COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Joit]

@witsend Hi 2. lol.
Well we have still the same Timezone, i am only few tousand Km's higher on the Bowl.
And still up to read some stuff, there are a lot bad Rumors around the swineflu and the (probatly forced) injection. Seems, better noone get this Injection, when its not needed. But well, its not the Topic here.

I was still not sure at all for the Timer, because it left anyhow all open.
I am still nosy to see the new Design too, and enjoy it. lol.

For now i still play around with the torroid, and try to reanimate my damaged Gel batterie, simple with a 2nd Coil and a Diode, Bedini Style even.
And i like the noise, when the Coil sings around.
Otherwise, i see a lot of possibilities, where to test it further, but anything is expensive to build,
what needs all time, ie Flynns ParallelPath technology, and a lot more.
But anything will be explored first, to become familiar with it.

And btw, when you got another sunny Day today, go and do a Walk when you want to, no matter, what happens here, lol.
Sometimes its a really good thing, to have a Break and look further again over Things.

Btw, why do you get an electrical Shock, when you are standing on a Stone or Rock?
The Stone usual dont lead Current..

[witsend]

Thanks for the update Joit. I've been everywhere on the thread. I'm now going to watch some tv and sleep. See you again soon.

[Joit]

Hi,
just made a quick and dirty Video late night. Not the best Quality but i dont care.
Coil is from a Microwave, i used only the inner Winding and connected it like at the PDF.
Usual it does show around 10-12 Volts there, but at a certain Point and adjusting the Pots, it did change.
The Meter shows usual the Highspikes, wich my other dont do, but i got there still 50V at the Coil.
Weird, that the Volts dont show at the Scope its max to 200V

But it says anyway not to much, its to less Power anyhow, and just for Entertainment.
But good to tickle my Gelbatt
After connecting the Batterie i had to adjust new, but got the same Spikes again.

Energetictube.com*-*Where technology goes LIVE!

[witsend]

Hi Joit. Do you ever sleep? I saw the video - but couldn't make out too much. It's my eyesight. Nor could I get any sound. But it looks interesting. It'd be nice to see more of the set up?

[Joit]

Hi,
no, didnt sleep to much, and i think i do another Nap.

And its not your eyesight, its my Vid, lol
And as i said, its just for entertainment, it does not mean much, i cant get much out from the other Windings around.

I think, i would need a Bifilar Coil with same Wiresize and resistance, to do something usefull with it.
Right now, the outer Layer is very thick Wire.
Connectet its like that.
Plus ->Timer - 50kPot - Gate Transistor
Plus -> 600Ohm/10WPot - Coil - Drain - Source - 5kPot - Minus.
Seems lower Values of the Pots would be enough, but didnt have others right now.
Transistor is a 2SK2148
When i put the flyback Diode with the second, thicker Winding (Minus -> Plus/600 Pot, it doesnt change something (for now).

But anyway, its only playing around and more for Entertaining as to show something.

Edit I had to put the Audio out because it been only noisy from the EM field.

[MileHigh]

Joit: You are not stating what two points your scope channnel is connected across, so it is hard to comment on your waveform. Also, you are substituting the shunt resistor of a few ohms for a 5k trimpot and that will most likely interfere with the proper operation of your circuit.

This thread went all over the place recently, how about bringing it back to the next step? I will offer some more details for a suggested measurement system.

The shunt resistor should be moved to the battery postive terminal, that way you can record the voltage drop across the shunt and derive your source voltage and current with a single recording channel. The recording channel could come from a digital storage scope that can export it's data to a PC or a PC-based oscilloscope. It would preferably be 10-bit or higher resolution and have a sampling rate high enough to get you enough sample points per cycle (500 or more?). It may be necessary to tweak the value of the shunt resistor to provide a sufficient voltage range to match the A/D conversion range of the recording device. The A/D recording device should be checked against your most accurate digital multimeter at the low shunt voltages to see if they are in accord and if not derive any required offset and gain values to compensate for any sampling inaccuracies. These compensation calculations can be done during the Excel preprocessing. It goes without saying that the actual value of the shunt resistor must be measured as accurately as possible.

