Mosfet Heating Circuits

[Harvey]

Hi Harvey you're reffering to these posted schematics when you said circuit is basically the same?
Thanks

Sorry, no - I am referring to Glen's Original Modified schematic:

http://www.energeticforum.com/induct...html#post84279

with simply increasing the voltage supply and the quantity of resistors to allow for the conventional power dissipation. (360V / 60Ω = 6A) and (6A * 360V = 2160W)

The IRFPG50 can handle that voltage, but some care may need to be taken to route some of the BEMF away from it to prevent avalanche or to ensure the timing is such to not to get to big a spike at the drain or else energy will be lost in the avalanche operation.

It needs to be prototyped and tested. We don't yet know how series heaters will react during aperiodic operation.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Device File Repository

Hi everyone,

I finally got all the information for the Mosfet Heater Circuit in "ONE" place on my personal Windows "LIVE" SkyDrive Public Folder

Mosfet Heater

The Mosfet Heater folder has data, images, diagrams, photos everything posted in the "Open Source Forum" in one place.

Enjoy !!

Best Regards,
Glen

[ashtweth]

Thanks BRO

[gmeast]

heat determination

Hi everyone,

I finally got all the information for the Mosfet Heater Circuit in "ONE" place on my personal Windows "LIVE" SkyDrive Public Folder

Mosfet Heater

The Mosfet Heater folder has data, images, diagrams, photos everything posted in the "Open Source Forum" in one place.

Enjoy !!

Best Regards,
Glen

Thank you for localizing the information and research.

I've read most stuff from many sources, so it's possible I missed something ... I got saturated.

My main question is:
Is a CALORIMETER of generally accepted design being used to determine the heat given off by the inductive resistor (Load)?

I have become totally convinced that 'mechanisms' such as this circuit as well as other devices like it will end up being the TRUE COP>1 approaches. I have had countless arguments with dimwits who lecture me that these 'gadgets' cannot be COP>1 solely on the argument that you cannot 'close the loop'. You know, 'Motor to Generator to Battery to Motor' seems to be all they can comprehend.

I love the concept of 'Power in and Equivalent Power Out' ... not just Energy. This circuit IS THAT... 'Power in, and much more power out in the form of Heating'.

Heat Measurement is a Fine Science ... and somewhat of a 'Specialty' Discipline. This was, and still is, a point of contention among many academics exploring Cold Fusion.

Therefore ... my Calorimeter question.

Thanks,

Greg

[Harvey]

Hi Greg,

Your concerns have been brought up by many of us. When Ash and Andrew began their replication I did post in the other thread some specific guidelines with regards to volumetric measurement of the thermal output. Also, when helping certain other members offline I have fully stressed the need to take volumetric temperature measurements in these types of comparisons. It simply is not complete to take a spot reading and expect that to represent the overall dissipation involved. Such a method leaves too much to be extrapolated even when care was taken to get the hottest reading available on the resistor at the moment of measurement.

The whole purpose of the tests was to show that a specific quantity of charge consumed by the batteries resulted in a specific quantity of heat dissipated by the load resistor. The original claim was that the ratio between these two was in the order of 1700% in favor of the thermal dissipation and that has been the target, the bar that each of us replicators has been trying to reach.

In order to correctly compare these two values . . .
1.) Battery Charge Consumed
2.) Thermal Dissipation

. . .they must be put into like terms. For example, you can compare at a specific instant in time the available power in watts in the battery to the dissipated power in watts in the resistor. As you might imagine, that is a very messy job.

So another way is to compare the power for time passed (energy) used from the batteries to the thermal energy dissipated. But what is the most reliable way of doing that?

1. The industry standard for determining the charge of a battery is to use a hydrometer. The hydrometer returns the specific gravity of the acid of the battery which relates directly to the amount of charge in the battery. The more acid there is, the more available charge and the more water there is the more charge has been consumed. It would be an easy task to baseline a battery by discharging it at a constant current into a constant resistance for a set period and measure the specific gravity at the beginning and ending of the test. This gives a specific energy (I²Rt) value you can equate, for that battery, to the charge differential noted by the change in specific gravity of the electrolyte.

2. Place the DUT (device under test) in distilled water of a specific volume and starting temperature. Run the device for the period specified in 1. and log the increase in temperature for the volume of water. In other words, build a calorimeter and use it.

