COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Hi Ash. Can't wait. You're doing a grand job there.

[Aaron]

IRFPG50 discount pricing

Hi everyone,

Some of you like myself may be in need of, or more of the "International Rectifier" IRFPG50 and may have found it difficult to find at a reasonable cost and a supplier in the USA.

Electronic Component Distributors - Resistor & Capacitor Distributors - Obsolete Electronic Components - Discrete Semiconductor Distributors - Integrated Circuit Distributors - Quest Components
Quest Components, Inc. 250 Turnbull Canyon Road Industry, CA 91745

Part Number Search Results IRFPG50

530 available

These are at $1.95 US each there is a minimum order of $25.00 US , so .......
that is a Quantity of (13) with instant 5% rebate and shipping for $30.58 US delivered ..... not bad ..... cheaper than the last ones

For those members that have posted on this thread "ONLY" I will be willing to get rid of a few IRFPG50 to those in need for "REAL" replications because there is some expensive items .... at cost + USPS Mailing, please PM me

Best Regards,
Glen

Thanks Glen!!

Best deal I've ever seen!

[Harvey]

Paper Title: Counter Electromotive Force Enables Overunity Results In Electric Systems

We regret to advise you that the Reviewing Committee is unable
to accept the subject paper for publication as a PES Transactions paper even with possible revisions.

Enclosed please find the comments of the reviewers that should
serve to explain the recommendation of the reviewing committee.
I hope you will find the explanations satisfactory. Although we
could not accept this paper, we hope that you will consider
Transactions on Power Delivery for other papers in the future.

We thank you for your continued interest in the Power Engineering Society.

Comments to the author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
Please try to find the power supplied or absorbed by the 555 switching circuit part.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Reza Iravani
Editor in Chief
Transactions on Power Delivery

Just for the record. We've now got the distinction of a second rejection this time from an IEEE journal. Note the highlighted comments. It seems that mainstream will not consider this argument under any circumstances whatsever.

I think what Dr. Iravani is alluding to, is that high frequency energy can pass through the FET to the 555 via the gate thereby avoiding the current sensing portion of the circuit and negating the findings. He is suggesting that all power nodes be accounted for in order to ensure a true COP > 1.

[Harvey]

On another note, I have been playing with my Spice simulator in my Protel program. Although the components have 16 possible fields as I recalled, most are either unused or are optional to the Spice programming. So as Poynt99 said, it was an easy thing to just grab parts already modeled and slap them down on there.

Without modeling the 555 into the circuit I have been experimenting with the IRFPG50 to see how well it was modeled. There seems to be a real world inductance and capacitance that is not correctly modeled in the device, but it does react well during the avalanche tests. During Avalanche oscillations I have been able to simulate some effects similar to Aarons. Please bear in mind that I am using different value components and have selected specifics to encourage a resonant behavior.

I don't have anything encouraging to offer yet. With certain high inductance values I have seen spikes as high as 75kW on the power drain. I have found values that match TK's leading edge ringing and values that match the expected trailing edge ringing. I have experimented with adding extra stray capacitance accross the FET, both D2S and D2G, with adverse affects.

From a simulation point of view, I cannot get a self oscillation without avalanche yet. But there are a few more things I want to experiment with first before I conclude that the oscillations are derivative of the 555.

@Aaron, have you been able to get the high speed oscillations without the 555? Did I read somewhere that you did? I can't recall.

[witsend]

Hi Harvey. I think Prof Iravani did the decent thing in forwarding it for review. It also seems that only 1 comment came back - with the possible explanation that the energy is somehow fed from the 555. I think the comment is spurious as we've often run the switch with the same power supply source when testing 12 volts. But Aaron's going to test this himself.

I am intrigued with the preclusion to any allowance to resubmit? Find that somewhat 'unscientific'? In any event. It's the same reaction as we had from IET except there they would not even submit it for review.

I know that Szili is able to find benefit from simulator programmes but am not sure which he uses. .99 could probably advise. I hope that you'll at least replicate the test and not rely on the programme's analysis. It may not give the full picture. Incidentally Fuzzy's got some cheap IRFPG50's may be of interest.

[Aaron]

valid point?

I think what Dr. Iravani is alluding to, is that high frequency energy can pass through the FET to the 555 via the gate thereby avoiding the current sensing portion of the circuit and negating the findings. He is suggesting that all power nodes be accounted for in order to ensure a true COP > 1.

I understand the point.

However, the shunt reading is irrelevant for the draw down test I laid out. I only use the shunt reading for tuning.

With the draw down test, control is simply put at whatever wattage is needed to duplicate the heat of the Ainslie circuit. Then that wattage drawn from a control battery to x voltage from a full charge and the Ainslie circuit running on full charge batt down to x voltage. Swap batts back and forth an even number of times and of course a full charge before put to work again.

The time difference in running shows the truth so I hope that person doesn't believe that the COP claims are based on what the shunt reading says.

The claim is based on extended running time for same watt dissipation at the load according to what the math says "must be there" on the Ainslie circuit for whatever temperature.

The data logged on shunt values, etc... are there to back up and give secondary data that corroborates with the longer running time and for review and further study.

So I don't believe that can even be a valid argument. If that claim is true, which may be only your interpretation of his argument at this point, but if true, it only weakens the evidence of the actual shunt values given but it does not in any way, shape or form, weaken or discount the extended running time COP.

Rosemary may have a different opinion than me but this is my initial thought anyway.

[Aaron]

oscillation

@Aaron, have you been able to get the high speed oscillations without the 555?

Hi Harvey,

I only did it with a 555. The only time I have had a switch self oscillate even without a power battery or ground wire are npn transistors...a few specific ones. But nothing that applies to this circuit at this time.

