COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Ramset - my advices are that TK has recommended the disconnect to continue. I also understand that you implied - or stated? that you had no intention of actually contacting anyone.

If, therefore, you get someone to look into it - this will be appreciated. But with respect, is it possible that other dual members could also try. I need to rest on some certainty that this, in fact, is going to happen.

It has also been suggested that the disconnect may have been enabled by some higher level official? In which case, who is it that is funding OU.COM. It tends to throw some doubts on the objects of that forum.

[RAMSET]

disconnect

I have pm'd Stephan ,he may reply here or OU
Chet

[witsend]

Thanks Ramset - very much. If the disconnect is not lifted - then we must know that it was caused at a higher level which throws some question on the object of overunity.com's transparent attempt to advance this new age science. This presumption is based on the understanding then that not even Stephan can attend to the required.

I would also point out that the new concern - also posted somewhere? is that Aaron's scope is out of wack which is why the machine showed an oscillating frequency.

Yet again - it is curious that this effect - be it the vagaries of the mosfet, the scope - or anything at all - seemed to enable a recharge of the cap and the battery. Please give us better arguments.

EDIT And please may I add - it would be appreciated that others also PM Stephan on this matter to ensure that it reaches him and to point out its urgency.

[witsend]

My advices are that OC (officer in charge?) has instructed TK to bring this matter to a head as he has other work for TK.

Am not sure who OC is. But for that matter nor do I know who TK is or - come to think of - so many other detractors. I can also now confirm that my emails are being read. Am not sure of my phone line - but am reasonably certain that this is also being monitored. There are ways to check the phone line and will do so soon.

[RAMSET]

oc

Oc [over confidant ]wants TK to investigate something else
Not a principle at O U [a regular member]just a casual request
People have grown to trust TK and they ask him to look at things[thats why he was here[I asked him to look at this [but he won't look unless he is intrigued]
Chet

[jibbguy]

I will attempt to do so, but i must protest that my expertise is certainly not incontestable lol.

Regarding the proper measurement of the power in verses out, it is not so easy a question either upon reflection.

For "Power In", we could simply read V right across the Source battery, and also across an added current shunt R in series with its Negative terminal... Which should work pretty well; as i am contemplating doing this more along the lines of doing "instantaneous" readings verses those of battery charge/discharge (which are controversial so avoiding that may be desirable).

But for the total "Instantaneous Power Out" ...

> We could simply read voltage across the resistive element itself, which will give a certain set of voltage and thus calculated current readings (using Ohms Law from it's DC resistance to calculate current & then power (really V/A in this case Apparent) which is one possible method... But may not be the best one.

> Reading across a separate "Charge" battery which has "recycled" some of the voltage in the form of pulses... But the rub is this may give a separate set of results that is at odds with the others; and may again be more controversial.

> Reading the heat energy from the resistive element and calculating the power seen from that, will give a third set of results in dissipated heat energy... That i bet will not equate very closely to the voltage/power readings across that same resistive element, lol.

And since some of this energy is Inductive in nature, it will probably NOT add up at all; and to me it defies easy definition (or perhaps im just being very slow and dense tonight) .

So i am yet quite sure how to best solve this outwardly "simple" equation tonight... There is no problem in METHODOLOGY for a specific reading (what we might call the "tactical" issues)... I can fully describe any one of a hundred probes, transducers, shunts, thermocouples, load cells, sensors, or whatever... It is WHAT specifically must be measured in this case to insure the power is accurately portrayed (the "strategic" issue), and how these specific measurements are supposed to be calculated, what their relationship is, that would be the pertinent question.

Anyone else want to comment here regarding what the "power in vs. power out equation" should specifically look like for this circuit?

