COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Altair]

Rosemary,

I am a bit perplexed by something that you said sometime ago, and that I can't find again, but it was about your concern that the body diode inside the Mosfet was limiting the performance of the circuit.
From my understanding of conventional electronics, this diode would not come on during any phase of operation of your circuit. I don't see any reverse current flowing at any time in the Mosfet.
When an inductor relaxes after being charged, the current being generated is in the same direction as the one that charged it.

Yet, you seem to imply that there is a reversal of current in the inductor.
Here is an excerpt from your recent post # 258:

"3. Now as we all know when the switch is opened we see the reverse flow as the field collapses. If at this instant when the switch is opened and the two ends of the wire(battery disconnected) are shorted out we see the same current flow through our ammeters(reverse direction)."

Would you care to explain in detail the concept by which this is taking place.

Thanks

[witsend]

Altair - I've answered this post twice and - for some reason - lost it twice. Hopefully this one will stick.

I'm not sure which circuit you're referring to. If the one for the IET paper, then here's the thing. During the on period of the duty cycle the voltage across the load resistor is above zero. Current from this voltage moves to the negative terminal of the battery and results in a reduction of potential difference. During the off period of the duty cycle the voltage (that spike) is below zero. The current from this voltage moves to the positive terminal of the battery and recharges it. Both positive and negative cycles result in dissipation of energy at the load resistor.

The MOSFET's intrinsic body diode is not that robust that it can take really hefty spikes. This limits the application of this circuit to smaller wattages. However, henieck has some ideas on how to apply it to really hefty uses. And there's also a proposal that these fets can be paralleled to increase this tolerance. My own experience of this not so good. But perhaps we were'nt using the optimum type - or more likely yet, we were doing it wrong. In any event the diode seems 'brittle' and it would be so nice if these could be manufactured to take far, far, higher voltages. Hopefully that's clear. And hopefully I don't lose this post again. Here goes.

SORRY - I should have added that the quote is Donovan's. But it's as mentioned above. There is a definite reversal of current flow between the two cycles. Not sure why this isn't evident? Can you explain what you mean - if I've missed something.

[witsend]

By the way - I think I need to stress a point here. There is apparently some question as to the actual charge of the batteries from this returning energy delivered by the collapsing fields on the resistive load. I do not know the chemistry involved in recharging batteries. But what I can assure you is that the rate at which the battery discharges its energy - on our circuit - is consistent with the measured wattage.

Again, the difference between the wattage measured during the ON cycle and the wattage measured during the OFF cycle is the actual measure of the rate at which the battery discharges its energy. And a control test will quickly establish this. Michael asked about the BP report in an earlier post. I am reasonably sure that I've got this report - somewhere - but am not sure how to get this copied here. I'll see what I can do - but first need to find that report. At worst I'll simply retype it and post it. If it's too long I can do it in over two or three separate posts. But give me a day or two to get this exercise together.

[henieck]

From my understanding of conventional electronics, this diode would not come on during any phase of operation of your circuit. I don't see any reverse current flowing at any time in the Mosfet.
When an inductor relaxes after being charged, the current being generated is in the same direction as the one that charged it.

- this is very helpful animation, similar to our circuit:

http://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-induct.html

but this is just traditional electronics, like you said. Perhaps Rosemary sometime will have her scope screenshots ready to attach so we will better see the difference.

[henieck]

During the on period of the duty cycle the voltage across the load resistor is above zero. Current from this voltage moves to the negative terminal of the battery and results in a reduction of potential difference. During the off period of the duty cycle the voltage (that spike) is below zero.

- I think that so far it is exactly the same as conventional theory. Next statements have to be carefully examined.

The current from this voltage moves to the positive terminal of the battery and recharges it. Both positive and negative cycles result in dissipation of energy at the load resistor.

- this can also be true, but we don't see the same NUMBERS as Rosemary's, yet. I suspect that the same energy cannot do both - charge the battery and be dissipated as heat in the resistor - but Rosemary maintains that this is the whole point and different ways of measurement confirms this anomaly to her. I suspect faulty logic - she says - go and make the experiment... So today I made new, bigger, hollow core from an ordinary brick (35mm diameter). Lots of dust but probably that was the easiest part

There is a definite reversal of current flow between the two cycles. Not sure why this isn't evident?

- to me it looks that in your circuit the current in certain conditions (during off phase) may indeed reverse to the battery through the flyback diode - but rater no chances that it will reverse in the inductor.

[Altair]

Rosemary, I believe that it impossible for the current in the inductor to reverse direction during the OFF phase of the Mosfet. As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit.
The only path is then through the flyback diode, back to the top (to the positive supply).
The only way there could be a reversal of direction of current is if there was a capacitor in parallel or in series with the inductor. Then an oscillation could develop and produce alternating current in the inductor and capacitor.

But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).