Now we can readily and correctly compare the energy in joules (power for time passed - i.e. 1 watt for 1 second = 1 Joule) used from the battery to the energy dissipated in the calorimeter. This is the preferred and correct method of evaluation for these types of circuits.

Short of this, the only other correct method would be to use a Real Time data logger like a Real Time Spectrum Analyzer operating in the time domain and logging all data for a few days. Realistically, this would require 3 such devices to be in place with overlapping data write sequences so that the total data could be properly assembled from two while the third is writing. And without this continuous data stream, you can only guess, extrapolate and fabricate what is really going on in between - and one thing we found out when looking at this up close is that there is a lot of stuff going on in between.

So a good quality hydrometer, a reputable baseline on the battery discharge cycle and a good calorimeter and you have all you need to prove or disprove the claims over 1700%. Of course care would have to taken not to introduce any other source, like a timer battery or such into the circuit. It would be a mistake to think that the timer battery cannot give power to the load in this circuit. This is why it needs to be removed and the timer needs to be powered from the main battery or optically isolated from the MOSFET. Either technique would properly prevent capacitive energy transfer through the MOSFET gate into the BEMF cycle.

[gmeast]

baselining the experiment

Hi Greg,

Your concerns have been brought up by many of us. When Ash and Andrew began their replication I did post in the other thread some specific guidelines with regards to volumetric measurement of the thermal output. Also, when helping certain other members offline I have fully stressed the need to take volumetric temperature measurements in these types of comparisons....................................... .................................................. .......................................
The whole purpose of the tests was to show that a specific quantity of charge consumed by the batteries resulted in a specific quantity of heat dissipated by the load resistor.......................................... .................................................. ..........................................
In order to correctly compare these two values . . .
1.) Battery Charge Consumed
2.) Thermal Dissipation

. . .they must be put into like terms. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................

Hi Harvey,

Thanks for your comprehensive response. This is all EASY to do correctly. I have stood with my mouth gaping in wonder at why everyone seems to insist on running the timer circuit from a separate battery. This IS a place where current can be injected easily, and therefore, in my view, corrupts the data.

One thing we have going for us is the Lead-Acid battery. This battery type is as old as the hills, but this is a good thing because there has been ample time to carefully and completely characterize most aspects of this type of battery. I installed PV systems for many years. Some of these installations were stand-alone systems which required a supporting battery bank. Luckily all of my stand-alone customers were more than willing to educate themselves about lead-acid, deep-cycle batteries. They all became fairly expert at being able use a good hydrometer to monitor electrolyte gravity, to compute capacity using gravity vs temperature data, and to also properly size their banks and set their inverters to cycle to the proper depth to insure maximum battery longevity.

As you stated and as I also assert, we need to properly characterize our power source at the Input End and use calorimeter-style analysis at the Output End (to evaluate heating) and, as you alluded to, full immersion to take ALL heating into account ... timer heating, wire heating, mosfet heating, inductive resistor heating ... everything. Everyone needs to get their brains wrapped around this discipline. It's very important.

Anyway, thanks,

Greg

[Aaron]

measurement comments

Greg,

More times than not - I ran the 555 circuit on the same battery as the
inductive resistor to eliminate the possibility of having two power supplies.
This was one of ieee's original objections to Rosemary's submission to
my understanding. That is the reason I started to run it on the same
battery.

I have a few thousand hours worth of experimentation invested in
this whole inductive resistor project and most of my results I never posted
because most was redundant but I did beat the battery draw down test
repeatedly - those I never posted. The validity of that test could be one
issue but nevertheless, I beat it over and over and that was even with
having one single battery run both the resistor and the timer.

After seeing the original quantum article specs was flawed in the manner
that it certainly was not a low duty cycle, it was 60% from my recollection.
But, it went full circle for me that the quantum article as published in the
quantum magazine gave me the most heat per input - my resistor was
around 150 C for very little input. That is the only test I'm interested
in redoing if I ever experiment with it again.

Anyway, from all the battery capacity tests at Bedini's during the early
development of the chargers - that was back when Peter was working
there with all the tests on the golf cart batteries and then some - the
hydrometer never proved to be an accurate indication of true battery
capacity ever and no two hydrometers would measure the same - ever.

