COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Harvey]

What version of Protel are you using?

.99

PS. I'd like to see a screen capture of the VDC component you are using and its associated subcircuit model (I don't think there is one).

I'm using Protel 99. I had DSP on a trial and didn't like it as well so never upgraded. It is only an occasional tool for certain projects, so I couldn't justify the expense.

Click For Larger Image

As you can see, the impedance changes depending on the circuit current - this is the VSRC attempting to regulate a constant voltage - this is not a battery model, hence my single quotes around the term 'battery' to denote a nomenclature rather than realistic model.

[Aaron]

Bedini Battery Charger 1AU from Tesla Chargers

That is interesting. I wonder what the rise and fall times of the waveforms looked like for each. This may be directly related to the source impedance of the battery but it could be the result of positrino annihilation in the resistor. I notice you have a Bedini charger there. If my theory is correct, I think his methods may actually charge the electrons along the path with positrinos - little neutrino sized particles with a positive charge that orbit the electrons. When stressed in a magnetic field, these can be forced to collide with the electrons resulting in a small release of radiation as the electron mass is reduced and the positrino is annihilated. It is just a theory, but it seems to explain much of the observed phenomenon. Did you charge that Liquid Battery with that charger?

Yes, I charged all the batteries I've been using with this charger, it is the 1AU model and is available at Tesla Chargers.

I have a few observations on these chargers. They seem to charge different from the "normal" Bedini chargers that we have all built.

I can charge a battery with this charger and when it is "drained", I can charge it back up with a standard charger and the standard charger immediately starts to charge it so it is like the normal charger doesn't have to fill up the "holes" first until it actually starts to charge it. If the Bearden idea is right about that.

I have definitely put batteries charged by my own Bedini chargers on a regular charger and it takes forever for the normal charger to actually start charging the battery with real charge - just like what Bearden explains if the battery is charged with negative energy - as if it really is filling in holes first before it starts to push it forward.

Anyway, batteries charged with this 1AU Bedini chargers also powers inductive loads and resistive loads equally well.

But anyway, yes, this charger is the only charger I have used to charge these batteries when running all these tests because it is just rock solid and dependable and when batts are charged, the resting voltage is always very close to the last charge.

[Aaron]

ribbon vs round wire

We are not even sure what material was used as the resistance 'wire', or if it was a ribbon or an actual wire. If it were a ribbon, that may explain the 1mm spacing and that would be an interesting thing to calculate the inductance on.

I mentioned the Quantum coil spec thing to Peter a few weeks ago and he mentioned the possibility of ribbon for the 1mm spacing but Rosemary said it was definitely round resistive wire.

[Aaron]

edit

102mm of width of total wire along the length divided by 102mm = 2.125mm, which is about the same as 12 awg wire.

I mean 102/48 turns = 2.125mm thickness of wire is about same as 12awg.

[witsend]

Harvey and Aaron - just one quick observation. Fuzzy's windings are right but need wider spacing? Would that do it?

BUT : it does seem that the wiring is thinner than I remember it. So sorry everybody. I've written to Jose to see if I can do something about the original. Will keep you informed.

[Harvey]

Harvey,

Here is one very specific thing I saw, which is a very interesting difference between the gel cell and liquid lead acid...

With identical voltages on liquid and gel at all same settings on circuit, the liquid lead acid battery gave more heat on the resistor. Rosemary might remember more details. We were talking while I was doing that test. I'll try to find the notes on it.

That is interesting. I wonder what the rise and fall times of the waveforms looked like for each. This may be directly related to the source impedance of the battery but it could be the result of positrino annihilation in the resistor. I notice you have a Bedini charger there. If my theory is correct, I think his methods may actually charge the electrons along the path with positrinos - little neutrino sized particles with a positive charge that orbit the electrons. When stressed in a magnetic field, these can be forced to collide with the electrons resulting in a small release of radiation as the electron mass is reduced and the positrino is annihilated. It is just a theory, but it seems to explain much of the observed phenomenon. Did you charge that Liquid Battery with that charger?

[Harvey]

Harvey, I want to let you know I'm not ignoring your requested test. Just been swamped off and on and have a visitor at my house today and tomorrow with his circuit using the Tektronix to log data and do other tests.

Anyway, with the Quantum article, 150mm long, 32mm diameter, 48 turns, 1mm spacing, 10 ohms, 8.64uh and whatever else.

