View Single Post
 
Old 07-03-2009, 08:54 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
TinselKoala - thanks for showing the diode. I'm intrigued. Are you trying to point to a fault the circuit in the quatum article or are you trying to get the switch to work? If the former then what is your point? Are you claiming that the results were erroneous based on the fact that we cannot tell a 5% on duty cycle from a 90% on. I'm doing my level best to ignore the implied if not expressed insult to my own intelligence. But to assume such extraordinarly lack of observational integrity on the part of many, many skilled accreditors is so insulting as to be actionable.

I do not have a copy of that switching circuit - and if I did I would not be able to comment. But it is substantially irrelevant. Personally I think that your probe positioning across the circuit is such that the waveform would inevitably show a reversal as it relates to zero. But what actually concerns me is that you then imply a relationship of the draw down rate of the battery by indicating that it drops so dramatically. This is, self-evidently, nonsense. Even at 90% ON the battery could not be delivering much above 2 amp. As mentioned - if your battery was charged - then that voltage drop is entirely unrealistic in any context at all.

If your actual object is to disprove the circuit claim then I'm wholeheartedly in favour of it. But the following parameters would then be required. Your battery must at least be fully charged. Your probe - as it relates to zero must be clearly defined. The frequency at which you run the switch must approximate our own. Your measurements of actual energy delivered must relate to the sum of both the on and off periods of each duty cycle regardless of their settings. And your measure of the energy dissipated can be done on any basis at all - but it is best established as it relates to change in temperature. You will then find that there is invariably a gain meaning that the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply source will be less than the amount of energy dissipated at the load.

And if you run the switch at an oscillating or resonating frequency then that gain will be exponential.

I recall some comment made by you that the members of this forum need not be concerned as you have no intention of being an 'evil sceptic' I think was your term. I am not entirely re-assured the more so as is implied by these extraordinary concerns of yours. What actually worries me is that there is no apparent earnest requirement to study the actual effects of that counter electromotive force? Instead of looking at the effects you seem hell bent on pointing out a possible error in the switch. And I strongly object to your claim that you are the only one who has built that switch. I can refer you to many - and many of those referenced are experts in the art.

I would add that if, indeed I was running the experiment at a 90% on then the gain is still evident. The difference would only be in the amount of amount of counter electromotive force which is then far, far greater. There is always a benefit. Why has this eluded you?
__________________