The hydrometer is a general indication of the battery for example if
someone wanted to do some quick testing on some batteries at a scrap
yard to see if they're in the ball park for being able to be rejuvenated
easily but for a scientific method of analyzing the capacity of a battery,
a hydrometer should never be used as part of the measurement. It
may have been fine for your purposes but it doesn't not come close to
giving any kind of high accuracy for scientific measurements. This is based
on many, many thousands
and thousands of hours of not only testing battery capacity but testing
the very methods used for testing battery capacity.

As far as measuring heat, it depends on how the tests are done if it is
even relevant or not because some tests that show a comparison,
which the platinum probe in the resistor for a side by side comparison to
ambient is valid without having to measure the "volume" of heat production.
It is very straight forward.

IF all the heat production is desired to be measured, that is another
issue but I don't think it should be assumed that it is the only way to
measure what is happening in the circuit - just depends on what you
want to measure and why.

Probe temp comparison with the battery draw down test is a valid test
and measuring volume of heat isn't going to change anything. If it is shown
that x watts
drawn is necessary to get the probe to a certain temp and we produce
that steady temp or higher for the same or less watts with the Ainslie
circuit for example and the difference is as different as night and day -
like the same heat for 1/2 the wattage, that is a night and day difference
and no amount of heat volume measurement is going to show any
significant difference in results from this.

Dr. Stiffler I think was the first to suggest a calorimeter test in the
Ainslie COP 17 thread and I think he even shared some pictures of his.

Years ago, it was Peter Lindemann that suggested to his friend
Robert Adams to submerge each and every component in his entire
circuit to measure all the heat in order to add all that "loss" to the motor
performance measurements showing well over 1.0 cop. Without all that
heat, it is still over but of course more so to show all the heat "losses".
The liquid may have been glycerin or something, I don't recall at the
moment - but if anyone wants to do calorimeter tests, the way Adams
did it should be the way the tests should be done and if anything,
it of course gives benefit of the doubt to the inductive resistor circuit
since it accounts for all the heat (timer included), etc... so that is a
good thing but should be kept in perspective.

There isn't anything wrong with calorimeter tests but I think we have to
be real that it isn't the end all be all of measurement for this circuit
because the battery draw down test for example shows
a very good comparison and again, each thing has to be kept in
perspective.

Most people have a block even when it comes to measuring the Bedini
motors. On a two battery system with a rotor (non solid state) - have
batt 1 on the front and batt 2 on the back. If there is 100,000 joules
that left the front and 70% was recovered on battery 2 (70% would be
pathetic for a Bedini motor) - That is 100,000 that was used and
70,000 in batt 2 that can be used when put back on front end and
have it draw it down to where batt 2 was originally was before receiving
the recovery. If again 70% of that was recovered in battery 1 which is
now on the back end, that is 49,000 joules that can be used on the
front to bring batty 1 back down and so forth and keep swapping back
and forth and when adding up all the joules in work done it is way over
1.0 cop and this does NOT even include any of the mechanical work
the rotor did and this does NOT include any of the heat in the circuit
as losses.

Obviously it took work with losses to even get batt 1 to a good enough
potential difference to draw 100,000 joules over a period of time that is
what was used to "charge" it to begin with before the test was started
but it isn't necessary to measure that if we want to see that the
motor used 100,000 and recovered x and put that on the front and
recovered x, etc... and keep doing that, there is MORE work being done
than we started with. Even if you account for how many joules was used
by a wall power battery charger for example, way more work winds up
being done than left the wall.

So what it means is that if you just make up for the loss of 30% loss,
you give 30% from the first swap on and you get 100% of the work for
the cost of 30%.

Essentially, all the self proclaimed experts at measuring the Bedini
machines are completely missing what is common sense. Bearden's video
demonstrating Bedini's bicycle wheel being COP 15 was yanked way back
partly because people just don't get it.

If 100,000 left and recovered 70,000 then recovered 49000 then 34300,
then 24010, 16807, 11764, 8235, 5764, 4035, 2824, 1977, 1384, 968,
678, 474, 332, 232, 162, etc... that is 332,946+ joules of work that was
done when we only brought 100,000 to the table and that is at a sorry
70% recovery.

Obviously those #'s are just for examples but shows the point. Why
isn't anyone adding up all the work on every swap until batt 1 is back
to where it was?