So, 48 turns at 1mm spacing per turn means there are 48 mm's worth of space out of the 150mm length. That leaves 102mm worth of wire width.

102mm of width of total wire along the length divided by 102mm = 2.125mm, which is about the same as 12 awg wire.

The circumference at 32mm diameter is c=pd, so 3.14*32=100.48mm circumference or length of each turn * 48 turns = 4823.04mm of wire length total.

That length of wire at 12awg nichrome is about 1.5~1.6 ohms total.

So there is something wrong with those specs. At 15.83 feet long wire, only 20awg will give about 10 ohms at that length, which is the same as what Glen found.

So it seems that the spacing between turns with 20awg would have to be greater than 1mm and if so, all the specs can be the same and it would be 10 ohms with all those specs.

Just an observation.

Hi Aaron - no pressure on the test - I know you'll get to it when you can - thanks for the update.

Yep, I came to a similar conclusion on the wire size.

Resistance and Resistivity.

Table of Resistivity


It is possible that we have mixed data there. At one point smaller gauge wire was used and then later a larger gauge was used by Rosemary's urging and that seemed to improve things she said. The actual resistor was calibrated to be 10 Ohms, but does the calibration sheet show any other data such as windings, dimensions, inductance or capacitance?

I notice also some other minor discrepancies such as the white paper battery drain time-stamps in the graphic chart do not match the actual recorded data. Probably an Excel issue.

So we have to use the values that make the most sense. Unfortunately, I cannot resolve the 8.64µH with the existing values. We are not even sure what material was used as the resistance 'wire', or if it was a ribbon or an actual wire. If it were a ribbon, that may explain the 1mm spacing and that would be an interesting thing to calculate the inductance on. Resistance Wire Calculator - if you put in the resistance of .667 Ohms per foot, the calculator will pull up a list of materials that match. I perused the site, but could not find any real data on the ribbon stock they say they sell.

Hopefully when Rosemary tracks down the original part we can get some solid info as to all the questions surrounding it. Until then, Tom has the best thing going so far but I think he will find his inductance to be a bit higher than 8.64µH.
I looked for a stand alone inductance meter today - Amprobe sells a multimeter with an inductance setting but it was more than I was looking to spend.

[Aaron]

liquid vs gel

Aaron seemed rather adamant regarding the liquid acid battery being more reactive in some way. Honestly, I haven't checked the details in the Quantum or White Paper information to see if it denoted any difference there.

Harvey,

Here is one very specific thing I saw, which is a very interesting difference between the gel cell and liquid lead acid...

With identical voltages on liquid and gel at all same settings on circuit, the liquid lead acid battery gave more heat on the resistor. Rosemary might remember more details. We were talking while I was doing that test. I'll try to find the notes on it.

[Harvey]

In the Quantum article at the top of page 5 there reads:


Surely this "1.2 micro seconds" is a typo?

Even at the highest observed frequency that was stated (i.e. 200kHz), 1.2us only samples 24% of one complete cycle, and gets worse at 143kHz. How can one get a reasonable average by sampling only 24% of one cycle?

Then there's this from page 6 of the EIT paper:


If as stated in the article that the aperiodic oscillation fluctuates between 143kHz and 200kHz, how can one obtain a reasonable average by only sampling a total of 10us (1us/div x 10 divisions) on the scope? To get at least one cycle of 200kHz and one cycle of 143kHz, would require a minimum of 12us. Also, the sampling time (10us) is on the same order as the period of the measured signal. For a uniform stable wave form this might be fine, but for a variable one such as described, several "mixed" cycles should be sampled.

Without observing the true nature of the described wave forms, it's difficult to prescribe an exacting mode of measurement, however knowing that it is unstable and aperiodic does support and even demand the use of a much wider sampling window to obtain an accurate average.

.99

I understand this to mean that sample data was taken every 1.2µs and stored for an overall period that included multiple waveforms which were then analyzed in Excel. I see this on page four, not page five

The same seems to be the case in the White Paper except the 1.2 seems to be rounded to 1µS. In both cases, this seems to be the setup for the minimum sample slice.

[Aaron]

Quantum article coil

EDIT:
Is it possible the printed specs for the resistor should have read 38 instead of 48 ? perhaps a subtle misprint easily overlooked?

Also - Could it be that the manufacturer was using an SWG resistance wire instead of an AWG? This can change the values per foot.

