View Single Post
 
Old 07-05-2009, 06:16 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
The following quotes from henieck's post.
- that is correct – and I am writing about the situation before you even turn on the transistor (or during the off cycle) – that the current goes: primary battery -> coil ->diode D1-> secondary battery (if its voltage is lover then the primary’s (minus losses).
I get it. Finally. And you're absolutely right. It'll charge until the batteries at at equilibrium. So. For purposes of proof - make sure the second battery is better charged than the first. Thanks henieck.

I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.

I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped. I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes. If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels. And the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern. I would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team. And I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum. I can never work out the motives of such people. The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded. Seems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123. His compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch. I just don't know. Also at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery. It needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle. If he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong. I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive. I think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate.

- the whole point of the exercise with battery is to direct charge flow through the circuit/load - not through the battery. Thanks to electrochemical reaction on one plate there are “too many” electrons – while on the other plate there are “too little” – so this way difference of potentials occurs and so on…

henieck, if there were more electrons on the one plate than the other as a result of current flow - then the potential difference measured across the battery would be greater? Surely? Is this describing a fully charged battery? In which case - when the electrons are transferred then it would still be imbalanced? Or does this mean that the when 50% of the electrons are transferred then the battery is 'flat'? If this is so then it is, at its least, a reasonable description of currrent as the flow of electrons. Presumably then the actual application of a battery recharger is to somehow redistribute that charge. I can still buy into it. In effect these 'free flowing' electrons on the metal of the circuit material, and as described by the classicists - are simply transferred from one terminal to the other until they achieve that balance. This is certainly logical. However current flow also requires an interaction of the electrons with the actual battery acid as this measurably changes as a result of current flow. That's where the 'free flow' of extraneous electrons comes into question.

So, indeed, your request that I 'please ponder on this sentence: electrons only go from one plate to the other (through the circuit)'. Indeed henieck - this is logical. There are STILL intrinsic problems, as you yourself have pointed out - but - with or without resolution of this problem - there is not need to change your view on this. As I repeatedly say - current, seen as a flow of electrons - has literally launched us into our technological age. And I get it. You're a pragmatist and quite simply want to MOVE ON. The fact is that I need to address this again but will do so under a separate post and its relevance is only for the purists who may, hopefully, want to tackle this problem. It is entirely irrelevant to the results on a switching circuit. It is only relevant as it relates to the explanation of the gain.
__________________