COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Jibbguy - your post 974 is excellent, yet again.

The Fluke resolves this problem of how much is out/in through its DC coupled function. It computes the sum of the two waveforms. In other words - when you do a dump on the numbers you will see the volts are shown with either negative or positive vlaues in relation to zero. The sum of those samples over its sample range gives the actual voltage. That's a true measure of the voltage for power analysis.

Regarding the analysis of the power dissipated - this needs to factor in the inductance. The fluke does not do this. Therefore we confined a measure of the power dissipated to temperature analysis as shown in the paper.

However, having said this - the Fluke can display two functions simultaneously. It shows what it calls the DC function and a second ACrms function. If the probes are across a non-inductive shunt - with both functions displayed - it is very easy to gauge the optimised duty cycle by comparing those numbers, the DC display being less than the ACrms. We have also found that the rate of battery depletion is consistent with the measure of power from the supply based on energy calculations of that DC displayed voltage.

I cannot understand why it is that we never see the displays of either of these two numbers, let alone both simultaneously, in any of TK's videos. It seems to be a remarkable waste of some some very important features in that really expensive equipment. And I believe it is critical for analysis.

I would add that the Fluke function, as described above, is precisely the point where our accreditors were obliged to concede that the question needs to be addressed by academics. We've never yet sucessfully solicited comment from an academic based on this very evidence. Thus far - no academic opinion.

Jibbguy - thanks for all this. Please consider these comments. I hope I've made it clear. And please let us know what you think?

[witsend]

MileHigh - I read through your post. Very clear and clarity is always commendable.

I would agree with you. If you do not want to test the oscillations or, as some call it - the resonance - then get a stable duty cycle and just measure from there. You'll still get your gains. But always remember that the measure of the power delivered is the difference between those two cycles. It is impossible to do this measurement accurately unless you can access a storage scope where you can study the actual voltages across a shunt. EDIT Unless you're prepared to run batteries flat and use controls. That's also good - but really boring.

Thanks for the input MileHigh. It's a good thing to point to as it reminds us that oscillating, resonating, whatever - is not required to show that gain.

Rosemary

EDIT By the way, MileHigh - it is a curious but repeatable fact that the oscillating? resonating? frequencies, while very possibly the result of erroneous readings, also seems to delay the draw down rate of the battery in line with measurements and as described above, in my post to Jibbguy.

[Aaron]

scope the shunt during "false triggering"

Aaron, Steve ,All, please comment

"555 timer circuit that is wrong anyway."

"Poor sloppy construction layout."

I'm very happy in my ability to not have excuses to
make things work without all the perfect parts or tools
to make things look nice and if I can do it with scotch tape
and bubble gum and get results, I will.

His good humor towards me is embraced with open arms.
I laugh at myself all the time for the goofy looking circuit
that I make even if they do work, they still look goofy.

There is nothing wrong with his replication. It works just fine.
However, with a 10 ohm shunt, not much heat will happen
obviously. He needs a 0.25 ohm shunt or lower.

I already said in this thread where my probe is. The ground of the probe at the negative of the resistor and the probe at the top where the diode cathode goes back to. I'm seeing what is really there.

Anyway, it appears his resistor is an inductive resistor...typical wire wound power resistor in the white rectangle ceramic case. Does that make a difference? I don't know if it matters, but just commenting. How many professionals use inductive resistors for shunts? Is that what TK is using? I don't know but I thought I'd ask.

False triggering? Here are references relating to mosfets and other components. False triggering goes hand in hand with self-oscillation and this is a very well-known phenomena. EVERYONE, please do a little search on it:
keywords: "false triggering" "self oscillation" mosfet, etc... You will see across the industry, that many devices in high frequency self oscillation IS false triggering. ANY SIGNAL that is is at a high enough level can "false trigger" a gate. UNLESS, it has "false triggering" safeguards built in and many devices are immune to false triggering.

Google Search: "false triggering" "self oscillation" mosfet

The FIRST AND SECOND in google. This thread must be an authority on the subject. I'll just post a few random references anyway, just to add some spice to the mix.

diyAudio Forums Archive - optocoupling power stage - hiss with 6N137
"False triggering only happens during transients and may create a self oscillating system (this has happened to me)."
(false triggering goes hand in hand with the real oscillation)

IEEE Xplore - Login
"Simulation results show that this clamp is immune to false triggering and power supply noise. Furthermore, the stability problem in clamps is addressed, and the new clamp is shown to be immune to oscillation."
(false triggering goes hand in hand with the real oscillation)

http://www.hittite.com/content/docum...put_signal.pdf
"to prevent the self-oscillation and therefore the false triggering"
(false triggering goes hand in hand with the real oscillation)

I don't mind his smugness lol because in that video he REALLY almost sounds like he is being sincere. But here is where the money shot is...