It is possible on one single pass from input to output to have more joules
of work that you get from the output battery that what left the input
battery but it requires large capacitance discharges with a mechanical
switch. But even without ever attempting that, which normally does not
happen, the above example of the swapping back and forth where each
running time is less and less to get down to the original battery "capacity"
is no different than a bouncing ball and the identical thing applies to
the Ainslie circuit.

The same back and forth swapping on the Ainslie circuit shows over 1.0
even if it has a very low efficiency.

Greg, NOT everyone is insisting on running the timer on a separate battery
- I believe I was the first to run the tests using the SAME battery for both.

[Harvey]

Hi Aaron,

I certainly have respect for all the time and energy that all of you have put into your research with regards to lead acid batteries - especially John Bedini.

There is a sound reason that science and industry uses devices such as these:
Digital Hydrometer (Battery-Powered Hydrometer) - Mitchell Instrument Company

to measure 'charge' in a battery. The simple fact is, that without electrolyte in a lead acid battery you cannot have charge because the charge is embodied in the chemical reactions waiting to occur during the discharge cycles. As of yet, I have not found any better way to accurately discover the available charge in a lead acid battery, but if you know of some device (like Battery fuel gauges - Texas Instruments) or measurement tool that can be used I certainly do want to learn about it.

The real problem with timed battery draw down comparisons is that surged battery discharge is so drastically different from steady battery discharge even for the same energy transference. I think John has a whole PDF document describing that. So that means to be accurate, you must match exactly the same pulse actions during your baseline calibration as you do during your device test. My experiments have proven to me, that even two identical pulse discharges will give me large variances in the overall draw-down time for the exact same parameters. This tells me that the chemical reactions and the starting charge values are different between tests because everything else is unchanged.

Then added to those problems is the real problem of close timing between discharge and charge cycles (in the order of microseconds) that completely change the dynamics of valid test making it absolutely impossible to differentiate between when the battery is actually being charged (because there is a chemical delay related to the applied voltage) and the actual time that discharge is occurring. The same can be said with regards to AC current applied to an inductive resistor as opposed to a DC baseline - drastically different thermal curves.

So it is because of all those messy variables that I find the only accurate way of truly measuring the starting charge and ending charge of a battery is by the use of a high quality hydrometer.

But for the average garage tinkerer as many of us are - we must find novel ways to the results we are looking for. One of the simplest ways of proving OU with this circuit is to run it for longer than the battery capacity is capable of providing. For example, in Glen's test #13 it was calculated that the average total power drain was about 1.3W using the calculation methods we were instructed to use. His batteries were 12Ah each placed in series. So each battery can deliver 144Wh of power, or 288Wh. So this means that those batteries should be able to drive the resistor for 221 hours. (You may note that my previous calculations of 576 hours were in error where I incorrectly took 24V * 24Ah). So we could expect the power dissipated in the heater, MOSFET and CSR combined (1.3W according to the calculations we were instructed to use) to run for 221 hours. If it could have run for longer than that, then we could have all had a party - in fact, that was what we all thought was going to happen when we set up the live feed - we thought it would just keep on going and going and going for the world to see. Of course we discovered that the 1.3W calculation was wrong because it was a DC average of an AC waveform .

Nevertheless - the principle of extended run times still holds good for those that cannot afford a good hydrometer and don't trust the auto store variety.

One thing that I found interesting was this comment:
WikiAnswers - How do you Calculating battery capacity
which states that the rate of discharge affects the overall power that can be delivered. In other words, if you do a very fast 12A draw down and get a dead battery after 1 hour and then do a slower 1A draw down with your circuit you could get an extra few hours just because you discharged it slower. Is that true? Did John or Peter ever discover that behavior?

At any rate, in our early tests we felt that a gain of 1700% would be so drastically obvious that the differences of using a spot thermometer and voltage/current calculations for power drain rather than hydrometers and calorimeters would have been buried by overwhelming performance. Instead we found that everything is critical and even the length of the wire between the battery and the scope probes inflated the data by magnitudes because of the wire inductance at those frequencies. So we are forced to take more than a cursory approach if we are going to provide solid proof for the world.