All of the recorded data could be imported into Excel. A good person with Excel could massage it and turn it into voltage and current plots over time, compute the average power over one cycle, etc.

On the thermal side, you first have to turn the resistor-coil and the diode into a single thermal entity. All that you have to do is affix the diode up against the body of the resistor-coil and embed the diode in thermal paste. This assembly should be suspended in air by the two wires connected to the rest of the circuit. With about three inches of bare wire on each side of the resistor-coil-diode assembly, and by having it suspended about five or more inches above the desktop, and by ensuring that the air circulation during various tests remains the same, you can create a controlled, repeatable thermal environment for making tempreature readings. This setup only conducts heat to the outside world by air convection and radiation, and not through physical contact with other surfaces, which is what you want. Depending on the size of the resistor, this setup will probably reach 99% of the way to thremal equilibrium within 10 or 15 minutes. Let's just assume it is ten minutes for purposes of this discussion. If you are going to use a non-contact LASER/infrared temperature measuring device, it must be mounted on a tripod and always point at the same place. With a thremocouple, this is not an issue.

Suppose that the resistor-coil will only dissipate a maximum of two watts. That can be sliced into 20 parts, and you can run a thermal profile for every 0.1 watt incrememt in power dissipated in the suspended resistor-coil-diode thermal assembly. So you set up your variable DC power supply to put exactly 0.1 watts of power through the thermal assembly, wait ten minutes until the temperature has stabilized, and record the final temperature, then do it for 0.2 watts, wait, 0.3 watts, wait, etc. After about three hours you will have enough data points to plot a delta-temperature (y-axis) vs. power (x-axis) thermal profile curve in Excel. i.e.; a delta-temperature vs. wattage graph. Of course you should try to keep a fixed ambient temperature in the room for these tests.

Finally, you run the actual setup with the 3% duty cycle waveform, wait 10-15 minutes, and record the final temperature and record your shunt resistor waveforms. Then export the waveforms into the Excel spreadsheet that has been setup to do all of the number crunching mentioned above, and calculate the average electrical power consumed by the setup over one cycle. Then take your temperature reading and compare it to your delta-temperature vs. wattage graph and get the thermal power dissipated during the actual operation of the circuit.

Compare the electrical power with the thermal power and the answer will finally be found.

There was no response to my "buckets of energy" analogy besides some allusions to the fact that you "have to have an imagination." That is a very relative question.

Let's move beyond that. I just outlined what I think is a reasonably accurate approach for determinining if the circuit does what it claims to do or not. If somebody has any other suggestions for doing this I am sure that we would all be interested in hearing them. And of course the real question is the issue of whether somebody who believes in this circuit is actually going to do it and make the measurements and crunch the data.

[witsend]

sorry MileHigh. I didn't really study your water analogy. I glanced at it and then got caught up in new developments. I'll look back at it. Not usually so inattentive. Abject apologies.

I think your recommendations here are good. The difficulty seems to be those storage scopes.

Rosemary

[witsend]

MileHigh's quotes

In your proposed verification test, you have the extra battery. Imagine at the start the coil is an empty bucket of energy. The MOSFET switches on, and the energy from the big external water tank (the source battery) flows through the MOSFET and fills up the coil bucket with energy. The MOSFET is like a water valve. Then the MOSFET switches off, and the coil bucket of energy has to empty, and the energy is poured into a bigger battery bucket. This repeats and the battery bucket slowly fills up. There is no other place that the energy from the coil bucket can be "poured" so it goes into the battery bucket. The battery bucket is the extra battery.
I can live with the argument thus far.

