COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Armagdn03]

Thanks for the reply,

I did not realize you were referencing a different circuit.

As to what I said about heat and voltage drops, Heat is misunderstood, and so are voltage drops. A voltage drop happens when the energy passing through the element in question is not of the proper character to make the element appear transparent. The greater the disparity, the more opaque the load, and the higher the voltage "drop".

For example, hit a coil at the right frequency, and suddenly there is no voltage drop across it, it becomes transparent, and all you have done is change the character of the energy.

All the universe is nothing but energy in oscillation.

All we have to work with are octaves.

everything has to be put into this context.


This is really getting in way too deep for this thread and constitutes the re- writing of the "laws", so lets drop this topic here and pick it up somewhere else if people are interested.

[DrStiffler]

Thanks for the reply,

I did not realize you were referencing a different circuit.

As to what I said about heat and voltage drops, Heat is misunderstood, and so are voltage drops. A voltage drop happens when the energy passing through the element in question is not of the proper character to make the element appear transparent. The greater the disparity, the more opaque the load, and the higher the voltage "drop".

For example, hit a coil at the right frequency, and suddenly there is no voltage drop across it, it becomes transparent, and all you have done is change the character of the energy.

All the universe is nothing but energy in oscillation.

All we have to work with are octaves.

everything has to be put into this context.


This is really getting in way too deep for this thread and constitutes the re- writing of the "laws", so lets drop this topic here and pick it up somewhere else if people are interested.

@Armagdn03
You are correct indeed, Heat is misunderstood. I may be way off base, but I would say 99% of people consider Heat incorrectly. Heat as you know and many do not, is the flow of energy and temperature is the start and end of the flow (simply put).

Heat is the engine driving the universe, even though many will say Heat is wasted, yet consider you own statement of a continuous flow of energy in the universe. Heat is never lost, it is indeed recycled (converted), if one wishes back into other forms of Spacial Energy.

The old view of Heat as a fluid 'Caloric' allowed a better mid picture of the process as one could them make a marriage to water for the picture and see Heat going through various states.

[witsend]

OK guys. This is good. I'm beginning to see the problem. Armagdn03 - Peter's circuit with the cap is not our circuit. I have actually never tested with the cap. Peter gave us this suggestions recently - after we'd retested for the paper for the IET. So I cannot tell you how the cap works. No idea at all. Another colleague has tested the cap. I am not sure of his results but will get back to you. So. For now, let's leave the cap out of the equation. I couldn't tell you the effects. I'd need Donovan or Peter to comment. It was proposed to increase efficiency and may very well do so. But all I'm trying to do here is to explain the principle.

So. Back to henieck's question. The 3.5w generated by the collapsing fields in the inductor does generate heat. It is measurable. But it is always less than the energy delivered during the on cycle. I think there are losses over the body diode in the MOSFET and a drop through the diode back to the battery. But. Changing electric fields induce magnetic fields and changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. When the battery is disconnected the fields over the resister collapse to zero. They then move through zero to give that full negative spike. That's the voltage that induces the second cycle current flow. It's reversed. But is still current and current does what it does everywhere. It enables the transfer of energy. So it dissiptes heat at the resistor and it ALSO recharges the battery. That is the whole point. The watts measured to be dissipated at the resistor therefore exceed the watts delivered by the battery. And the rate at which the battery draws down its energy is always consistent with the measure of energy as the difference between the on and off cycles.

EDITED. btw - counter electromotive force is known for the heat it delivers. Usually, on motor operated systems such as hand operated drills, the manufactures go to some considerable lengths to put in approprite heat sinks to get rid of this. It's considered a problem.

Armagdn03 - I need to point out that henieck is not into alternate ideas of the properties of current. But at this stage nor is it needed. The simple point is this. Classical measurements analysis shows the gain. The more sophisticated the measuring equipment the more evident that gain.

henieck - if you do get access to that scopmeter - then a good one can be set to ac and dc simultaneously. You'll see both measurements. The dc coupling shows the difference between these two values. The ac will show the product. Both are consistent with the fact but you need to factor in those losses related to inductance, and voltage drops - as mentioned. But these differences are small.

Sorry I took a while to back on this. I've just got in. But you're getting it. I see that now. This is very encouraging.

[henieck]

That is the whole point indeed...

The 3.5w generated by the collapsing fields in the inductor does generate heat. It is measurable. But it is always less than the energy delivered during the on cycle. I think there are losses over the body diode in the MOSFET and a drop through the diode back to the battery.

"off"' cycle generates less “secondary” energy than delivered during "on" input, because energy from the input is divided between turning into heat and turning into magnetic field.