[RAMSET]

PS

Rosemary I hope to God your problem goes away, people are giving you 3rd hand Nonsense about the posts at OU
Chet

Not really that easy ,is it Steve? TK makes it look easy but it ain't

But its what he does everyday [and it shows]

[Allcanadian]

@Ramset

Aaron is using a much higher driving freq from his 555, and a long duty cycle of 50 percent or more. This, plus the high inductance of that load, results in the inductive ring being a substantial portion of the pulse duration, not just a little spike like at 2.4 kHz drive.
So now, you just turn the gate drive down (increase the resistance of that pot) until the scope's trigger is being shown the garbage in the very first little piece of the ringdown. And since the trigger circuit is not so good, or it's set on the wrong coupling, or just because it is a 2-trace scope in "vertical mode" trigger, it can't keep up and the waveform slips past in the time dimension. You can see from the contrast bands that the waveform is nearly the same when it's slipping as when it's caught. Plus, since the mosfet isn't turning fully on before you turn it off and start the ringing, the current draw goes down and the batt voltage goes up.
Now turn the gate up or the duty cycle longer. The mosfet turns on fully so the current goes up and the batt voltage goes down. And the scope's trigger sees a cleaner rising portion of the wave and locks it in.

This is a lot easier to do on the other scopes. My Philips has rock-solid triggering and no beam chopper stuff to get in the way of the trigger. But I was able to fool the Philips, even at the low 2.4 kHz used by Ainslie, and me (but not Aaron.)

Aaron, Steve ,All, please comment

Thanks for the link to TK's video, I always get a real kick out of them,LOL. Fortunately I do not use the triggered sweep function on my scope and I perform secondary measurements with a good quality frequency meter used to calibrate ham radio equipment. So you and others may want to rethink this "false trigger" theory and consider other options as to why you cannot produce the secondary oscillations.
Regards
AC

[RAMSET]

Insite please

All Canadian can you help with this problem
Please
Chet
PS WE NEED TO MAKE SOME HEAT HERE ,WINTER IS COMING

[RAMSET]

Scientist Test Apparatus Info

Calorimeter testing of a Clarke-Hess power meter:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/sono/chtest3.html (a model 2330)

From the Clarke-Hess 2335 brochure:
Quote

TRUE RMS/REALLY BROADBAND
The Model 2335 Sampling Watt Meter is a precision, high accuracy, auto-ranging instrument which simultaneously measures and displays true rms Voltage, true rms Current and true mean Power over a frequency range from dc to more than 1MHz. Full scale Current and Voltage inputs are typically measured within ±0.1% of the reading in amplitude to at least 500kHz. The corresponding Power is typically measured to within ±0.1% of the input Volt-Amperes to 250kHz and to within ±0.2% of the input Volt-Amperes to 500kHz for loads having any Power Factor.

LOW POWER FACTOR ACCURACY.
Five digits or resolution combined with excellent phase matching between the current and voltage channels make the Model 2335 watt meter an exceptionally good instrument for making low power factor measurements up to 1MHz. This makes the instrument ideal for high frequency core loss measurements which are inherently low power factor.

MULTI-FUNCTION
In addition to the rms Voltage, rms Current, and mean square Power the Model 2335 watt meter also measures simultaneously the peak Voltage, the peak Current and the Frequency and calculates the Volt-Ampere product, the Power Factor and the Harmonics of the current and the voltage. These functions may be displayed or may be read over the IEEE-488.2 or RS-232 interfaces.

UNPARALLELED HIGH FREQUENCY ACCURACY
The Model 2335 watt meter allows broadband and high accuracy measurements of both sinusoidal and highly distorted wave shapes. The Current, Voltage, Power, and Power Factor accuracies to 1MHz of the Model 2335 watt meter far exceed any other sampling Watt Meter, or for that matter, with respect to Current or Voltage, almost all conventional multimeters.

Full scale Power ranges exist for loads with impedances from (0.6V/1.5A) = 0.4W to (600V/1.5mA) = 400kW.

WIDE MEASUREMENT RANGE
The Model 2335 watt meter has full scale Power ranges from 1.0000mWatt to 10000Watts. With external shunts or current to voltage transducers the upper range may be extended by a factor of ten or one hundred. Full scale Voltage from 2.000V to 2000V (usable to 1000V) and full scale Current ranges from 5.000mA to 5.000A (all rms values) cover a wide range of load impedances. Full scale Current and Voltage inputs may have crest factors up to three while smaller inputs may have even higher crest factors. Sinusoidal inputs with rms values of twice the nominal Full Scale value may be measured with no loss in accuracy.

