COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Hi Rave154. Not sure of your circuit there? Can you describe it?

[Hoppy]

Following quotes from Hoppy.

... but if you measure a higher voltage across the resistor, then this should demonstrate to you that your battery charges because of a conversion process from low voltage to high voltage in the inductive switching process.
I agree with this. In other words the battery has delivered energy to the resistor - in this case an inductive resistor - and in doing so transferred some potential difference to the resistor. But during this process no energy was delivered to the second battery. The current flow or path was to the negative terminal of the supply battery - thereby costing the system energy from the supply. Then the switch kicks in. The battery can no longer deliver energy. The potential difference on the resistor is now able to find a path - this time through the second battery thereby presenting the battery with the polarisation that enables a recharge of the second battery.

So the question is this. Did that stored energy on the resistor first dissipate energy at the resistor and then still have enough residual energy to breach the 12volt resitance at the second battery and still dissipate more energy at the resistor? If it does both it must surely be delivering more energy than was first delivered by the supply battery? Which also means that there must have been more energy than could have been stored in the first cycle.

Also try lower values of resistance and a capacitor to see how high the voltage will climb before levelling out. Make sure the cap is good for a couple of hundred volts.
Have never used a cap but have taken the voltage of the second 12 volt battery to 17 volts from an 11.5 volt supply source.

But you recommended a R1000 Ohm. Am still not sure why?

Rosemary,

Its not a case of breaching battery resistance. The battery resistance is very low and offers an ideal path for the discharging inductor. The voltage will fall almost instantaneously to a value slightly above the battery terminal voltage; you can see this slightly higher charging voltage level clearly when scoped directly across the battery.

You need to see this initially high voltage as a conversion of low voltage / tension to higher voltage / tension. It actually posseses less energy than that used to initially charge the inductor. The loss is in heat due to the resistance of the wire forming the inductor. It may appear to be more because the average discharge voltage across the battery is high enough to charge it, whereas the original voltage level before conversion is too low. The available current will be less at discharge because the initial peak voltage was a lot higher. The available power on discharge will therefore also be less.

The 1000 ohm resistor is not at all critical. It can be less or more in value. Its just to show that the discharge voltage can be a lot higher than your primary battery voltage. Experimenting in this way will reveal a lot about how your circuit works and it will eventually become apparent to you that there is no free lunch in a circuit of this type.

Hoppy

[Joit]

Experimenting in this way will reveal a lot about how your circuit works and it will eventually become apparent to you that there is no free lunch in a circuit of this type.

Hoppy

So you actually give up at this Circuit Hoppy?
Or did you not ever begun to play with the Circuit.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

About the power measurement system that I suggested that allows you to make accurate measurements without a storage scope or post processing:

> MH, you're recommendations just happen to be things that are specifically engineered to reduce recovery. The cap on battery will negate some of the real charging effects to the battery.

You are missing the point, I suggest that you go an read the posting again. There is no battery anymore with this measurement setup. The battery is replaced with a capacitor only, a "virtual battery", that emulates the real 24-volt source battery. This measurement system is not "engineered to reduce recovery." If Rosemary's circuit is returning power to the source battery, by using the test setup I describe in my posting, you will clearly see a reduction in power consumption. This power measurement system will give you the real power consumption of Rosemary's circuit and all that you need is a multimeter, a few resistors and pots, and a big capacitor.

> The cap on battery will negate some of the real charging effects to the battery.

Going back to the real setup with a real 24-volt battery setup connected, I can see how a cap across the battery will smooth out any possible return pulses. None the less, the source battery would still charge with or without the cap in place. Why would a cap negate some of the charging effects?

Beyond that, even your "best case charging" scope shot, the middle one with the single big negative spike followed by the oscillation - any person can see that the amount of discharging is much larger than the amount of charging, probably at least 25 times larger. The net result with your best-case negative spike would be to slow down the discharging of the battery a bit. This common sense metric cannot be ignored, Aaron. You don't even have to be technical, anybody can see that.

And to beat an old horse to death, Rosemary's claim is not at all related to the battery. I reminded you and everybody about that fact just the other day, and now here we are obsessing on all things about the battery when the exercise is supposed to be about measuring the input power versus the power that is burned off in the coil-resistor + diode. I suggested that all battery-related claims were outside the scope of Rosemary's COP 17 claim and that shoud be dealt with in a second round of tests after the first round was completed. You agreed so what happened?

> If you want to make a circuit that doesn't work as good as it can, listen to MH and put a cap directly on your battery as he suggests.

The question as to why a cap makes it worse was posed above and I hope you reply. Beyond that, will you please stop demonizing me?