WHILE IT IS IN THAT "FALSE TRIGGERING" MODE...

SHOW THE SCOPE SHOT OF A PROBE ACROSS THE SHUNT RESISTOR - BUT USE A REAL SHUNT AND NOT AN INDUCTIVE ONE IF THAT IS WHAT HE IS USING...AND THAT TELLS THE WHOLE STORY!

WHILE IT IS IN FALSE TRIGGERING MODE - TRUE AND HONEST TO GOD SELF-OSCILLATION, YOU WILL SEE THE BATTERY GIVING VOLTAGE PULSATIONS AT HIGH FREQUENCY. IT IS PROOF THAT THE MOSFET IS CHOPPING THE BATTERY AT THOSE HIGH FREQUENCIES.

You will see the slanted rise (that means on), the straight fall (that means off) and the negative spike (that means the battery gets recharged from the diode).

I have no idea of TK's real credentials since he is anonymous but I'd appreciate it if my own "credentials" are not questioned while I actually show results.

The battery is getting a charge, which negates the credentials of anyone in this thread that says otherwise. At least, those credentials are proven to be irrelevant to this circuit. I'm sure they are well-trained and highly skilled in their own field but it is obvious non-equilibrium circuits are not it.

I believe everyone on this forum, the members at ou.com and especially Rosemary Ainslie deserves a serious public apology for wasting all our time with this foolishness.

Calling these debunking attempts and false accusations of what my scope is showing and the work that I do as something other than what I am saying it is...that isn't science and calling that stuff science borders on blasphemy. TK has embarrassed himself far too long, please ask him to stop while he has some reputation with those that care about him.

Those are my comments.

[Aaron]

10k pot

Anyway, Arron did use a 10K Pot at the Gate?

Joit, yes 10k pot at gate, bottom 10% of it is all that is needed. However, you can see changes all the way to 10k.

[Aaron]

blocked

Aaron - just for the record. My neighbour is now also blind to OU.COM. Guess that's the last hope for the immediate future.


Puts paid to any accidental disconection. And TK is apparently on record as requiring this. Can I ask that someone on that forum look into it? TK has gone on record as preferring the disconnect. I'd be very grateful.

Not allowing you to defend your work. What a crying shame.

The forum software is probably blocking the IP you are using to log in with. At your neighbors, are you just watching the forum or actually logging in? If you are, then it may capture the ip and add it to a block list.

Maybe someone here would be kind enough to contact you privately and instruct you on using a proxy server to at least read the forum.

[Aaron]

555

Hi Aaron,

In regards to variable duty cycle/on time I have a schematic here that drives a TL494 PWM and allows for complete control of pulse width and frequency, as well as dead time, which may or may not be needed in this case. Anyway, it will directly trigger a mosfet from the output, or it can be sent through an opto coupler and the output transistor can drive the fet or transistor etc.

Will go up to 600kHz plus by simply changing the cap off pin 5. Lower the value for higher frequency.

Pulse width can be varied from 0 on time, to 100%, I think it would be perfect for this circuit.

If you are interested I can email it to you, I need to check with the author who gave it to me whether he is happy for it to be posted in the thread, I dont think he will mind at all, but best to be sure.

Anyway let me know if you are interested and whether you can source the TL494 locally, I will check with the author in the mean time.

Regards

Thanks Ren, I got a circuit together today that that gives me down to 1% duty cycle so all is well.

If an equivalent circuit is online somewhere, a link to it would be awesome!

[Aaron]

cap charging

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.

I forgot about the cap charging while in self oscillation. That did happen and scoping the shunt proves the battery is pulsing out a triangle wave and a negative spike follows.

[Aaron]

@ramset

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.

Ramset, you are posting SCIENTIST too many times. You put it in your subject line because anyone that doesn't know better will be mislead into believing that TK is a scientist. A scientist will surely know to do secondary validations. You are "framing" your posts, I know EXACTLTY what you're doing and I'm asking you to stop - please do not rebuttle me on this. You cannot hide your method of operation. This is my thread and anytime you refer to him, refer to him as TK or Tinsel Koala. That is all that he has shown himself to be.

[Aaron]

oscillating

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...

The mosfet is oscillating.