[boguslaw]

Can you simulate so strange devices as heating-coil with high self-inductance ?
or for example my simple invention : two twisted stranded speaker cables
for low voltage it works like a ... pair of twisted cables
but for inductive spikes it shorts circuit They have to be very lightly insulated with clear plastic insulation.

I think we need such devices which act differently for low voltage normal current and for "backEMF" or flyback spikes and of course also for Radiant energy

[Joit]

555 Timer oscillation

Hi Harvey
This Timer oscillation is indeed a weird Phenomenom,
i have connected my Timer with a Diode from a 9V source.
Actually this should mean, i did isolate the Timer from the Rest of the Circuit,
but it is connected at Minus normally to the Rest of the Circuit.
Isnt that more an Indicator, that the direction of Current is opposite, as from plus to minus?

I did play around with my torroid and adjustments, and sometimes
i can get a different Frequency, what is close to the Transistor,
but does not run synchron.

Still, can someone say something about the Shunt, what it is needed for?
Because i did assume since beginning, it is only a Fool Proof,
that someone can do his measurements, but actually its not needed for a Resistance.

But when you use Coils at the Circuit, then either her Impedance must match,
or you need to put a Resistor in Serie, or it can cause probatly heat at the coil.
Not sure, if you can leave the circuit with one Coil, but without a Resistor or a Pot.
That is my Experience at it.

For the heating Element, i think there should be better one,
seems the Resistor or a heating Element do need high Voltage and a certain Amount of Current,
that they heat up well. And therefor 24V are maybe a bit less, or am i wrong here.
I would like to see something glowing, and that should not be the Transistor.

[Joit]

More about the MEG

Not sure, if it does match here, but since we are talking about saturate Coils with Pulses. Oh well.

Someone postet a Link to a Video Presentation from Konstatin Meyl.
He did further investigate the MEG from Tom Bearden and JN.Naudin

His first Experiments did show a V build of a Magnetic Track, where he did demonstrate,
that a round Magnet can run over the Track without external Forces.
It did slow down over a longer range, because of the counter Force
at the close distance at the bottom from the V-Form, where the round Magnet just run over with Inertia.
But his assumptions for that was, because the Magnets dont loose her Power,
the Power must come from outside, from the Scalarfield.
The Magnets act actually as Konverter for this Forces over her Spins.

He did do a similar Build like a MEG, and did further Experiments,
where he did compare it with a DC Motor with a Coil and Magnets.
Now, when you put the Coil from the Motor away,
you get actually a source of a Field.
He made something similar like a Magamp, or simple,
a round Core, where the Circle is interrupted with a Magnet and some Coils wrapped around.
It maybe works with a U or similar too.
He had one Control coil on it, and one Induction coil.
Therefor, with the Magnet inside, you will get a magnetic field at the Core,
where he did mention, that the Magnet should be not to strong, or you saturate the Core to much.
He did experiments with it, but the Output at the Induction Coil did break down, when he tried to get Power from it,
and changed at last to weaker Magnets, what did better match.
Further he did drive the Control Coil to close or just saturate the Core,
and the Inductance at the second Coil was much better.

He did explain, it is similar like a Transistor, where you saturate the Base,
and at a certain Point, the connection between Collector and Emitter becomes a breakthrough.
The same characteristic curve happens at a certain Point, when you saturate the Core, where Magnets are involved with.
The magnets will increase the Inductance of the Core for a multiple,
and he got more Power out at the Induction Coil then in.
But he said too, that you cant loop this Energy back, only amplify it.
He is still working on it, and is not ready yet, because he still need to do some Tests with it.

[witsend]

Hi Joit. It sounds interesting. Can you find that link? I'd love to learn more here.

EDIT Can someone update us on the OU.com site. It seems to have crashed. Not sure if they've closed it down or if TK's thread stressed it to death - or if our captain unravelled the entire forum - or what? Has anyone any information here?

[witsend]

Still, can someone say something about the Shunt, what it is needed for?
Because i did assume since beginning, it is only a Fool Proof,
that someone can do his measurements, but actually its not needed for a Resistance. Joit

Joit I'll try and answer this if I may. I read a correction in the comments on one of TK's videos that the shunt should be referred to as a 'sense resistor'. I believe the thinking here is that the Ohms value and inductance on the resistor is kept really low so that it's easy to evalute current flow and because it's a voltage it's also possible to determine the directional flow of the current.

But I think both TK and Aaron simply used a bigger non-inductive shunt initially - Aaron because he didn't have the resistors and TK? who knows his motives. But you're right it's not needed for resistance.

I'm never sure if I've understood you properly. If you already know all this - sorry. I've probably missed the point.

[boguslaw]

Any possibility to redesign circuit to remove 24 V battery ? I'm not an expert but each battery is different according to resistance and capacitance so if it's forming resonant circuit with inductive heating coil the resonant frequency is not stable.OR you have used such kind of battery and coil which every time inductive and capacitive reactance match. Hmm... interesting
I think that we need someone with deep knowledge of batteries.

Please bear with me I'm not a trained specialist.

[Aaron]

shunt readings

I hope that person doesn't believe that the COP claims are based on what the shunt reading says.

I want to add that the claims are not only based on shunt readings. This is not to negate the importance of the shunt readings because the data of what the shunt shows correlates with what is happening with the battery so we know the argument against it invalid anyway - but because of the draw down test, that can simply be pointed at and arguments based on shunt readings don't discount the COP gains at all.

[Aaron]

shunt- current limiting resistor

But you're right it's not needed for resistance.

I ran the circuit and variations of it without any "shunt" resistor and it worked fine.