[henieck]

You can attach pics, but the attachment space for each account here is very low so I'd recommend hosting your pics elsewhere.

- now i get it, thank you very much. I have also found the other option -loading attachment directly from my computer.

[witsend]

. As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

Ok. I'm going to try and answer this. But I need to remind you all - all those that agree with Altair on this issue. I am an amateur. No-one taught me about electric current flow - and no-one taught me about the nature of inductors and their need to 'retain a directional flow in current'. It was entirely omittted from my frame of reference. From technicians all the way up to some highly qualified electrical engineers - many of whom are acknowledge experts in the art, those many who helped build or evaluate the circuit - never tried to teach me conventional current flow. And this was despite pretty constant discussion over a decade and many instances where I asked the question directly. It used to puzzle me - as I was anxious to learn this. I was looking for a common frame of reference. Then I realised that they were probably simply accommodating my view of this - precisely because it was different. Maybe, therefore it could possibly account for the anomalies that were evident in these results.

So, Altair, I need to impose on you to hear my view point. If it is wrong then the measured results will refute my analysis. But my lack of understanding conventional flow has never been addressed. You will note that my knowledge, such as it is, of conventional current flow eventully relied on my own research. It is in two earlier consecutive posts on page 6, (from memory) in this thread. And both argue that conventional current flow, based on a concept of the 'flow of electrons' is simply illogical. But having said that - I happen to be the 'beginner' here and you guys are just so much better trained and experienced. If I am wrong then it will very quickly be shown. In fact henieck was the first person who ever showed me that - at its least - it could be argued that 'free floating' electrons could be responsible for charge distribution between two terminals. But even that entirely contradicts Pauli's exclusion principle, based as it is on the argument that two electrons (charged particles from the lepton family) cannot 'share' the same path. While Pauli was referring to the an atom's energy levels - and we are here looking at a far grosser field of application - then perhaps this law too, needs to be modified.

This has been a remarkably extensive 'apologia' and I think it may well stress the tolerance of such as Dr Stiffler, so - apologies all round. But I feel it is really important that you know where I come in.

I'm going to post this - because I've found that long posts cannot be easily edited - and I may well need to do so. I'll continue in the next post.

[witsend]

2
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

I'm still trying to answer this question. So I've duplicated the reference. And as pointed out in the previous post my 'concept' of curent flow is not consistent with classical analysis. But as I do not understand classical concept I'm going to see if I can share my own.

To start with I need to refer to well known induction laws. In this, I think it was Farraday, established that changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. Then Maxwell argued and proved that changing electric fields also induce magnetic fields. But no-one to this day has found an electric field in a simple magnet on magnet interaction. Put two bar magnets together within a critical proximity and the one will attach to the other. That interaction shows an energetic movement of one or both magnets towards each other in space and over time - that, at its least, requires an energetic interaction. And - in that interaction - there is no evident manifestation of an electric field. It may, indeed, be hidden within the body of the magnet. But if it is there it has never been found. Now. I have discussed this point with acknowledged experts in the field - and, to a man - I have been assured that while the electric field has not been shown to exist in this magnet on magnet interaction - it is, nonetheless, assumed to exist. In fact I need to refer to a paper written on this but cannot, for the life of me, find it again. But there was an attempt at finding this field and the results were inconclusive. This also means that the lack of this electric field has been addressed. For some reason it has also apparently been put on hold - presumably in the hopes of finding a means of detecting it? I just don't know.

Well this is the first radical departure from known physics. In effect, if this magnet on magnet interaction - in fact manifests no electric field - then it may indicate that the magnetic force is an entirely independant field that is extant - as a newly identified and independant force - like gravity - or the strong nuclear force. And - in this way - the electromagnetic force may simply be a secondary force, relying, in its essential definition, on the existence of that primary field. That was the foundational basis of the field model.

I wont bore you with the tedious deductions that led to the field model except to reference one single effect that I have found resonates with most people. But I'll reference it in the next post - again, because I have found that I cannot edit my posts if they're too long. Apologies to Aaron if this, in fact, is not allowed.

[Aaron]

editing

Hi Rosemary,

I believe there is a glitch with the editing option. When you click on Edit, you will see an "advanced edit" option, use that and it will work virtually every time.

[witsend]

3
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

Here's the thing. Imagine that one has a machine that propels rocks in a vacuum. And it always applies a constant force so there are no extraneous forces to take into account. Under those circumstances then the smaller the rock the further the throw and vice versa. But if the rock were too big the machine could not lift it. And if it were too small the machine could not detect it. That's a boundary constraint.

(By the way there is an inverse proportional relationship suggested between velocity and mass - in that interaction. It is not required to answer Altair's quesion but I will refer to it in due course. It may possibly interest Armagdn03.)

