COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Ok. I take it that this is a circuit designed with the intention to defeat unity. Let's see the results.

And regarding your penultimate post. Poynt you're an obsessive compulsive. I know this. I have to read it through again and again and again. I'll skip it if you don't mind. Let's just see the outcome of this one.

I drew back once in answering your posts, but obliged lately in hopes of making a connection. No Go. I simply can't communicate effectively with you. I am also growing rather loathsome of the insults, labels, and consistent and flamboyant convolution of my posts and their intended messages.

Adieu.

.99

[poynt99]

You may wish to revisit the bridge connections

Indeed. Shouldn't draw when so tired.

Thanks for the pickup. Diagram is updated.

.99

[Harvey]

A proposed COP test. Rosemary asked for the schematic.

HF capable transformer.

Capacitor filtering on output would be optional, but not necessary. With COP>1.5 or so, should work in theory, if excess COP appears as usable V and I in the load to obtain real power output.

.99

You may wish to revisit the bridge connections

[Harvey]

FWIW, I wonder if the IRF842 would work. I happen to have a couple in my spare parts bin. They are repetitive avalanche rated.

IRF842 Datasheet pdf - N-CHANNEL ENHANCEMENT-MODE SILICON GATE TMOS POWER FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR - Motorola
"http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheets_pdf/I/R/F/8/IRF842.shtml"

I'm no expert on reading the datasheets, but the only significant difference I can see is the PG50 is rated for 1000v and Rds@2ohm, and the the 842 is rated for 500v and Rds is 1.1ohm.

I know I could simply plug it in and try it, but alas, I have no oscilloscope and I wouldn't be able to confirm it anyway. (sigh)

-kent

From the values I've witnessed in this circuit, you should be fine with the IRF842. I have seen spikes above 750V with different things I've tried, but your Avalanche would probably handle that fine as long as you allow at least 1µs in between Avalanche (let it recover). Nothing I've seen, even during aperiodic mode, comes close to that interval. Get a good heatsink on it just to be sure, but with 1.1 on resistance, it won't get as hot as the IRFPG50 for the same current. Probably why its rated for higher amperage. It will be an interesting thing to see if the 1300pf input capacitance makes a difference in the aperiodic mode - if it even occurs.

If you do not have a scope, try putting a small flashlight bulb between the ground of the battery and your circuit. You will find adjustments that let it glow more than others. When the bulb experiences a reverse current it will glow brighter. Place a diode in series with it momentarily to see if the lamp dims when it loses the reverse current. If it doesn't, then you are not clipping any of the waveform below ground with the body diode. Even so, if you can get a good temperature rise in the resistor without burning out the bulb you may be getting something worth putting a scope on. Keep us posted.

[witsend]

A proposed COP test. Rosemary asked for the schematic.

HF capable transformer.

Capacitor filtering on output would be optional, but not necessary. With COP>1.5 or so, should work in theory, if excess COP appears as usable V and I in the load to obtain real power output.

.99

Ok. I take it that this is a circuit designed with the intention to defeat unity. Let's see the results.

And regarding your penultimate post. Poynt you're an obsessive compulsive. I know this. I have to read it through again and again and again. I'll skip it if you don't mind. Let's just see the outcome of this one.

[poynt99]

COP test?

A proposed COP test. Rosemary asked for the schematic.

HF capable transformer.

Capacitor filtering on output would be optional, but not necessary. With COP>1.5 or so, should work in theory, if excess COP appears as usable V and I in the load to obtain real power output.

[poynt99]

May I ask what it is that you are expecting or hoping to see with your requested wave forms?poynt

I'm sort of expecting something like Aaron's shown us? But I've no idea.

This is not helpful to me. First from Aaron, I can't recall seeing anything conclusive or remotely what I would call "informative" wave forms taken from your original published circuit. Second, if you are asking me but have no idea what you are going to compare it to or why, then it would be time wasted, and I feel it is not fair to ask.

Sorry you can't replicate Aaron's test. But I'd still like to see the published test.

I think many of us (on this side of the fence) are still trying to figure out exactly what Aaron's test was all about. At such low currents it's difficult to get reliable readings. I was hoping you'd have something concrete that you could relay to me as to what you expect to see. Saying "something similar to Aaron's results" just doesn't give me a heck of a lot of incentive.

Poynt - that circuit configuration you proposed with the bridge rectifier and the inductor - please give us a schematic.

I'll draw up the proposed add-on. I am certain that if Aaron (or Harvey in proxy) sees this he will devise some reason as to why it is going to "kill the effect", but since you're curious, I'll post it anyway.

.99

[witsend]

May I ask what it is that you are expecting or hoping to see with your requested wave forms?poynt

I'm sort of expecting something like Aaron's shown us? But I've no idea. Sorry you can't replicate Aaron's test. But I'd still like to see the published test.

Poynt - that circuit configuration you proposed with the bridge rectifier and the inductor - please give us a schematic. I take it you'll be using a functions generator.

[poynt99]

Sorry Poynt - I missed this. Many thanks. Ok. Can you firstly do a repeat of the published circuit. Presumably it may require those amendments to the switch? Or do you even need a switch on a sim? Then at 3% ON - waveforms over the shunt, wavforms over the load resistor, waveforms over the battery. And some quick reference to their average values and the wattage levels of energy dissipated/delivered.

Then the same on Aarons new circuit.