MileHigh

[Joit]

Milehigh, just can tell you, what i did see.
Once, as i did play around with leading Spikes back into a Coil i had an increase from Speed at the Rotor,
but when i placed anywhere an Cap at it, to + and - , the Effect was gone.
Only what i could do, was to connect it with a single Wire or both shorted anywhere into the Circuit, what did seems to help a bit.
And other Side, they do make a Short, when they are decharged, till they get some Load again.
And maybe its the Alloy, what concentrates Magnetism at the core, what is different to other Material.
I am not glad about Caps too, they are good at closed systems to support Source power as kind of a Buffer and smooth out, but nothing for the BEMF.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

Just a few comments on the waveforms. I was quite surprised to see the "no resistance" gate input waveforms and how high the spikes are, both positive and negative. I looked at the spec sheet for the IRFPG50 MOSFET (not sure if that's the one you are using) and the absolute maximum rating for the Gate-to-Source voltage is +/-20 volts. Those spikes look awfully large if the main pulse is 9 volts, and you may be damaging your MOSFET input.

If you recall my first recommendation was to make sure that the MOSFET switch was operating properly, and once you get it working properly, then you are ready to go and do the real testing. Shortening the wire lengths and using thicker wires for the power and ground would of course help. The pot that you use between the 555 output and the gate input shoud be switched for one of those little blue-box PCB-mount trimpots so you can put it right next to the 555 output. That's were it is supposed to be, as close as possible to the 555 output pin. If you do it, I would suggest that you try it with a 100-ohm, or if you don't have one, use a 1K-ohm pot. Make the wire between the trimpot output and the MOSFET gate as short as possible. Then play with your trimpot and look at the voltage between the MOSFET source pin and the MOSFET gate pin. If you still see nasty but super-thin spikes, try soldering a very small cap, perhaps 0.001 uF, across the MOSFET source and gate pins. The small cap may soak up your reduced spikes and make them disappear. You may even want to solder a 100-ohm resostor across the <Edit:> GATE and SOURCE pins. Between shortening the wires, moving the trimpot where it is supposed to be, and adding a small cap and/or resistor across the source and gate pins, you may be able to eliminate all of the undesirable ringing at the MOSFET gate input.

Improving the grounding and the supply connections would help also. I would plug in the 9V battery and decoupling capacitor directly into available holes next to the 555 pins on the beradboard and not use the supply rails. You also should add a 1 uF ceramic disk cap in parallel with your big electrolytic decoupling cap. For the real battery supply, real wires terminated in the proper lugs to bolt to the battery terminals would help. You probably can get a red positive wire with an in-line fuse at the automotive store. You really should have it fused because if you don't notice a when a short happens, you may turn around and be looking at two thick white-hot wires burning their way through your table before you know it.

With respect to the waveforms where you are increasing the gate resistance, you are basically in territory that you want to avoid. The MOSTFET is switching off and on slowly in these cases because of the RC rise time you create at the gate input, resulting in the MOSFET operating in its linear region part of the time. So in these cases the MOSFET is acting like a damping resistor and dampening the oscillations and also switching slowly enough so that the coil + battery combo get to burn off some energy in the MOSFET itself. Again, as a reminder, the design goal is to have the MOSFET switch on and switch off as quickly and as cleanly as possible. The desire is to avoid having any power being burned off inside the MOSFET itself.

I just remembered, a comment about your new 555 circuit. It may help (I'm not sure) to "shift everything over by two decimal places." By that I mean change the main timing cap from 0.01 uF to 1 uF, and change the 100K pots to 1K pots. You may have to adjust other components in the circuit that are related to the timing. This will make the 555 timing circuit more immune to any outside noise, possible timing instability, more robust, etc.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Joit:

It all depends where you put the capacitor of course. If a big cap is placed in parallel with a spike, then the spike will be greatly reduced in amplitude. On the other hand, if you put a cap in series with a spike, it can conduct that spike to somewhere else in your circuit.

MileHigh

[gotoluc]

Nice work Luc, have a good trip, I hope I will have something for you when you get back, untill then good journey

Mike

Thanks Mike

Luc

[gotoluc]

gotoluc - your results were amazing. Many thanks for posting that video. Perhaps the next test can be a control. Let's see what happens when the battery has no recharge cycle?

Have a wonderful trip Luc and hurry back. We'll miss you.

Hi Rosemary,

glad you enjoyed the test.

Is your suggestion to do the same 24 hour test but with no parallel batteries on the flyback side and just the bulb at 12.99 volts?

That sounds like a good comparator test

I'm in my car since I have to find free wireless since the service in the new home is not up yet.

I'll be off early Thursday morning.