Now we go back to your original circuit, the extra battery bucket is gone. So the MOSFET switches on and fills up the coil bucket with energy. When the MOSFET switches off, the coil bucket has to empty. In this case, there is a medium-sized bucket and a small bucket sitting right next to it. Both of the buckets have holes in them. The coil bucket empties into the two buckets, and most of the energy gets poured into the medium-sized bucket. The medium-sized leaky bucket is the resistive part of your resistor-coil. The small leaky bucket is the diode.
Medium size and small buckets, both with holes would pertain to the first analogy? Why were they omitted? Is it because the water pours into the big battery bucket more readily than into the coil bucket and mosfet bucket?

A short time later, all of the energy has leaked out both leaky buckets and is gone. There is only one place for the coil bucket to empty into, the small-and-medium leaky bucket combo. The coil bucket cannot empty any of it's energy back into the big external water tank (the source battery) because the MOSFET valve is closed.
OK I see it. Is this the classicist argument? In other words the current generated by the resistor during the 'off' period of the duty cycle must go back to the battery via the body diode in the MOSFET?

Thanks MileHigh. You're teaching me. I've often wondered why it is that classicists refute the possibility of a gain. It ranks up there with heniecks lesson on charge distribution across two terminals. I'll get back to you on this.

[RAMSET]

A scientist posts some clear vids

Rosemary

I hope the probes are to your specs in the vids

YouTube - Electric OU Supplement: Ainslie Audio Amplifier
YouTube - flukoscop2c

PS my interest in contacting the test lab is not malicious in any way
just to assist /encourage replicators
I worked with that lab about 4 yrs ago through an Amtrak high speed rail
Project[in Washington DC] If my contact has a hard time perhaps he can assist you
I hope to hear back tuesday from him

Chet

[witsend]

Ok. Here's the current flow in terms of my zipon current. The switch is On. The current flows in the direction of potential difference. Potential difference from the battery is positive to negative. It travels from the positive terminal - around the coil of the resistor. It sets up a magnetic field around the resistor. It then moves across the switch - through the shunt resistor - back to the negative terminal.

Then the switch closes. No more potential difference from the battery. The magnetic fields around the resistor collapse. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field. That electric field manifests as a spike. The polarity of the spike is opposite to the previously applied polarity courtesy the battery. Therefore potential difference is reversed enabling current to flow in the reverse direction. It now flows to and not from the negative terminal.

It flows through the coil to the positive terminal - thereby increasing its voltage. Then it flows through the shunt resistor. It can no longer cross the switch so it flows through the body diode of the switch. edit polarity of the diode enables the direction. It then flows back to the coil.

This is repeated in ever decreasing increments until all its energy stored during the on time is discharged. (ringing)

Then the cycle repeats.

This is required only if current flow responds to polarity as required by the zipon model.

[poynt99]

MileHigh's quotes

A short time later, all of the energy has leaked out both leaky buckets and is gone. There is only one place for the coil bucket to empty into, the small-and-medium leaky bucket combo. The coil bucket cannot empty any of it's energy back into the big external water tank (the source battery) because the MOSFET valve is closed.
OK I see it. Is this the classicist argument? In other words the current generated by the resistor during the 'off' period of the duty cycle must go back to the battery via the body diode in the MOSFET?

Thanks MileHigh. You're teaching me. I've often wondered why it is that classicists refute the possibility of a gain. It ranks up there with heniecks lesson on charge distribution across two terminals. I'll get back to you on this.

MH and I are in slight disagreement on this issue, but perhaps there is a happy medium?

I agree with both, MH and RA here.

What actually happens here I believe is that when the MOSFET is OFF, the remaining energy in the coil really can only circulate round it's own closed loop so to speak, BUT at the very instant the MOSFET turns OFF, there is a fast reversal in voltage across the coil and this very fast transient will briefly conduct through the reversed-biased body diode of the MOSFET, as this does represent a real but small capacitance to ground. It is this initial transient spike I believe that makes it's way into the battery (due to this temporary path) as I showed in my scope shots, and I believe TK did as well.