That's the voltage that induces the second cycle current flow. It's reversed. But is still current and current does what it does everywhere. It enables the transfer of energy. So it dissiptes heat at the resistor and it ALSO recharges the battery. That is the whole point.

- 3.5W either go to the battery –or is dissipated as heat - but most probably not both - like you suggest in the previous post and in above statement. This is very serious error in logic.
In my opinion we have the following scenario (numbers are just examples). During “on” time 5.7W goes from the battery to the circuit. Let us say 2.7W immediately dissipates as heat in the resistive wire and 3W is used to generate coil’s magnetic field. During “off” part of the cycle the same 3W comes back into the circuit as electricity spike again. Some of it may be delivered back to the battery (for example 2W) and the rest turns into heat along the way, depends on the topology of the circuit (1W).

So we have the following balance: battery: 5.7W out; 2W in (net: –3.7W)
Resistor: 2.7initial dissipation during “on” cycle and 1W during “off” cycle (net: +3.7W)

Anyway – I am here to learn – maybe you have real life example of energy distribution in your circuit.

I think that your last posts shows your flawed thinking - or my lack of possibility to understand this “technology”. It is true that “current does what it does everywhere - generates heat and recharge the battery”, BUT unfortunately until now nobody managed to use the same amount energy and turn it both into heat and into recharging the battery at the same time. It is possible only in your head when you make calculations based on a single wave form. It is easy to loose the big picture this way. You add this secondary energy from field collapse both to the heat side AND to the battery! That is the whole point indeed

- counter electromotive force is known for the heat it delivers. Usually, on motor operated systems such as hand operated drills, the manufactures go to some considerable lengths to put in approprite heat sinks to get rid of this. It's considered a problem.

- that is right, but it doesn’t mean that having 5Ah in battery you can use it all for drilling - and have some extra heat besides that. Come on…

- I need to point out that henieck is not into alternate ideas of the properties of current.

- I am very much into that – but I must think not the way I like it to be – but in the way it really is. If I wasn’t into this – I wouldn’t make your circuit or be present on this forum. So far I don’t see any anomalies – but at the same time I see flawed thinking of yours. Still I hope I am wrong and you are right.

Classical measurements analysis shows the gain. The more sophisticated the measuring equipment the more evident that gain.

- while you are using the most sophisticated instruments, please make sure that at the same time you don’t make so simple logic error and add the same gain two times – like you clearly did in your example. Check out this way of thinking again.

Sorry I took a while to back on this. I've just got in. But you're getting it. I see that now. This is very encouraging.

- no problem, I am happy that you had time and patience to explain so much. Thanks again.

[witsend]

Ok heniek - here's the problem. You are assuming that the energy delivered by the battery is shared between the amount of energy stored as magnetic fields over the resistor and the amount of energy dissipated as heat.

So. Let us assume that we have a load resistor in series with a battery and no switching circuit. You would expect a straight forward result. Say 24 volts battery and a 10 ohm resistor. Then the wattage disssipated would be 24volts battery divided by 10 Ohms resistor = current. Current x battery voltage vi = wattage. So 24/10 x 24 = 57.6 watts. No losses to account for stored energy. Just a straight forward application of ohms law to establish that watt measure. Therefore all thing being equal you could expect exactly 57.6 watts or some really small fraction less than this to allow for some losses in the wire.

Now - take that same resistor and apply a current flow for a short period of time only. Does the battery then supply more energy than it did in the first example? Does it vary the amount of energy it now supplies because it is first turned on and then off? Well. We can check this out. All we need to do is measure the voltage across the load resistor. You will find that the amount of energy delivered still conforms to Ohms law. No difference at all. So - self-evidently no EXTRA energy was delivered to generate those stored magnetic fields.

Then, how much energy was dissipated during the off cycle. Again. do the measurement. You will find that - regardless of the length of the duty cycle, the actual energy dissipated during the off period is very nearly equal to the amount of energy dissipated during the on period. But let's be hyper modest. Let's say that only 60% of that energy was effectively generated during the on cycle was returned during the off cycle. Or even 10%. Whatever. Provided that some energy is returned then the sum of the energy delivered by the battery less the sum of the energy returned by the inductive components in the load is the actual cost of energy from the battery.

The extra heat generated during this off period is measured on the load. And the actual increase in the battery can be measured - especially if you configure the circuit as I described it with the use of two batteries. This is not speculative, or hypothetical. These are measurable results. And this is the question that encouraged those companies to try and get academic attention to this problem precisely because classical analysis does not allow for this gain. Yet the gain is very evidently there.

I've deliberately avoided all reference to what makes current flow - because that will simply confuse things. But I assure you that classical measurement analysis is all you need to prove these values. It's just also true that classical theory does not allow for the measured gain. That is the problem that we are trying to address.