Luc

[rave154]

Rosemary,

the attatchment is the basic circuit i have been using, however, for my last post i placed a neon in the place of the "output" bulb.

it really is a strange "pause" of almost a full second before the neon lights up, even though the cap is fully charged to 130V or so.

it may just be a vaguary of my 555 circuit perhaps?

the "flash" upon disconnection of the negative power lead of the PWM circuit however, happens with the neon, a bulb, and LED AND without any of those in the circuit in the "output" position, but rather a magnet on / in/ around the coil....there is a PRONOUNCED kinetic ( and therefore magnetic ) action affected upon the magnet ( the coil also changes pitch in its 'singing' ).No flash is produced upon 'connection' only disconnection.

it is this last action, the pronounced change in magnetic flux that i was hoping to utilise in a "flux manipulation permanent magnet transformer " device perhaps?...,. views on that?

anyways, hope this helps in the long run.

David. D

[witsend]

Hi Rosemary,

glad you enjoyed the test.

Is your suggestion to do the same 24 hour test but with no parallel batteries on the flyback side and just the bulb at 12.99 volts?

That sounds like a good comparator test

I'm in my car since I have to find free wireless since the service in the new home is not up yet.

I'll be off early Thursday morning.

Luc

Hi Luc. Just seen your message. Yes. What do you think? It may be interesting? We could maybe see how much energy is discharged running the light over the same period? But enjoy your break. We can chat when you return. Yet again Luc. All the best.

Kindest regards,
Rosmary

[Aaron]

battery charging and excess heat

Why would a cap negate some of the charging effects?

Beyond that, even your "best case charging" scope shot, the middle one with the single big negative spike followed by the oscillation - any person can see that the amount of discharging is much larger than the amount of charging, probably at least 25 times larger. The net result with your best-case negative spike would be to slow down the discharging of the battery a bit. This common sense metric cannot be ignored, Aaron. You don't even have to be technical, anybody can see that.

The cap is like a vacuum cleaner for the spike, it drops the potential difference greatly and the battery seeds a small thud. Not a sharp impulse.

You seem like you aren't familiar with how a coil rings out. Let me tell you. The middle of the pos/neg amplitude of the ring is the zero voltage point and not the mid-line on the scope. I raised the wave to the top to get the best view, the rest...you're right...is common sense - the common sense tells you where the zero line is even if there aren't any lines on the scope screen. So realize that even though you're making me work harder to show the facts, nevertheless, all you're doing is demolishing your own premise at the same time.

The spike reduces what the input pulse delivers. AND, the oscillation cancels itself out.

Don't tell me I don't know how to use a scope. I do. And I know exactly what the waveform shows. EXCESS HEAT IN THE INDUCTIVE RESISTOR thanks to the ringing. PLUS CHARGING IN THE SUPPLY BATTERY thanks to the spike.

Here is a big and small pic in case you are confused.

[Aaron]

@MH

[quote=MileHigh;62672 I was quite surprised to see the "no resistance" gate input waveforms and how high the spikes are, both positive and negative. I looked at the spec sheet for the IRFPG50 MOSFET (not sure if that's the one you are using) and the absolute maximum rating for the Gate-to-Source voltage is +/-20 volts. Those spikes look awfully large if the main pulse is 9 volts, and you may be damaging your MOSFET input.

If you recall my first recommendation was to make sure that the MOSFET switch was operating properly, and once you get it working properly, then you are ready to go and do the real testing. Shortening the wire lengths and using thicker wires for the power and ground would of course help. The pot that you use between the 555 output and the gate input shoud be switched for one of those little blue-box PCB-mount trimpots so you can put it right next to the 555 output. That's were it is supposed to be, as close as possible to the 555 output pin. If you do it, I would suggest that you try it with a 100-ohm, or if you don't have one, use a 1K-ohm pot. Make the wire between the trimpot output and the MOSFET gate as short as possible. Then play with your trimpot and look at the voltage between the MOSFET source pin and the MOSFET gate pin. If you still see nasty but super-thin spikes, try soldering a very small cap, perhaps 0.001 uF, across the MOSFET source and gate pins. The small cap may soak up your reduced spikes and make them disappear. You may even want to solder a 100-ohm resostor across the <Edit:> GATE and SOURCE pins. Between shortening the wires, moving the trimpot where it is supposed to be, and adding a small cap and/or resistor across the source and gate pins, you may be able to eliminate all of the undesirable ringing at the MOSFET gate input.

Improving the grounding and the supply connections would help also. I would plug in the 9V battery and decoupling capacitor directly into available holes next to the 555 pins on the beradboard and not use the supply rails. You also should add a 1 uF ceramic disk cap in parallel with your big electrolytic decoupling cap. For the real battery supply, real wires terminated in the proper lugs to bolt to the battery terminals would help. You probably can get a red positive wire with an in-line fuse at the automotive store. You really should have it fused because if you don't notice a when a short happens, you may turn around and be looking at two thick white-hot wires burning their way through your table before you know it.

