the above points clearly show that none of you know this circuit from a hole in the ground that you all keep digging for yourselves.

When valid points are brought up about various items that show you and your crew obviously don't know what you're talking about in regards to this circuit, you ignore them and start to discuss something else. That is because you can't deal with the truth or are intentionally spreading disinformation.

[Harvey]

Regarding MJN's setup:

First: Normal operation of the heater, no triac, straight utility power, water temp 1 > water temp 2 for a specific time period = Baseline 100% Power, 100%Temp value, 100% period

Second: Introduction of Triac and control circuit = 70% reduction in duty cycle and a 1.3% differential in the period. So now we have 30% Duty Cycle, 40% Power, 100% Temp and 101.3% period.

Now all we need is to compare the manufactures original COP to the new COP and determine the gain in COP.

Keep in mind that we still don't have anything in the readings that show a COP > 1, but as MJN points out - it is the "cost savings" that makes the difference because that's the true bottom line for his case.

Now...what was Mile High 'alluding' to? Real life physics? Something to do with efficiency perhaps?

[Harvey]

Regarding Poynt99:
Despite all of his attempted unwarrented attacks on me as a person, he does show a strong willingness to learn. He does hide behind a veil of pretending to know but uses language that encourages others to teach him under the pretense that they are making there case. If it wasn't for this hidden willingness to learn and his tenacity of involvement, I probably wouldn't waste my time on the matter - but I sort of like the fella, in a fatherly sort of way.


Part of the problem I have seen in addressing measurements, including TK's (and I called him on it), is the proper alignment of the signals for multiple traces in time. It has been assumed by many, if not all, that the negative going spike marks the turn-off instant of the HEXFET. But if you pay careful attention to TK's top trace, you will see that he placed that probe across the battery itself. That negative spike, on that trace, represents a huge current draw that literally drops the voltage of the battery across its output impedance. When does that happen? If a person were to align that event with the 'ringing' event of the load resistor, what would they use as a time base seperation value? How much time lapses between the HEXFET turn-off instant, and the first peak of the ring? Where does that align with the +voltage spike present across the battery? Using a classical approach: When a car battery reads 11.95V unused and then you start your car and the battery reads 13.8V would you conclude that it is charging or discharging?


Carefully look at the placement of the 'shunt' resistor in this schematic:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post63555

Note that it placed between the Battery (-) and the HEXFET source terminal. Would everyone in this group agree that if the HEXFET is off and undamaged, that no current can flow from the HEXFET drain to the Battery (-)? So we should all agree here, that only negative current could possibly flow through the 'shunt' during the off period of the HEXFET. So what can we expect to happen with the magnetic field created by the load resistor at the instant that the HEXFET is turned off?

Note Poynt99's comment on this scenario here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post63150

Of course the schematic above shows the load resistor connected directly to the battery, so the battery is involved in the ringing process. At the very least it holds the junction at its voltage level...or does it? Note the +V spikes on TK's top trace. Just like the negative spikes, this represents a negative current being pushed back into the battery and the voltage we see is the drop across the battery's (in this case) input impedance, as we are charging. (no doubt some of you are realizing at this moment how important that impedance is this circuit). So what is happening in the 'shunt' while this charging and ringing are occuring? How does changing the gate resistor have any impact on this?

I won't answer that last question directly because I want everyone to ponder it. But I will give you some clues. 1. Gate Capacitance 2. Drain Current and Gate to Source Voltage Transfer Characteristics.

So what condition must exist for the Body Diode to conduct in a forward biased mode and thereby promote a negative current through the 'shunt'? The drain must be negative relative to the source by a minimum value of 1.8V with the gate at 0V and the junction temp at 25°C. Does this happen? Sure it does - even Poynt99 agrees that the load resistor which is connected to the drain 'rings' when the gate voltage reaches 0 and shuts off the HEXFET. Surely that ring drops the drain at least 1.8V right? Ok, I may be a bit sarcastic there, but the real answer is that it all depends on the source impedance of the battery. A low impedence will not allow the inductor to float and that will force a ringing that is somewhat centered at 24V at the drain. But a high impedance will allow the inductor to float and the ringing may be centered up at 40V or higher. The latter condition could result in in the drain never dropping below the source and no energy flow through the body diode.

So for those unfamiliar with this, you may want to research the battery impedance and how the freqency of the 'charge' or discharge signals play a part in the energy flow.

TK had dismissed the ringing because his values seemed inconsequential. But the Pretoria article made a clear statement that the 143KHz to 200KHz oscillations were deliberately encouraged. The magnitude and duration of those oscillations are where the energy comes from to heat that load resistor, and those oscillations occur when the 'shunt' is idle. There are more things going on then just this simplistic overview but it is not my intention to develop an entire armchair analysis of this circuit. Real results always overrule theory and law and are the only way to change theory and law.

IMHO, the optimum circuit would have a large battery input impedance, low battery output impedance and a resonant load. I would put a fast forward biased diode between the battery and the load and a parallel capacitor across the load to allow full resonant ring-down between MOSFET switching.

[Aaron]

cap in parallel with load

IMHO, the optimum circuit would have a large battery input impedance, low battery output impedance and a resonant load. I would put a fast forward biased diode between the battery and the load and a parallel capacitor across the load to allow full resonant ring-down between MOSFET switching.

I thought the same about a capacitor in parallel with load. On the drawing board after current tests.

[Joit]

Harvey,
you try to point at, to have around the Circuit matching Impedance, and the Body Diode can act as a Pump
and the Voltage can easy as possible circulate around in it ?
Thats what first comes in my mind after a While.