Many thanks

Not sure what amendments to the switch you are referring to. The diode? I can do the published circuit, with our without the 555 (I would prefer without as it won't achieve 3.7% as published), but I'm not so sure I can do Aaron's. I will have to take a close look. I would also doubt that I can obtain the crazy circuit operation. Unfortunately, with this version of SPICE, one can not tweak the pot values in real time to see the effects. It could take days to try all settings and combinations and even then there is no guarantee that the thing will break into the funky oscillation mode.

You have stated that the circuit will exhibit overunity without the funky oscillation, and with or without the flyback diode. This is what I would prefer to simulate.

May I ask what it is that you are expecting or hoping to see with your requested wave forms?

[poynt99]

Poynt

Also you are ok with using the flyback output to charge a totally separate battery correct? And it is one of your claims that battery recharging does occur with or without the flyback diode present?
Yes

Use a transformer and full wave bridge off the load coil to convert the AC voltage across it to a filtered DC voltage.
Not sure what a 'filtered' DC means. Presumably just that the AC changed to DC? I know from personal experience on AC tests that there's a marginal loss through those diodes on the bridge rectifier. Doesn't matter much on high voltages but not sure of the effect on lower values.

We would use a transformer so that the DC output voltage may again be referenced to the source battery ground. Then this output will be applied to the source battery in the hopes that it will gain charge?
Not sure why you need a transformer if the inductor itself generates the required.

This of course means placing the transformer primary in parallel with the load coil.
Ok. We've tested this variation but the current flow was quite extreme.

The use of a transformer may make things a bit lossy (depending on your slant here), but if COP>17, this slight loss should be more than compensated for to keep the circuit alive and running indefinately.

Poynt - are you proposing this circuit to be simulated or actually built? Quite frankly I'm having difficulty understanding the rectifier arrangement and where you'll return the energy - another battery? - the source? Whatever. Can you give us a schematic? And why do I get the impression you've done this? Indeed I'd be interested in the results. I'm a sucker for punishment.

But I would very much appreciate the data from Aaron's last test and from the published experiment posted here for easy reference. Please oblige.

The proposed circuit add-on could be built. The AC that feeds the transformer primary would come off directly across the load resistor. This would then feed a diode bride off the secondary and this filtered output could be used to recharge the source battery. If COP>17, then this should allow the circuit to run itself indefinitely. If most of the excess energy manifests as voltage/current across the load resistor then this should work. If you claim the the excess energy manifests elsewhere, then it might not work as proposed.

.99

[Joit]

Hi Fuzzytomcat,
I did today that small Test, and its like CW gives a 45° Angel control
CCW gives 0° or 90°. CCW is better for that.
There is a technical Term for this Angel Control, but i dont know the exact Word, so cant translate it.
A skilled EE do know about it, just not a bumbler.

I got today some more Info about the Magnetmotor, what i did mention.
The configuration there was Rotor N vs Stator N's, this Effect did then appear as same Poles face eachother.
Not sure, if it helps, but its kind of a side note.





Oh well

[FuzzyTomCat]

FWIW, I wonder if the IRF842 would work. I happen to have a couple in my spare parts bin. They are repetitive avalanche rated.

IRF842 Datasheet pdf - N-CHANNEL ENHANCEMENT-MODE SILICON GATE TMOS POWER FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR - Motorola
"http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheets_pdf/I/R/F/8/IRF842.shtml"

I'm no expert on reading the datasheets, but the only significant difference I can see is the PG50 is rated for 1000v and Rds@2ohm, and the the 842 is rated for 500v and Rds is 1.1ohm.

I know I could simply plug it in and try it, but alas, I have no oscilloscope and I wouldn't be able to confirm it anyway. (sigh)

-kent

Hi Kent,

I cant see on the PDF any information on Single Pulse Avalanche Energy or Repetitive Avalanche Energy these are two very important Mosfet specifications for these "replications".

The IRFPG50 is the standard profile and anything very close to these parameters may work ....

International Rectifier IRFPG50
Single Pulse Avalanche Energy - 800 mJ
Repetitive Avalanche Energy - 19 mJ

Here are some more possible examples ....

Fairchild Semiconductor - FQH8N100C
Fairchild Semiconductor - FQAF11N90C
ST Microelectronics - STW9N150

Hope this helps, Thanks for your parcipitation in this venture !!

Glen

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT- I found a International Rectifier Data Sheet for your IRF842 ......

International Rectifier - IRF842

Single Pulse Avalanche Energy - 610 mJ
Repetitive Avalanche Energy - 13 mJ

The Single Pulse Avalanche Energy is low but it may work, but without a scope it would be hard to know.

[witsend]

Hi Kent - you could check the heat on the load and the battery draw down? But Fuzzy - we need your expertise here.

EDIT Thanks Fuzzy. Yet again. much appreciated.

[kent_elyue]

possible substitution for IRFPG50

FWIW, I wonder if the IRF842 would work. I happen to have a couple in my spare parts bin. They are repetitive avalanche rated.

IRF842 Datasheet pdf - N-CHANNEL ENHANCEMENT-MODE SILICON GATE TMOS POWER FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR - Motorola
"http://www.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheets_pdf/I/R/F/8/IRF842.shtml"

I'm no expert on reading the datasheets, but the only significant difference I can see is the PG50 is rated for 1000v and Rds@2ohm, and the the 842 is rated for 500v and Rds is 1.1ohm.

I know I could simply plug it in and try it, but alas, I have no oscilloscope and I wouldn't be able to confirm it anyway. (sigh)

-kent

[witsend]

Groundloop - it looks really, really pretty. Be most interested in seeing your numbers when you start testing.

And thanks again for going to the trouble. it's much appreciated.