It would be a shame for a humanitarian organization to to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into this proposed technology in order to help those that truly need it, expecting to get the 221 hours as calculated and then discover afterward that it wouldn't even get past 16 hours and the real efficiency was less than an off the shelf heater. That is what is really at stake here - and that is why it is very important to be accurate and truthful with the data and results. That is also why I have asked any and all readers to double and triple check my calculations to see if they have mistakes and point out those mistakes so that corrections can be made if necessary. I even wrote a program in Access to allow persons with older versions of Office (XP) a way to look at the 100,000 lines of data in Glen's later tests. (Newer versions of Excel will import that many lines)

Whatever method is used - it will need to stand up to practical application.

[Aaron]

inducitve heater comments

if you know of some device (like Battery fuel gauges - Texas Instruments) or measurement tool that can be used I certainly do want to learn about it.

Then added to those problems is the real problem of close timing between discharge and charge cycles (in the order of microseconds)

One of the simplest ways of proving OU with this circuit is to run it for longer than the battery capacity is capable of providing.

Of course we discovered that the 1.3W calculation was wrong because it was a DC average of an AC waveform .

Nevertheless - the principle of extended run times still holds good for those that cannot afford a good hydrometer and don't trust the auto store variety.

...the rate of discharge affects the overall power that can be delivered. In other words, if you do a very fast 12A draw down and get a dead battery after 1 hour and then do a slower 1A draw down with your circuit you could get an extra few hours just because you discharged it slower. Is that true? Did John or Peter ever discover that behavior?

...buried by overwhelming performance.

Instead we found that everything is critical and even the length of the wire between the battery and the scope probes inflated the data by magnitudes because of the wire inductance at those frequencies.

It would be a shame for a humanitarian organization to to invest hundreds or thousands of dollars into this proposed technology in order to help those that truly need it, expecting to get the 221 hours as calculated and then discover afterward that it wouldn't even get past 16 hours and the real efficiency was less than an off the shelf heater.

Whatever method is used - it will need to stand up to practical application.

I'm not sure if or what the final verdict was for measuring the battery
"charge". The leading company that makes battery capacitor
meters modified their own technology based on Bedini's reported results
so their meters were more accurate. That definitely says a lot. I don't
think it was a digital hydrometer though.

As far as charge discharge - with the mosfet circuit or any other that
feeds back to the source battery - the battery just plain doesn't like it.
Yes we can get extended running times and that is easy to prove with
the basic Ainslie type circuit (with the flyback diode) - but it can take
up to a few minutes for the battery to be in REAL charge mode and it
can only do that if it is only being charged and not powering anything.

All recovery should be sent to an isolated or secondary battery and let
the primary battery run down without any significant feedback to it.
So it definitely changes a lot when using one battery to send then
receive. (if you're talking about charge/discharge from the same battery)

It is easy to charge the battery with Bedini technology so the run time
exceeds the manufacturers rating but of course that is not a comparison.
That is by altering the battery itself from the charge to increase its
capacity regardless of what the input is.

But of course having the same battery run longer with feedback
performing the same work but longer tells the story - more time more
joules exhibited.

Yes, it is true that the slower you drain the battery the more time you
get from it. If you drain it at a c90 rate for example a near complete
short circuit, you're drawing the heck out of it and you get much less
than the battery rating. Obviously it will give work for longer because of
drawing less but looking at it pound for pound, you lose out drawing too
big of a load from it - you don't get the same as if you drew less over
longer.

Most ee's I believe refer to this:
Peukert's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Peukert law becomes a key issue in a battery electric vehicle where batteries rated at 20 hour (or even 100 hour) discharges are used at much greater rates of about 1 hour."

Meaning with discharges greater than the rating will not allow you to get
the same work.

The "overwhelming performance" is what I never saw in any of the tests
(meaning anything close to 17 times)
but on draw down tests seeing what appears to be at least twice or 2.0
almost as a normal occurrence was enough at the moment for me to
believe that a calorimeter test would not show anything significant and
would be a waste of time. If I saw 1.05, 0.95 or 1.15, etc... (much less
than 2.0) - I'm sure a calorimeter test could show something because the
margin of error at that close to 1.0 is more questionable to me and then
would be worth doing that kind of test.

Those wire lengths definitely make a difference. I think my resistor in
my first test was 50 ohms and it was probably a 5w one. All connections
extremely close and having almost no wire connections at all - just about
everything was soldered together directly. In that test, I had no heat
to speak of, however, the input battery climbed for an entire day and it
took like an extra 12-18 hours or so after that for the voltage to come
down to where it was before I started the test. There was definitely
something going on. The resistor did climb in temp but was not very hot,
just warm to the touch. Anyway, that was my very first test after I
received my first mosfet for the test.

