View Single Post
Old 07-03-2009, 07:55 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys, yet again - many, many thanks for the warm welcome. Peter, Aaron, Dr Stiffler, Ramset and Ash, all of you - so kind. I feel exceptionally privileged to be a part of such extraordinary talent.

I wonder if you all know what's out there? It's frightening. I think we're seeing scientific bigotry in a kind of life or death struggle. It doesn't help that we've also tossed the unity barrier into the dark ages. But replication and proof are the required steps and that's where your patience comes in. Science is progressed by experimental evidence. And theory must then give way to fact. Those two phrases have become my motto in a way. When I reference them I know I'm back to a sure footing.

I'm not sure if you are aware of it - but I'm a rank amateur. I really need to own up to this because you'll be expecting a level of technical expertise that I simply do not have. Circuit switches need to be built by others. The only aspect of testing that I'm confident with is the actual power measurements and then only as they relate to this modest little circuit. But - if I have a contribution - it's in that model, which is the thesis in support of that gain. In any event I wont bore you with the details. But if and where I state the obvious - it's only because I hardly know enough to see whether it's obvious or not. So. Please bear with me.

In effect, all we are trying to do is to generate back electromotive force. This can be done - obviously - in far better ways that is determined by the circuit. But the question out there has always been - how much energy is first required from the supply source to be stored and then used - anywhere at all, on any circuit? Well this is where the use of an inductive resistive load goes to the throat, the gullet, so to speak, of the question. You will notice that the actual voltage across the resistor always conforms to Ohms law. By this I mean to say that if you take the value of the applied voltage from the battery divided by the resistive load and times percentage of the duty cycle 'on' time - then that voltage never exceeds Mr Ohm's requirements and the wattage dissipated at the load is consistent with that sum. In other words, there is no EXTRA energy delivered by the battery during that 'on' period.

Then the switch closes and the battery can no longer deliver energy. Yet, during this 'off' period - and as required by Inductive Laws, the voltage over the resistor collapses first to zero and then through zero and then manifests as a reverse voltage spike that far exceeds the level of the applied voltage from the source. In point of fact, our measurements have always shown that if you do a v^2 / r analysis of this part of the cycle, the actual amount of energy generated during this 'off' cycle invariably equals the amount of energy first applied during the 'on' cycle but always less some small fraction which relates to the voltage drop across the diodes and sundry small losses in other circuit components.

In effect the cost of that 'spike' was zero - or it did not cost the battery any more energy. So we may conclude. While the 'on' cycle was courtesy the energy from the battery - the 'off' cycle was entirely thanks to and courtesy of the inductive components of the resistor itself. I think this fact was pointed out by Armagdn03? Not sure. I know I read it somewhere in this thread. Well - whoever - that's spot on. And therein lies the question?

So. The next question is what does one do with that spike? I'm sure that Peter and others who have studied this effect at far greater depth than myself - can answer this better than I can. But my solution to prove its value was simply to maintain the circuit integrity during this 'off' period by the path established through the intrinsic diode in the MOSFET. And then ensure that the current resulting from these collapsing fields - gets returned to the battery. That - in a nutshell - is the whole of the thesis. And as I mentioned in the previous post to TinselKoala - the cost of current flow from the battery is then almost entirely compensated by the amount of energy returned to the battery through that diode.

In effect we're using classical measurement protocol related to the delivery of energy to prove that we can give this energy back - almost, but not entirely, in tact.

I'll deal with other aspects of this in the next post as I really do not want to make this too long and too confusing.