[witsend]

Again - for the record - we really have OU.COM to thank for 'concentrating the mind' so to speak. Whether intended or not, Ramset has done us proud.

You see, apart from challenging our claims he has also, fortunately, forced attention to the actual objects of the paper. It is presented in an effort to ask our academics to look at the argument and look at the protocol in support of that argement. Then too, the excessive urgency required by both TK and Ramsets' need to refute these claims has brought their impartiality to question and the question itself to full focus. Very nicely I might add.

The truth is - whether it is Bedini motors - or gotoluc's circuit - or, indeed any such, including my own poor efforts, the actual question is not on 'how it works' but on how to prove the gain? This is actually the question that the IET paper is trying to address. And despite all the distractions associated we've finally brought focus back to the question as to why that 'hard to measure spike' is not seen as a gain in the first instance.'

This, unfortunately will only finally be answered by our learned academia. But I have every hope here. They may 'old school - dye hards' but there is a pool of intellectual excellence here that will only tolerate equally high standards of intellectual honesty. I think this drive to OU has been clamorous - and largely tainted by the preception that its promoters are seeking fame, glory - whatever. Or it may simply be based on the perceived wild and naive hopes of the misguided. I think open source helps to challenge that perception. And the constant focus back to the actual measurement protocols - shows that the questions are earnest. And I think I speak for the most of us. We now need some earnest attention to those questions. All we are qualified to do is focus on the experimental evidence presented. Thanks raMset

[witsend]

Aaron - am nearly up with Skype. Just need to make a payment and I'll be in touch.

[Aaron]

skype is free skype to skype

Aaron - am nearly up with Skype. Just need to make a payment and I'll be in touch.

You only have to make a payment if you want to call phones. It is probably cheaper than your phone service but anyone you call that also has skype, like me, is free.

[Cloxxki]

This is all over-complicated. A greate exersize in confusement, and wasting time of the world's finest OU researchers. Both the believers and the sceptics are doing it, and our respective goverments as well as MiB agencies are surely sitting back with a bucket of popcorn. If they're tapping phone lines and reading emails, it's because they think it's the funniest thing ever. Whether OU is real with this circuit or not, the way it's being handled, and replicators are treated, sure enought it will not reach the market for decades to come. Some more weeks of this, replicators and believers will give up, idea shelved.

Take the original circuit, and use it to heat water from a standardized battery (randomly selected from a lot of identical new ones bought for the purpose). Discharge and charge the full lot of batteries before the experiments, as considered necessary.
The RA circuit will heat water in an isolated (or at least standardized) container, positioned at a pre-determined location inside the container. All gains AND losses in the system will be showing as water temperature increase, after all? Even submerge the batteries along, to make to get it 100% right. Be sure to have batteries and water at ambient temp. Before, naturally.
The non-exp batteries will be tested with simplified circuits of similar materials. No pulsing, regular duty cycles, plain resistors or heating elements, same total heat capacity as RA's complete circuit, you get the idea.
Other batteries will be thorougly tested for electrical capacity when charged exactly as the experiment's battery.

It's all not so hard. If a small battery and RA circuit proves capable of making sufficient boiled water to serve us all (say, a company of 17) a cup of delightful Rooibos tea, where a contemporary circuit can only make Tea for One, that will be most conclusive, and THEN there's reason to explore why it worked. The ideal duty cycle, mosfet specs, resistor locations and ratios, etc.

Any reason to get to the bottom of this before more elaborate measurements have been carried out on the original circuit, whichever it's layout may have been? An inventors sure of her case will want nothing but 2009-compliant verification. Sceptics are the most reliable party to design a test protocol to prove OU. Even Tea for Two will ensure a tsunami of replicators. Who doesn't like either tea, coffee, or warm feet in the winter?

[Joit]

Yuk, i dont have to thank OU.com in any Way, because there are much faster Ways, to come to, where you want to,
as first to pointing out in T. Edison style, where you are Wrong, and how to blame you.
Its more as a Fact for me that OU com did lost a big Part of my Credit now again,
wich was anyway not that big, what i had from it.

And like (P.L) P.Lawrence said, when Stefan Hartman still is tolerante like he is, he dont need to wonder, if he open once one Day a empty Box.
Right now, its more like to work for others as for yourself.

[tsakou]

.... sure enought it will not reach the market for decades to come. Some more weeks of this, replicators and believers will give up, idea shelved.

IMHO, there is no need to try to reach the market. Replicators, must replicate, and exchange info. All these devices, must be built for fun, and for personal use only. Try to market, and then all the snakes will come out of the box.