I even did some experiments with the plasma discharge with the
inductive resistor as the load like in my Gray motor tests. Too many things
to try and not enough time.

If wires are necessary, it would be ideal to use monster diameter wires
like car battery cables to drop the impedance, etc...

I think it would be a shame too to put any real money into this if it isn't
justified. If I saw an obvious 17 times output in heat, I would have
ALREADY been manufacturing retrofit hot water heater elements with
these circuits. That would be insane not to. I would have retrofit
my entire main floor with radiant hot water tubing heated with the hot
water heater heat. They're usually on 2-3 hours a day average so any
hot water heater can make enough to warm a home this way but if
I could get 17 times the heat I wouldn't buy any more oil or wood because
I could run the heater on a small battery bank charged from a very
small solar panel. Would be very inexpensive!

I believe there is over 1.0 here, I believe I've seen it, I've absolutely
been able to even drop my resistor a couple degrees Celsius below the
control ambient resistor. But I have not seen anything miraculous
in terms of enormous obvious amounts of excess heat above and beyond
maybe 2.0 in the draw downs. I wouldn't invest a penny in that when I
can have an infinite COP guaranteed by simply placing evacuated tube
collectors on my roof and preheating my water from that.

I already decided long ago that this circuit needs to show at least 5.0
to be something to invest in - it has promise, it is
interesting, it was the first time I ever worked with mosfets, but at what
I believe are small gains (gains nevertheless) but at these small gains,
it just remains a novelty to me.

I learned a LOT through all the experience and there are a couple ideas
I still want to test but probably not anytime soon. I had some interesting
and promising results on some tests isolating the output to capacitors
and feeding that back to the front without the source battery seeing it...
similar to what Peter's schematic is at the beginning of that thread and
that is a way to recycle the output over and over (bouncing ball method)
without it ever trying to put the battery in charging mode. I was doing
those tests right about when there was a lot of tension going around and
decided to focus on other things and have since then. In either case,
I'm thankful for all the experience.

[Aaron]

p.s.

p.s. I did mostly dc mean readings with the 3054c for most of the tests,
however, the last month or so I had the scope, I did BOTH - measured the
rms average per Lighty's request and still had the gains there was a
difference but to tell you the truth, there wasn't much difference in the
final result compared to dc mean.

There is heat gains in inductive resistors using german silver and
capacitive discharges into the coil but this doesn't have anything to do
with the Ainslie type circuit - irc example circuit - whatever the truth is,
it is not about magic resonance or anything but more of a material science
kind of thing - possibly like that peltzier (sp?) effect down at that molecular
level or something like what we discussed or something else.

[gmeast]

oh

Greg,

More times than not - I ran the 555 circuit on the same battery as the
inductive resistor to eliminate the possibility of having two power supplies.
This was one of ieee's original objections to Rosemary's submission to
my understanding. That is the reason I started to run it on the same
battery.

.................................................. .............................

Greg, NOT everyone is insisting on running the timer on a separate battery
- I believe I was the first to run the tests using the SAME battery for both.

Well, I feel like I've just been scolded. I was referring to the general concept of running sub-circuits, such as trigger circuits, on their own supplies. For some reason, this is the first (1st) approach people think is correct from an experimental standpoint ... and it isn't. They think this approach somehow removes the sub-circuit as a variable. And I was also referring not to this group or to you (I don't know where you actually find time to breath let alone experiment, post, write and publish), I'm talking in general terms ... dozens and dozens of people are taking a serious look at the Ainslie circuit (and claim) and pursuing it, but a good number of them don't know how to measure things correctly. That was my point.

Greg

[Aaron]

measurement

Greg,

No scolding lol.

Just wanted to point out that it was an early issue that was brought up
by ieee so I did quite a few of the tests using one single battery for both.
I was hoping Rosemary would redo the test with a single battery,
my suggestion, and resubmit it but of course they said they weren't
interested in seeing it at a later time regardless of what was new.

One thing that needs to be known - it has been a while so this is just off
the top of my head. The Tektronix 3054C I believe will not accurately
show the truth on 2 channels if one is for the "shunt" by the resistor
and one channel is measuring the timer - had to do with common grounds.
Bottom line is that each channel was interfering with the other - I have
all those details posted somewhere.

