View Single Post

07-03-2009, 12:59 PM
 witsend Gold Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,881
7) Regardless of whether the error is in the diagram itself or in the duty cycle used in the experiment, the paper is wrong and should be corrected, if the diagram is at fault, or retracted, if the duty cycle (as I believe) is at fault. TinselKoala

I've read through the thread again. You refer to the quantum article as a paper. This is incorrect. The quantum article is just that - an article. The paper, sumitted to the IET, deliberately omits any design of the 555 switching device as this need only be standard type. But whether it is right or wrong - is substantially irrelevant. We claim benefit at all duty cycles provided that counter electromotive force is returned to the battery.

But I see that no-one on this thread, and thus far, has managed to get the waveform into oscillation as per the paper. It's really not a problem. If you are getting a periodic waveform then your results will be more dependable than ours and you can do the power analysis directly off the resistor. No need to check the rate of temperature rise. The only requirement then is to run the switch at a reasonably fast frequency.

All that is then needed is to do the analysis of the power delivered by the battery. If you take measurements across your shunt as being a reasonable measure of the current flow then: The power delivered by the battery is the sum of, or in fact, THE DIFFERENCE between the positive and negative cycles of each switching cycle. This is based on the assumption that current flow is returned to the battery during the off period of that cycle. The power dissipated at the load is a product of both cycles. Self-evidently the sum, or difference will be less than the product.

And if this last point is in doubt - then disconnect one of the two 12 volt batteries - link the two at the positive terminals only - then take the diode directly to the second battery. It immediately recharges. Yet the voltage across the resistor does not change at all. This means that the power does indeed dissipate at the resistor that also generated that second cycle of current flow - and the same current also recharges the battery.

I wonder if the problem is that everyone is stuck on trying to get an exact replication of the test results. Just do the power analysis where you can get your best results. I am entirely confident that the sum of the two switching cycles will always be less than the product of the energy dissipated at the load. You're all probably already generating the required overunity result but without the oscillating frequency. There is then the possibility that the overunity result is not that extreme. But it should still be at overunity and from memory on periodic waveforms I believe that measure will be upwards of 100%.

And by the way, TinselKoala - a 90% on duty cycle would generate fantastic gains. It's just that it would also stress the intrinsic diode in the MOSFET. Unless the FET that you use has an intrinsic diode with a tolerance in excess of 2000 odd volts - it would blow at a 90% duty cyle from a 24 volt battery supply source. Therefore do I wonder how you managed to run the test at a 90% ON.

We have found that we need to limit the amount of energy precisely to accommodate that body diode. Else I'd be able to apply the system to my geyser - at home. This is the flaw in the system. We cannot get a diode with the required strength to carry household power levels. So any application at this stage can only be for small uses.

And, as a final point - if you can develop those uses - feel free. There are no requirements to pay royalties on patents. There is nothing that I'd love more than to hear that the system is in use. I believe that it is - in a small way. My co-author has just wired up a house here which uses the system as a backup charge system. But it's potentials are far, far greater. And I'm sure that with the talent on this forum you'll all find the potential uses. Or just persuade the mosfet manufacturers to increase the fet tolerances. Then the uses will indeed be far ranging.
__________________