Harvey, I want to let you know I'm not ignoring your requested test. Just been swamped off and on and have a visitor at my house today and tomorrow with his circuit using the Tektronix to log data and do other tests.

Anyway, with the Quantum article, 150mm long, 32mm diameter, 48 turns, 1mm spacing, 10 ohms, 8.64uh and whatever else.

So, 48 turns at 1mm spacing per turn means there are 48 mm's worth of space out of the 150mm length. That leaves 102mm worth of wire width.

102mm of width of total wire along the length divided by 102mm = 2.125mm, which is about the same as 12 awg wire.

The circumference at 32mm diameter is c=pd, so 3.14*32=100.48mm circumference or length of each turn * 48 turns = 4823.04mm of wire length total.

That length of wire at 12awg nichrome is about 1.5~1.6 ohms total.

So there is something wrong with those specs. At 15.83 feet long wire, only 20awg will give about 10 ohms at that length, which is the same as what Glen found.

So it seems that the spacing between turns with 20awg would have to be greater than 1mm and if so, all the specs can be the same and it would be 10 ohms with all those specs.

Just an observation.

[witsend]

In both the quantum article and the EIT paper they specify batteries, however in the EIT paper page 13 they say this:



Not stating if the same effects could be achieved with the AC-sourced DC supply (assumed), only leaves one speculating.

Therefore maybe it's best assumed that batteries are preferred.


The "VDC" component in PSpice is not a modeled battery. It is ideal. It is possible that Protel created a battery component modeling a real battery, but I would be surprised if that were the case.


.99

Poynt - all we were doing here was testing the effect directly from AC power supplies using variations of rectifiers. Entirely different voltages tested - and entirely different resistors. We actually wound some specifically using really thick wires and low Ohms values.

These tests were significant - also showed gains - but difficult to prove as there was possibly wastage from the plug to the variac. But gains evident from the variac related to power dissipated. Here we immersed the resistor in water.

It's best to use batteries and best of all those lead acid numbers.

[witsend]

@Glen (a.k.a. FuzzyTomCat)..... <----- now that's an annoying color

I'm trying to get Glen's attention to my questions.

Thanks

Hi ddlabarre, I'm answering you here because I think Fuzzy's out of town at the moment. I'm reasonably sure that the measurement of the Ohm's value was determined 'cold' as was its inductance. I do hope that helps? I think all these inductive resistor numbers vary under applied energies.

[dllabarre]

@Glen (a.k.a. FuzzyTomCat)..... <----- now that's an annoying color

I'm trying to get Glen's attention to my questions.

Did you measure 8.64 micro Henries with an inductance meter?
(some people use calculations which are not as accurrate as using a meter)
Did you measure 10.0 ohms with an ohm meter?

What temperature was it when you measured the resistor?
The temperature will effect the ohms.
I'm not sure if temperature effects the inductance.

Please... no offense to these questions.
I'll being picky because this circuit is picky.

Thanks

[poynt99]

In the Quantum article at the top of page 5 there reads:

In order to evaluate a reasonable average of the energy delivered, a sample range was chosen spanning 1.2 micro seconds.

Surely this "1.2 micro seconds" is a typo?

Even at the highest observed frequency that was stated (i.e. 200kHz), 1.2us only samples 24% of one complete cycle, and gets worse at 143kHz. How can one get a reasonable average by sampling only 24% of one cycle?

Then there's this from page 6 of the EIT paper:

As mentioned, the voltage waveforms that result from such a high oscillating frequency vary greatly from one cycle to another. The transient voltage spikes that are deliberately generated, then compound this variation. In order to evaluate a reasonable average of the energy delivered a time base of 1us/div was chosen.

If as stated in the article that the aperiodic oscillation fluctuates between 143kHz and 200kHz, how can one obtain a reasonable average by only sampling a total of 10us (1us/div x 10 divisions) on the scope? To get at least one cycle of 200kHz and one cycle of 143kHz, would require a minimum of 12us. Also, the sampling time (10us) is on the same order as the period of the measured signal. For a uniform stable wave form this might be fine, but for a variable one such as described, several "mixed" cycles should be sampled.

Without observing the true nature of the described wave forms, it's difficult to prescribe an exacting mode of measurement, however knowing that it is unstable and aperiodic does support and even demand the use of a much wider sampling window to obtain an accurate average.

.99

[poynt99]

What version of Protel are you using?

.99

PS. I'd like to see a screen capture of the VDC component you are using and its associated subcircuit model (I don't think there is one).