The second point is this. All things are the sum of their parts. If we were to grind down a rock to its finest parts we'd find collections of atoms and molecules that formed the amalagam of the rock in its earlier bound state.
That's my definition of a principle of correspondence.

These were the tools that I used to determine the properties of a magnetic field. Again - just to get to the nub and to exclude the tedious dialectic that requires it I'll just deal with the conclusions.

My proposal is that magnetic fields comprise particles. They are too small and too fast for light to detect the particle. In effect they are outside the boundary constraints of light itself. They are magnetic dipoles that attach - north to south - head to toe. They form long strings that eventually close in on themselves to form circles. The whole field comprises many, many such strings to form the shape of a toroid. The particle, being a magnetic dipole, continually adjusts its position to its neighbouring dipoles in the field. This necessitates a compelementary movement of every particle in that entire field. This gives the field a fixed justification or direction. The force of the entire field maintains that direction. The particle is referred to as a zipon. It has a velocity of 2c and its mass is half that of a photon. All particles are composites of this zipon. The charge of the whole field is perfectly neutral and the zipons move to maintain that neutrality. Therefore each part of the entire field is perfectly balanced with every other part to produce a net zero charge.

In a simple bar magnet that symmetry is broken because one half of the orbit is shielded from the other half.

[witsend]

Tthanks Aaron. But I think I'll continue as I am. I've just reviewed it and it seems to read quite easily. It also keeps the points focused. I'll try the 'advanced' later. Amazed that you're still awake. Obviously like so many of us you don't like wasting time on sleep. My co-author says he 'sleeps between blinks'. I cat nap. And you, at its least, are self-evidently - a night owl.

[witsend]

4
As soon as the Mosfet switches OFF, the inductor will do all it can to preserve the flow of current that was already established through itself, and consequently, the rest of the circuit....But still, none of these conditions produces, nor necessitates, any reverse current flowing through the Mosfet (in the body diode).Altair

Still the same question - but still the circuitous path (no pun intended) to answer it. Hope this is all readable and understandable. Anyway - fingers crossed and I'll plod on in the real knowledge that I'm taxing your patience. It is just that I SO need to make these points and hopefully to make them clearly. The arguments have been laboriously covered in my field model. That's where the actual dialectic comes in. But this, at its least, may serve as a synopsis.

So. The next point is purely hypothetical. Imagine that the universe comprises a backdrop of these magnetic fields. What if all of space comprises these little undetectable zipons that move around at twice light speed but always maintain that perfect charge distribution. They are entirely undetectable yet their force is - in fact - in every nook and cranny of the universe. Because the strings join - the influence on any part will be entirely consistent with the whole. Those strings would have to be really, really long, and really, really thin. And each string would have to move in 'lock step' with every other string. The outer strings would need to be longer than the inner - but the 'shoulder to shoulder' lateral arrangement of those strings would counter the distribution of charge and energy - that is makes for this required 'smoothness'. So. Hypothetically, this could be a fair description of the field - as a backdrop or a skeletal frame - to the condition of apparent vacuum of space. A really big toroid comprising an uncountable number of these tiny zipons. This, I think, may now occur to you as a possible source of both dark matter and dark energy required by our physicists.

But, in any event. Let's hypothesise further. What would happen if one of those strings broke?

[henieck]

...conventional current flow, based on a concept of the 'flow of electrons' is simply illogical.

- it is just a model or reality which turned out to be quite useful so far- but there may be something in addition to that as well. Almost every next theory in the history of science included the previous one as a subset, because there was a grain of truth, but the scope was narrower and comprehension limited. They were extensions of the previous ones. So most probably any new theory will not contradict entirely of what we know about for example electron-ion interaction in batteries, because this piece of puzzle fits quite nicely together with many, many other phenomenon- with the whole chemistry, physics and mathematics at least. So either one day somebody will assimilate the previous theory as a subset of the new one - or what you have in your circuit is a mixture - of traditional current flow and some quite other phenomenon. Whoever is going to merge the previous theory with the new extension - definitively must fully understand them both first.

So we just assume that this internal diode is probably unnecessary from the conventional point of view - but we keep it, because it may be critically important to the other things going on in the circuit- which we want to discover. So the question arises, if you could give us a littlie shortcut in our discovery journey- what happens if there is no such a transistor's internal diode?

[Aaron]

editing posts

Tthanks Aaron. But I think I'll continue as I am. I've just reviewed it and it seems to read quite easily. It also keeps the points focused. I'll try the 'advanced' later. Amazed that you're still awake. Obviously like so many of us you don't like wasting time on sleep. My co-author says he 'sleeps between blinks'. I cat nap. And you, at its least, are self-evidently - a night owl.

Lol, yes, I'm up late most nights.

I thought the posts looked great! Wasn't sure what needed editing, thought you were asking when you said something like you couldn't edit the longer posts. Sounded like something went wrong.

Anyway, have a great night!