POSSIBLE MEASUREMENT USES
Measurement of Ultrasonic Equipment of all types and power levels, Finished Transformers, Transformer Core Material, Switching Power Supplies, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts of all types, Mercury Arc Lamp Circuits, Sodium Lamp Ballasts, Speed Controlled Motors of all types, Efficiency of any device with an electrical input and an electrical output, SCR Controlled Devices of all types, High Frequency and/or Distorted Currents from any source, Voltage Response of any device from DC to 1MHz, and the Characteristics of Electric Automobile Drives.

EASY TO CALIBRATE AND MAINTAIN
The Model 2335 watt meter is an all solid state instrument with optically isolated input channels. DC coupling in both channels allows calibration and/or verification with high accuracy dc sources. Internal software calibration routines allow most recalibrations to be accomplished without opening the instrument and without screwdriver adjustments.

UNIQUE SAMPLING APPROACH / ISOLATED INPUTS
The Voltage and Current inputs of the Model 2335 watt meter are simultaneously sampled (with 16 bit resolution), converted to digital form, and transmitted via optical links to the main chassis. This allows both the Current and Voltage inputs to be completely isolated from each other and from the main chassis. The asynchronous sampling frequency is controlled by the system microprocessor in such a fashion that neither it nor any of its harmonics can come close to the measured input frequency or any of its harmonics. This precaution prevents "beats" with their accompanying jitter in the displayed values.

REMOTE CONTROL
The Model 2335 watt meter is equipped with an IEEE-488.2 interface and an RS-232 interface which both incorporate all of the IEEE-488.2 Common Commands and Queries. Any function that can be entered via the front panel can be controlled via either interface. In addition, any or all of the functions which can be displayed, can be queried and sent simultaneously to the Controller over the either interface. The status (e.g. Current range, Voltage range, etc) of the instrument may also be queried and sent over either interface..

The bus address for the IEEE-488 interface is set from the front panel and is displayed both at turn-on and when the Local key is depressed. A Remote lamp indicates that the Model 2335 watt meter has been placed in its Remote state by the IEEE-488 Controller.

[RAMSET]

A weary scientist makes a comment asks a question

Well, I have considered one other alternative. The 555 timer that Aaron is using might be making the oscillations, rather than the mosfet. I will have to make one like his, or he will have to make one like Rosemary's (which mine is from--the Quantum paper, remember?)
I have tried the entire range of my FG and can't make the circuits, Ainslie's or Aaron's, do anything but lose trigger. And ditto with my 555 timer at its freq range.
I've seen 555s do this kind of thing many times, especially if they are a bit flakey. There can be wide variations between individual 555 chips. They get hot, they respond to spikes...I don't see any decoupling caps...

Can a FG be used to make the circuit behave that way, if it's not a trigger issue? Anyone?

That old Interstate (not wavetek!) that I use does not have the most square pulses in the world, but it usually is better than a 555 at a given freq.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Rosemary, it looks to me like it may be a good thing you cant get into OU because you dont need to read the insinuations being cast, you seem too nice for that garbage. That is not science, when character assassination is used in conjunction, nuff said.
keep the positive vision going, what ultimately matters is the vision, intent to see this stuff get to the masses and thats why they try so hard to modify peoples thoughts about it.
peace love light

[jibbguy]

Lol Ramset, it is never easy: Because i've NEVER seen a "simple" analog circuit in Prototype that performed exactly as was first expected; which is why i urged your Professor to not dis the circuit until there was more data to go on besides his own because if the myriad of unforeseen possibilities that even the best can miss... And this is appearing more and more each day to be wise advice

The reason this is "hard" may not be readily apparent to some, but in essence it is this: We are not taught in electronics schools how to measure overunity, we are taught how to evade, ignore, and deny it

If we were calculating the power in a traditional circuit it would be easy (as well if the waveforms involved were "conventional"). There are math formulas for it. They won't work here. If this overunity effect depends on sending the MOSFET into astable oscillation, all bets are off. No assumptions can be made. Everything will have to be empirically tested and measured. These measurements should also be recorded on disk as sample data; so others' can easily see and analyze them as well. This will stop this silliness from happening in the future and speed world-wide acceptance once the tests are successfully completed.

