COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

@ witsend

I tried to amend my last post as there were calculation errors. I have therefore reposted below: -

OK witsend, lets use your method. Firstly the 120V supply will drop 88V across R1 and 32V across the coil (based on the coil resistance being rounded to 8R). Taking R1, P= Vsq / R = 7744 / 22 = 352W * 8% = 28.1W. The mosfet volt drop can be ignored as its RDS (Drain to Source resistance is very low). Taking R2, the inductor is the generator and therefore the source of the output voltage, akin to the supply battery. This is very important to understand because it explains the increased heat in R2. The full voltage stored in the inductor will be developed across R2 and the diode. The diode forward voltage drop is less than 1 volt, so can be ignored for this exercise. The inductor will charge to over 120V, so assuming 120V across 22R, P= 120V sq / 22 = 14400W / 22 = 654.5* 8% = 51.6W. In practice, much less power will be available from the inductor because of switching losses, so the real power dissipated in the resistor will be a lot less.

The input resistor is cooler than the output resistor because the input power has to be shared between R1 and the charging inductor. This is not the case at the output, because the inductor has already recieved its energy from the input and can therefore deliver virtually all its stored energy to R2.

Hoppy

[RAMSET]

Curious results, input[comments] please

An experimenter getting a strange effect with Rosemary's circuit
YouTube - Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode

Chet

[witsend]

Ramset - I looked at the video and simply can't comment because it's impossible to say what the circuit is. And it seems that he's got a resistive load and a motor in parallel - but I have no idea where the diode is?

I wish people would make their circuit references clearer.

[witsend]

Hoppy - re your post 491 - I rather smugly assumed that gotoluc had no gain on his circuit - but according to your numbers there still is a gain. How much energy does it cost the supply to store energy in the inductor? Is this 10.2W as you indicated previously?

[EgmQC]

Hoppy - re your post 491 - I rather smugly assumed that gotoluc had no gain on his circuit - but according to your numbers there still is a gain. How much energy does it cost the supply to store energy in the inductor? Is this 10.2W as you indicated previously?

Re read this part pls

The input resistor is cooler than the output resistor because the input power has to be shared between R1 and the charging inductor. This is not the case at the output, because the inductor has already recieved its energy from the input and can therefore deliver virtually all its stored energy to R2.
Hoppy

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - re your post 491 - I rather smugly assumed that gotoluc had no gain on his circuit - but according to your numbers there still is a gain. How much energy does it cost the supply to store energy in the inductor? Is this 10.2W as you indicated previously?

Ignore this figure because it was in my first post that was flawed but the input to output efficiency will not be very high. The input and output timings are important and this is why seeing scopeshots is essential to see exactly what's going on before a complete explanation can be given. The peak voltage developed across the inductor needs to be established. Also, the effect of air cooling two resistors that are heating up at different rates also needs to be taken into consideration because as the mass of the resistor becomes hotter, the cooling rate for a given ambient air temperature and exposure changes.

Hoppy

[RAMSET]

Circuit info

The circuit that was used in the making of this vid YouTube - Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode


Circuit data http://www.overunity.com/index.php?a...0;attach=35896

Chet

[witsend]

EgmQC - could you explain your post? I am not sure what point you're trying to make?

I have just spent an entertaining hour reading OU.Com thread on my claim for the first time ever. It's not a discussion forum as much as its a war zone but it seems to solicit some really exotic languange in that confrontation. I noticed you there EgmQC and your comments. I get it that your in the 'other' camp. I am no longer defending any position. Rather I would like you or anyone at all - to explain the return cycle as it effects battery duration. I see ample admission of this even amongst detractors. That's got to be encouraging.

And Hoppy - I do get it. There needs to be more measurement on gotoluc's apparatus. I think I've been unduly censorial here. Until those measurements are to hand I'm going to reserve comment. It may very well be a gain, in which case - abject apologies gotoluc for rabbiting on with my own untested conclusions. You may very well have found something and it certainly is NOT what I would have predicted. Or I would have - but could not have argued it as a gain from a utility supply source. So interesting. So many twists and turns. This is probably the real benefit of open source.

[Hoppy]

@ Luc

Could you please replace your output resistor with a bulb of the same type and rating as the input bulb and compare brightness and report your results?

Hoppy

[Aaron]

wall voltage

Most variac can give higher voltage than 120vac. Mine outputs up to 178vac so I can actually get about 230vdc at full output.

Luc

I would caution anyone from believing any of the expected voltage peaks coming out of the wall. I have a cord in the wall going through a voltage doubler (cap/diode setup) and the total voltage hit 373 volts and my wall is 110.

I thought because the 110 really gives me almost 170 v peaks in my caps that through the doubler it should be about 340 max. Nope - the 373 blew up the photoflash caps.

Maybe there is something to voltage doublers that actually more than double the voltage.

So I think that if there are caps being used to take charge from the wall, use caps that are bigger in voltage than you think you need until you know what you'll wind up with for sure.

At least many of these kinds of caps are cut on top to easily give way so they don't go off like bombs but don't assume they have these built in safety features.

Anyway, I hope this might make someone's experimenting safer if this hasn't been considered.

[witsend]

Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?

In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?

[Aaron]

false information

An experimenter getting a strange effect with Rosemary's circuit
YouTube - Electric OU 5: The Ainslie circuit as PWM Motor Controller--Effect of Recirculation Diode

Chet

For the record, TK is knowingly posting false information.

In the video description, "And finally, the thread where Ainslie is currently posting, from which most of my relevant posts have been removed by "moderation":"

Take note that nothing has been removed.

[Aaron]

battery charging from circuit

Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?

In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?

Rosemary, there is an extreme psychological collective block on all of these concepts.

"I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?" - This concept is self-evident in many natural events I believe.

"is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit?" - I'm not sure if it is acknowledged in any honest way, but it IS being applied in many instances. One example is Solar powered yard lights that have small rechargeable batteries are ALL charged very efficiently by the inductive spike coming off of a coil AFTER the transistor is turned off. It is the only way they can get those batteries to charge like they do instead of putting the solar cell straight to the battery. Solar cell charges primary then power turns off and the collapsing spike charges the battery. Again, the battery is charged AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

Another example is every photoflash unit in cameras. Those caps are charged many times above the voltage of the battery powering it. The caps are all charge with the inductive spikes coming back AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

These aren't the "source" battery but they do demonstrate utilizing energy AFTER source energy is taken away.

[witsend]

Thanks very much for answering the question Aaron. So then it's significant. In other words - if this can be generally proved that a battery can, in fact, recharge itself, then that will represent some unequivocal proof of over unity?

I say this because this is definitely measurable on our circuit. It's so quick. No fancy measuring instruments required. Surely then, all that is needed is to have everyone replicate the circuit to prove this. Thereafter we can play with that resonating frequency? That extreme overunity effect is not difficult - but for some reason is not happening. I'm sure that Donovan can help in this regard.

I'm trying to assist in the problem that Dr Stiffler pointed to where the thread will go on into infinity without standard parameters. Just a thought.EDIT in other words let's knock the denial of the OU claim on the head and then we can move on? Classicists won't argue the measurement of this. The real boffins gave me the required parameters to measure it. And other experts - the accreditors - could not argue this point.

[RAMSET]

just one question

Rosemary,
would you know the make and model of the function generator used, if one was used, to drive the circuit for your experiment.
I need to know its adjustment capability and characteristics: Peak output voltage into 50 ohms; pulse width range; DC offset capability; sweep functionality or not; and so forth.
If you could provide the Info that would be great
Chet