With respect to the waveforms where you are increasing the gate resistance, you are basically in territory that you want to avoid. The MOSTFET is switching off and on slowly in these cases because of the RC rise time you create at the gate input, resulting in the MOSFET operating in its linear region part of the time. So in these cases the MOSFET is acting like a damping resistor and dampening the oscillations and also switching slowly enough so that the coil + battery combo get to burn off some energy in the MOSFET itself. Again, as a reminder, the design goal is to have the MOSFET switch on and switch off as quickly and as cleanly as possible. The desire is to avoid having any power being burned off inside the MOSFET itself.

I just remembered, a comment about your new 555 circuit. It may help (I'm not sure) to "shift everything over by two decimal places." By that I mean change the main timing cap from 0.01 uF to 1 uF, and change the 100K pots to 1K pots. You may have to adjust other components in the circuit that are related to the timing. This will make the 555 timing circuit more immune to any outside noise, possible timing instability, more robust, etc.

MileHigh[/quote]

MH,

Yes big spikes it isn't the timer battery.

If the mosfet gets damaged, I'll know that when it doesn't work anymore. If and when it stops working, I'll report that. I've been very abusive to mine as I usually am in my tests and I'm impressed. It gives a MJL21194 a run for the money for cost and survival length - holding up to my abusive tests. I know they operate differently but that still goes.

Anyway, if you look at my pics, the pot for the signal is literally soldered
directly to the gate pin on the mosfet. I'm using the same type of mosfet Rosemary used.

So it is short. I have a Bournes precision 1k pot on there now. It is a 10 to 15 turn pot. Extremely precise with ultra low error margin. The radio shack one is gone. I'll post pics. Good recommendation though. I'll shorten the length from the timer to the gate with precision pot in between.

Shortening breadboard connections, also a good recommendation. Not sure it will make much difference because the mosfet is getting a very good strong signal. But I'll do some of that next time.

The mosfet gate resistance modifications - the mosfet will get hot if there is too much resistance. It becomes a variable pressure valve for voltage and too much resistance locks in too much back pressure and that makes heat.

Too little resistance gets too chaotic and too high of positive spikes. A little resistance is good, different for everyone. Too much rounds the pulse too much, the mosfet turn off is slowed, the spike reduces and the rings (free heat) dissapear. But with little resistance, the heat is insignificant (in the mosfet I'm talking about, not the resistor).

Yes, changing components to more closely match the range of operation is better. I agree. If anyone is new here, that is a good recommendation.

I'll leave mine the same for now because it is so clean.

Thanks for the post.

[witsend]

Following quote from Rave.

using a neon in place of the "output" bulb ( as i refer to it, see the recycling thread for a diagram & definition ), with my bedini running ( which simply charges a cap and gives me access to a higher voltage source for the GOTO circuit )....with this running BUT the negative lead of the PWM circuit NOT connected.....the standing volts on the cap is around 200V.......if i then connect the negative lead of the PWM.....there is a good 1 second pause before the neon lights up...if i then disconnect the negative lead of the pwm the neon flashes.
Can't follow this. What is a PWM? Sorry. I'm sure I should know this - but I dont? The fact that neon takes a while to light? Isn't this typical of neon - it takes a while to establish the field effect?

And 'flashing'? Is this repetitive or 'one of' like a discharge?

also, with both circuits running, neon lit up...standing volts on the cap is 105V....if i then slowly insert a core into the coil, made of welding rods.....the neon dims and with the welding rods fully inserted the neon is at its most dimmist with the volts on the cap at around 130V.
Again not sure. But I think it could be that the core is getting an induced magnetism from the extruded fields around the resistor. This may weaken the potential difference available to the system? Just a thought. Someone needs to confirm this.

Rave - I think Aaron or someone needs to address this. I'm clueless. But If you can explain what a PMW (EDIT) sorry, PWM is and whether or not the flashing is repetitive or not - then I could give it another go. I'm afraid this is a case of the myopic (me) trying to interpret something seen through binoculars (you). You're going to need some tolerance here. Unless someone can rescue me from this question? I'm out of my depth here.

[jas_bir77]

Hi Jas,

Visit the control panel:
http://www.energeticforum.com/usercp.php

Then in the left column, select Edit Options:
http://www.energeticforum.com/profil...do=editoptions

Scroll down to Messaging & Notification section.

The second section in that section is the Default Thread Subscription Mode.
Dropdown the box and choose instant, daily or weekly.

You have to add the thread to your subscriptions and you can manage them here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/subscription.php

hi aaron thanks for the reply , i am sorry that i am responding so late, i was away for some time.
i was following your instructruction but i receive an error messege when i tried to add this thread in my notification list the message says "jas_bir77, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation."
i again went bact to check wheather my notification setting were saved or not , and thy were not .i tried to save my my notification setting 3-4 times by going to http://www.energeticforum.com/profil...do=editoptions but it does not save my new setting .
your help would be appriciated thanks.
jasbir