The Fluke 123 however, I believe uses separate grounds and that does
show the reality of each independently of each other. So this scope is
actually better than the $10k scope in many respects.

[gmeast]

grounds

Greg,

No scolding lol.

Just wanted to point out that it was an early issue that was brought up
by ieee so I did quite a few of the tests using one single battery for both.
I was hoping Rosemary would redo the test with a single battery,.......................................... .................................................. ............................................

The Fluke 123 however, I believe uses separate grounds and that does
show the reality of each independently of each other. So this scope is
actually better than the $10k scope in many respects.

Hi Aaron,

I had to sell my Tektronics $$... pretty much a low ender - the one I used in my water spark plug posts ... and I was a little disappointed with the grounds because there were things (simultaneous events) I wanted to examine closer where independent channel grounds would have been keen to have.

Greg

[Harvey]

The grounding problem was one of the things that was heavily discussed. Much heated conversation occurred over this but I did eventually convince the group that it needed to be addressed. Glen took my advice and quickly corrected the issue with a simple modification to the board - he probably has a picture of that he could post showing the common ground point needed to prevent currents from traveling through the scope.

As we kept addressing each pitfall - the results seemed to improve. I recall Glen stating that it was getting better and better.

It is sad that so many of my suggestions to help this project succeed have been suppressed, ignored, or outright rejected. In some cases my help has been completely distorted and untruth has been spread all over the net which hopefully the intelligent readers will take the time to investigate fully rather than be mislead by false accusations and unsubstantiated claims.

If this proposed technology is truly open source for the world to use and make applications of royalty free then I am one who would rejoice and begin engineering hundreds of different applications immediately at the first accredited validation and substantiation of the claims. I think the burden of proof lays with the claimants but of course nothing prohibits anyone else from conclusively proving or disproving the proposed technology.

Any good Scientist will have both approaches to a hypothesis, trying to prove it true and prove it false - only one will succeed. But if both fail, then it is a matter of inconclusive results - and few applications engineers would be willing to invest time into an unproven proposed technology. That is rather left for the Research and Development Department to sort out. In my opinion, that is where this proposed technology is at - the Research and Development stage.

I am willing to use my skills to help anyone in their endeavors to research and develop this proposed technology and help it to succeed. I have over 30 years experience in both hardware and software research and development and electronic prototyping. I have also observed that there are others here at EF with similar skill sets - so there is certainly no lack of expertise for getting the job done for those willing to put an effort into it.

[gmeast]

open source

The grounding problem was one of the things that was heavily discussed. Much heated conversation occurred over this but I did eventually convince the group that it needed to be addressed. Glen took my advice and quickly corrected the issue with a simple modification to the board - he probably has a picture of that he could post showing the common ground point needed to prevent currents from traveling through the scope.

As we kept addressing each pitfall - the results seemed to improve. I recall Glen stating that it was getting better and better.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .............................
If this proposed technology is truly open source for the world to use and make applications of royalty free then I am one who would rejoice and begin engineering hundreds of different applications immediately at the first accredited validation and substantiation of the claims............................................ .................................................. .................................................. ...........................
I am willing to use my skills to help anyone in their endeavors to research and develop this proposed technology and help it to succeed. I have over 30 years experience in both hardware and software research and development and electronic prototyping. I have also observed that there are others here at EF with similar skill sets - so there is certainly no lack of expertise for getting the job done for those willing to put an effort into it.

Hi Harvey,

Though I have not even built the circuit or begun investigating this particular technology (yet), I did put forth some effort re: Luc's Water Spark Plug ... Aaron's thread here. I logged and posted several milestones. One being 'Efficient Cold Engine Running' - which is very significant.

The only reason beyond wanting to generally help 'Open Closed Eyes', is that as an open source effort, I (nor anyone for that matter) won't have to 'pay' any Fat Cats to use the technology. In essence, it's an investment or even more, it's like getting paid.

From what I've read Harvey, your input, analyses and viewpoints are appreciated ... folks just don't always find ways to say it ... especially with this sort of stuff where many different slants on the mechanism(s) of a technology abound.

Greg

P.S. I would like to see the 'Common Ground' variation of the circuit. If it's been posted, then please steer me there or I'll simply anxiously wait.