.99

[poynt99]

Ok. Here's the current flow in terms of my zipon current. The switch is On. The current flows in the direction of potential difference. Potential difference from the battery is positive to negative. It travels from the positive terminal - around the coil of the resistor. It sets up a magnetic field around the resistor. It then moves across the switch - through the shunt resistor - back to the negative terminal.

Then the switch closes. No more potential difference from the battery. The magnetic fields around the resistor collapse. Changing magnetic fields induce an electric field. That electric field manifests as a spike. The polarity of the spike is opposite to the previously applied polarity courtesy the battery. Therefore potential difference is reversed enabling current to flow in the reverse direction. It now flows to and not from the negative terminal.

It flows through the coil to the positive terminal - thereby increasing its voltage. Then it flows through the shunt resistor. It can no longer cross the switch so it flows through the body diode of the switch. It then flows back to the coil.

This is repeated in ever decreasing increments until all its energy stored during the on time is discharged. (ringing)

Then the cycle repeats.

This is required only if current flow responds to polarity as required by the zipon model.

Rosemary,

The only difference I see between your zippon current model, and the classical model is the direction of this current when the coil voltage reverses.

In the classical model, the current does not reverse, it maintains the same direction as when it was being energized by the battery. The voltage reverses yes, but the current continues in the same direction.

If the current DID reverse direction as you propose in your model, wouldn't we be able to get more than just a brief (20ns) spike back into the battery? I would think so.

Also, I wonder how the modern world could have overlooked this reversed current phenomenon (if in fact it does exist) when folks have been designing with this circuit for at least 30 to 40 years. What designs? Switched-mode power supplies, Buck-Boost converters etc.

Here's an excellent document which gives a good overview of these designs. Anything look familiar (see p.3)?

.99

[witsend]

Following quotes from .99 post 876
I agree with both, MH and RA here.
Both right? Find this difficult to understand. Our analysis is diametrically opposed.

What actually happens here I believe is that when the MOSFET is OFF, the remaining energy in the coil really can only circulate round it's own closed loop so to speak.
What remaining energy? Does this energy come from the battery or from the coil and has nothing to do with the collapsing fields?

BUT at the very instant the MOSFET turns OFF, there is a fast reversal in voltage across the coil and this very fast transient will briefly conduct through the reversed-biased body diode of the MOSFET, as this does represent a real but small capacitance to ground.
Yet more electric energy and still nothing to do with inductive laws?

It is this initial transient spike I believe that makes it's way into the battery (due to this temporary path) as I showed in my scope shots, and I believe TK did as well.
What causes the spike is actually the question. Could you elaborate on this?

[witsend]

following quotes from .99 post 868

The only difference I see between your zippon current model, and the classical model is the direction of this current when the coil voltage reverses.
In the classical model, the current does not reverse, it maintains the same direction as when it was being energized by the battery. The voltage reverses yes, but the current continues in the same direction.
I agree. This is the difference. But I can prove it by showing the battery recharge using the second battery example as well as the extra energy heating the load that much more.

If the current DID reverse direction as you propose in your model, wouldn't we be able to get more than just a brief (20ns) spike back into the battery? I would think so.
We would and do. You must remember your result is based on your simulator.

Also, I wonder how the modern world could have overlooked this reversed current phenomenon (if in fact it does exist) when folks have been designing with this circuit for at least 30 to 40 years. What designs? Switched-mode power supplies, Buck-Boost converters etc.
If current reversal were allowed then there would be an acknowledgement of OU. Jibbguy goes to some lengths to explain how these effects were eliminated. And I can quote you many more such comments from highly skilled experimentalists.

[petersone]

Hi .99
Always read your posts,very instructive,but I can't get my head around current going in the opposite direction to voltage,is there an easy way to understand it? Thanks
peter