[witsend]

TinselKoala - I think I may have misread your intentions because of the nature of the error you have made. You say that you positioned the probes as we illustrated it in the paper? That representation is only a required convention. If you position the probes as indicated and then look at the shunt and load together as you are doing - then the one will obviously be inverted in relation to the other. They are both showing the same 5% duty cycle. It is just that zero is referenced in antiphase - so to speak. I'm so sorry I didn't realise this before. It was such a simple distortion I also thought it was deliberate. If you want to read the actual duty cycle you must put the probes directly across the shunt - and then across the load. If you use a dual scope function then you will always get the one shown in opposition to the other.

There is nothing wrong with your duty cycle. It is the interpretation that's wrong.

[henieck]

Ok henieck - here's the problem. You are assuming that the energy delivered by the battery is shared between the amount of energy stored as magnetic fields over the resistor and the amount of energy dissipated as heat.

- yes, I did assume that I may be wrong, I may be hypnotized. That was very important hint - because guys with oscilloscopes now know what to search for.

So - self-evidently no EXTRA energy was delivered to generate those stored magnetic fields.

- interesting point of view. So this is the "place" where you think the extra gain goes into the equation - the moment where you energize the resistive coil also magnetizes the coil "for free"...

Thanks for all the insights. We are moving forward with all of this.

[Tecstatic]

Hi Eric,

As you may know I have built the window motor several times (I believe you posted in my Window motor replication thread regarding getting hit by huge magnets in the head? ).

I am very familiar with the circuit, however I was unsure of whether you were tipping your circuit into self oscillation or using an IC to trigger each side of the (H bridge/Push-pull?) circuit.

Love to see a schematic if it is any different.

Regards

Hi ren

Yes I posted on your thread because I worried of your safety. I'm glad you escaped the huge magnets, those are to respect when the motor is running with high speed.

It is the standard driver circuit, and I let it self oscillate.

@All

At one side of the coil was a distorted sine of 28.5MHz 10Vpp, on the other side of the coil there was something that with some good will could be interpreted as a square wave of 5.5MHz overlaid continuously with the 28.5MHz signal.

What I learned from DrStiffler is that the diodes play a big role, they must be fast and have a low capacitance.
I will order some STTH1R04 with a Trr of 14ns. If any of you use better diodes, please let me know.

Not as good as 1N4148 with 5ns, but the current handling is 1A, 5 times more.

The diodes I use now are 19ns, and probably enabling the fast oscillation of 28.5MHz.

To compare the heat I fed a power resistor with 1.2W DC. I got 11 degrees over room temp - but the surface area is just 1/4 of the PCB itself, and to this come pcb components and two TO220 diodes, all with better convection, and also the 105mm long coil diameter 32mm.

So I am sure the heat was more than 1.2W, I could feel the warm air rising from the PCB, but as this is not like the original Ainslie circuit, I will not pursue it further.

However the resistor coil can surely oscillate, and make a 8-LED AV plug lighting with an extra coil driven off the 28.5MHz at one end of the resistor coil.

What remains is to replicate the oscillation which Rosemary said has been so easy with the original circuit, although the recirculated energy alone is bang for the buck.

So what MOSFET types have you tried, and how fast are they ?

Also single pulses have a frequency determined by the pulse length, so it is important to find the pulse length hitting the high resonant frequency. I got it by self oscillation, with the original 555 circuit it must be tuned in.

Eric

[henieck]

Rosemary - I wonder have you ever tried to use magnetic core (other than the air). Do you have any thoughts on this?

[TinselKoala]

TinselKoala - I think I may have misread your intentions because of the nature of the error you have made. You say that you positioned the probes as we illustrated it in the paper? That representation is only a required convention. If you position the probes as indicated and then look at the shunt and load together as you are doing - then the one will obviously be inverted in relation to the other. They are both showing the same 5% duty cycle. It is just that zero is referenced in antiphase - so to speak. I'm so sorry I didn't realise this before. It was such a simple distortion I also thought it was deliberate. If you want to read the actual duty cycle you must put the probes directly across the shunt - and then across the load. If you use a dual scope function then you will always get the one shown in opposition to the other.

There is nothing wrong with your duty cycle. It is the interpretation that's wrong.

You clearly still don't get it.
Believe me, I do know how to set and read an oscilloscope.

The 555 timer circuit published in the Quantum article produces, as I have illustrated, a signal that is 96.3 percent ON and can be varied somewhat around this value. As connected in the Quantum circuit, it turns the mosfet ON for that amount of time. Not off. The duty cycle produced by the circuit published in the Quantum article produces a mostly ON duty cycle, not a mostly OFF one as you claim.

Don't believe me? Build the circuit and see for yourself.