I do not believe that the MOSFET oscillations can be accurately read by that power meter.... These devices are designed to reject "noise" and look for repetitive waveforms. And it would appear to probably have an analog circuit inside it that conditions the signal. I would not trust such a circuit because they are designed for repetitive waveforms, and they therefor use certain assumptions in their design which can be false for non-repetitive transients. Sometimes they have plug-in capacitors for different Time Constants for transient work, it's possible this one does but i would still go with what is known to be accurate.

Since we are bothering to test this circuit in the first place: The given assumption is that the astable oscillations are the major factor in seeing the effect. So why would we want to risk not properly measuring them?

I would repeat that the only truly reliable and accurate method is "soft" calculation of raw DC trace data (meaning "real time" on-board calcs, or later PC-based analysis). These don't care what the waveform shape is at all or if it is repetitive or not; and with a digital storage scope the F Response is much better (since we do not have an accurate scope pic of this envelope yet, we DO NOT know what F Response will be needed).

This denial of Aaron's oscillations via this "triggering" gambit, and the assumption that a few kHz is "too fast" for the MOSFET, is becoming absurd.... And it is starting to look like a constant game to throw up one highly obscure claim after another, just to see what will stick, by hoping peeps get tired and irritated with dealing with them. Last week it was the "ground loop" theory. That one got flushed where it belonged... I predict these will too. It has apparently becoming a "battle of attrition" for some reason. So be it

All we need do to decide the "triggering" claim once and for all is to do a "sample and hold" screen-shot with the Fluke scopemeter, or any DSO or PC scope. This totally blows away ANY question of "triggering", which won't mean a damn when you look at the actual instantaneous frozen waveform. And this will also be the ONLY way to get a good look and accurate measurement of the non-repetitive transient spikes from the MOSFET astable oscillations, since the scope won't trigger very well on them because they are mostly non-repetitive. This is what is needed to do the job right, imo.

[MileHigh]

Just for the fun of it, let me talk about how to actually check your build. I am not going to jump back into the fray of the debate. I am in "virtual builder" mode.

Some background information: I may be repeating myself here and there to make everything make sense. This is a pulse circuit that charges and discharges an inductor. The key thing about pulse circuits is that all of the the action takes place starting at the on and the off switching. Therefore when you change the pulse width you are changing the on and off times relative to each other, but you are not really changing the two processes, the on and the off.

The longer you are switched on, the closer you are to reaching the current saturation limit through the coil-resistor. You can easily see this on your scope by looking at the current sensing resistor. It's an exponential waveform with a time constant of L/R. That's the amount of time it takes for the current to reach 63% of it's maximum value. This is REAL, you want to look for it on your scope trace. You want to know your rise times (aka time constats) relative to your overal running frequency. This is simply to give yourself a feel for what is going on.

What's the point to all this? Once you are close to the maximum current, all of the "on" time is now "wasted", with just the resistor burning power, with no added "kick back" from the coil when the MOSFET switches off. Perhaps you want to reduce this time?

So when you play with the duty cycle, for the most part the circuit does pretty much the same thing, with the caveat that the longer you are switched on after a certain point, that's energy being poured down the drain as heat. I hope that some of you are getting this, it's all about visualizing this and using your imagination. You can clearly see it in TK's recent clips.

There is no "search for resonance" by playing with the duty cycle in the sense that there is nothing to search for. This circuit does NOT resonate. For the most part you are seeing "ring-downs" aka "ringing", almost universally considered to be undesirable effects in all circuits. The ring-downs represent the inneficient transfer of signal energy from point A to point B through the wires in the circuit. They can also represent the fact that the bandwidth of the square wave signal may be limited, which causes a similar effect.

What you want this circut to do is turn the MOSFET into the best possible on-off swith that you can. It doens't matter which MOSFET you use, this is a low power swiching function. Any fast MOSFET should be able to do the job just fine (I am assuming that they are all fast). There is no "right" MOSFET, it's a fallacy. TK deserves kudos for going to the trouble of switching MOSFETs anyways. Then you wire your battery source and resistor-coil and diode neatly together. Put the battery right next to the setup and use short thick wires.

For the actual building, you can check your MOSFET by using an ordinary 1K resistor as the load, and see if the output is a nice clean inverted square wave. To repeat about the MOSFET input, it senses voltage only. Think about that. Voltage with no current. The first thing you should try is a direct connection between your 555 timer or signal generator to the MOSFET gate. If you see a nice clean square wave on the output, then add the coil-resistor + diode and see if that also looks good. If it does, then you have perfected the "switch" part of your circuit and possibly will never have to touch it again. Perhaps a certain setting on a trimpot, or a simple 50-ohm resistor in series at the output pin of the 555 will do it also. Playing with trimpots at the gate input is a waste of time. To repeat: all you want to do is confirm that you can switch the MOSFET on and off cleanly, and then you should never have to touch that part of the circuit again.

The circuit CAN resonate, but any resonance in the circuit is a separate characteristoc from the MOSFET on-off switching described above. You do a simple controlled test: Connect varous trimpots to the gate and sweep them and look at the output: Do you start to see random or regular oscillations? Meaure the resistance of your trimpot setting. Invoke the resonance again and measure again. The logic for this test is not based on my theory but on the fact that MOSFETS go into spontaneous oscillation if the gate is left floating (open circuit) or near-floating. (If you wet the tip of your finger and just lightly touch the gate input you probably can make it go away.)

There may be other resonance modes. The reason for this is simple. The MOSFET is an amplifier and any amplifier design can be suspect to oscillation if the right conditions are met. For all I know Aaron invoked the oscillation in a differernt way, and TK appears to have done it in a different way also.

So what is the ocsillation? It the MOSFET going into defib and having a minor freakout. I am talking about the case where the oscillation is full-scale. It is generally considered undesirable. The fast switching means the MOSFET starts to burn off thousands of times more power than normal and starts to heat up. If you do the MOSFET switching circuit verification like I described above, then the MOSFET is always supposed to run cool. The MOSFET only burns off a tiny tiny speck of energy when it switches if you do your design right.

How does the oscillation affect the coil? The fact is that the coil prevents the current from flowing when you first switch it on. Think of a spring. When you first push on a spring, almost no force is passed onto the far side of the spring because the spring is just starting to compress. Same thing for the coil, no cuurent passes through it. Therefore the high frequency oscillations are "choking" the coil and everytime the MOSFET switches on, only a very small amount of current can pass through the coil and charge it up with energy before the MOSFET switches of. So when the MOSFET is self-resonating at a very high frequency, the cloil is generating high-frequency feeble little discharges. Granted there is a lot of them, but is still is a huge net loss relative to the normal switching mode. You could in theory calculate the RMS value of the little pulses of current coming out of the coil. This very low RMS current is trickling through the diode and going back into the other side of the coil. This will apply for any high-frequency osciilation mode of the MOSFET.

I realize that the audience for what I am saying may be limited, but hopefully there are some keeners out there that will run with some of this to help them do a good build.

The way I would attack this would be to just do the regular pulse circuit measurments first. Some of you I know must think that getting the MOSFET to resonate is the key to even higher outputs. I am telling you that you get the Nobel Prize if that comes true. Inductors are called "chokes" beacuse the choke out the high frequencies and let the low frequencies pass.

Sorry for the quasi-rant but it would be a shame to see people make dozens and dozens of clips where people at playing with the gate resistors in their setups and contemplating the waveforms. Get the MOSFET working as a clean on-off switch and then move on to the real action. The MOSFET in defib in my opinion is not the way to go. Focus on one objective at a time and make the measurements around the coil-resistor based on the 3% duty-cycle waveform as per Rosemary's paper.

All of this is just my humble opinion, I am not telling anybody what to do. It's mostly based on my real-world experience. Encore! Get a 555/function generator/MOSFET switch working cleanly and reliably. Make sure it works properly at at least 50% more than your maximum current drain. THEN wire in the coil-resistor and start playing and measuring.

[Aaron]

timing synch

For the Timercircuit, i think the same as Aaron, that the Timercircuit need to come into Resonance with the Element, when i did get that right.

Glad to hear your making progress.

With the timer circuit and the mosfet oscillation, I don't believe synchronizing them is necessary and was just thinking out loud if it makes any difference if they were synchronized.

In the experiment paper by Rosemary, it does say the self oscillation overrides the timing signal anyway so probably doesn't matter.