In addition, the circuit diagram as published in the Quantum article does not seem to include a flyback diode--yet the report of the same experiment in the EIT paper does show, and does discuss, the flyback diode.

All I am trying to do at this point is to find out just what circuit was used to do the experiment described. There is an error in one or the other of the circuits, maybe more than one, and it's not my error.

[TinselKoala]

Another question I would like to clear up has to do with the patent applications.

http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResult...submitted=true

These all appear to be applications, not issued patents.

Have any of these applications actually been approved?
That is, have any national or international patents been issued, or are there only the applications as listed here?

If the patents have actually been issued, where can I find the actual B documents? (The ones available in the above link are A, A1 and A2--that is, applications, not issued patents.)

[TinselKoala]

Independent confirmation of my contention about the Quantum paper's duty cycle:
Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

The mosfet is being turned ON almost all the time by the circuit in the Quantum article.
In addition, the 100R potentiometer has very little effect. It certainly does not cause the circuit to oscillate in any manner.

So at this point it seems very important to know: IS THE CIRCUIT IN THE QUANTUM ARTICLE IN ERROR? Is it printed incorrectly? What was the actual circuit used to gather the data in the described experiment?

Also there's that pesky flyback diode, not shown in the Quantum diagram, but which appears in the EIT paper describing the same experiment. What's up with that?

[witsend]

henieck, regarding your question on a magnetic core - no I've not done anything here - but I've often wondered. Sigzidfit I think has proposed something along these lines, in this thread. But personally I really am not able to vary the effects beyond this simple test. I have no knowledge of circuits and my only interest is really in the field model. Hopefully there are those in this forum who will do the required. I think Dr Stiffler has a varied circuit as well. Just not sure.

And the only contribution that I can make to this forum relates to the analysis of power that - I think - goes to the heart of the problem.

[henieck]

I used 65 turns, 30mm diameter, 100mm long, 3 Ohms coil, and the energy from field collapse recovered in Bedini style (can use empty capacitor 47000 microF). I can recover 11% of energy delivered during the “on” cycle this way. For measurements I use analog amp meter – I think it averages all right the relatively high frequency pulsating, unidirectional current, (but I may be wrong, can anybody please further address this?). So I think I must have higher than 3 Ohms resistance in my coil because too much goes into heat comparing to inductance. Another thing is that for initial experiments I still had original wire on my originally 300 Ohms resistor (that is why I asked about the core influence). It was still present underneath my new 3 Ohms wire, I was aware of that. Now I am going to get rid of the original wire (have to use diamond blade) and see if it changes anything. Anyhow – it was interesting to see, that when I had recovery capacitor connected (after the diode D1; capacitor’s minus connected to the plus of the battery)– the temperature on the resistor was +- proportionally lower than without the recovery circuit (the same energy input). I will check how it compares to your way or recovery later. So the circuit somehow “knew” that I was trying to collect the energy form the collapsing field – and lowered the temperature output accordingly It looks, like the principle “no matter how you turn, the ass is always in the back side” works all the time wonders for me. Also when I connect the flyback diode directly to the positive of the battery (comparing to no connection) – the total input amperes drop very little, ca 5% - so it is a quantity at least comparable to the energy recovered by the capacitor.( here it can be bigger mistake to use analog amp meter on DC range, I know, it. Now I realized, I forgot to change to AC range to include the other half way. Next time…). In the next phase I will check how it looks on sound card oscilloscope. For not too high frequency it can show surprisingly a lot. Don't worry, if I ever see any serious gain beyond possible error, or others reporting results similar to yours - I will organize much better equipment. For now I am trying to “trick” old Russian, scientific, analog multimeter first Btw, the fact that somebody has digital display doesn’t mean that the multimeter is digital. Anyhow- In the final analysis we may have only full battery, timer, thermometer and some patience. That is all what is needed to see even several percent anomaly in this circuit with very little room for making fundamental conceptual errors.

[witsend]

The following quote from TinselKoala from the link provided in his last post.

I suppose arrogance is a necessary concomitant of prevarication and mendacity, if one wants to enhance seeming credibility among the credulous. But it's the arrogant liers that are the worst, because they will never never admit that they are wrong and have been shovelling you a line of bs.

TinselKoala - I'm a great admirer of a good turn of phrase. This has got to be up there. Masterful description. If I have a criticism it is just that the terms 'prevarication' and 'mendacity' are a tad tautological. I suppose it can be argued that 'prevarication' doesn't go to the gullet with the same purity of sense as does 'mendacity'. So the two terms could be justified to lend each other more emphasis. In any event. Are these attributes proven to effective in promoting a lie? Have you used the technique? Can you recommend this? And when you use the word 'lier' do you in fact mean 'liar' - as used in English? The only other question I have is who is it you're describing?