Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


Go Back   Energetic Forum > > >
   

Inductive Resistor Open source development of highly efficient inductive resistor circuits.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 06-23-2009, 03:23 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,191
Excellent Experimental Work

Dear TinselKoala,

Thank you for doing such an excellent experimental reproduction of Rosemary's original circuit. I hope Rosemary, who is watching this thread, will comment on your findings and address your question concerning the duty cycle issues.

Thank you, again.

Peter
__________________
 

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #92  
Old 06-23-2009, 04:15 PM
jibbguy jibbguy is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 987
Imo the differences here are likely more than suggested. Tinsel has reported not getting any heat output in the resistive element to speak of at the same duty cycle (3-4%); although he looks to have a very nice build indeed and his efforts are worth praise

However from my experience, i would state that an inversion error in duty cycle ("97" instead of "3") as he suggests could have happened, is highly unlikely in this case as the independent testing lab in North Carolina would have had to make the same exact simple blunder as the testers in South Africa... Time and again.

BELIEVE ME (with 27 years in the Test & Measurement field): If these great efficiency figures were reported by the first measurement cycle; they would be REPEATED with new eyes looking at them... Probably multiple times, as many would not really WANT to believe them. These guys in the independent lab and their bosses should have been getting very nervous about this test... It put them in the firing line and they knew it. So i doubt that a newbie or the guy who's clothes smelled like pot smoke would have been trusted to do this alone, at least without a repeat by another tester to verify the results

The Quantum article again:

http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...ent_energy.pdf

When calcs are done on a Digital Storage Oscilloscope or data acquisition system, they are not using the same circuitry or calcs used in DMM's (which of course are notorious for averaging errors with complex waveforms at higher F's). For low voltage applications, they are almost always done by using the standard DC amplifier front end of the 'scope for the raw signal, and then doing an "area under the curve" software calculation; therefor they are pretty reliable... Although analog Frequency Response, and more importantly, Digital Sample Rate would of course always be a huge factor in accuracy: Per-Channel Sample Rate should be at least 20 times faster than the fastest transient component for something like this. Since the transient F was described at between 180 to 200KHz, this should not be a problem for the scope that was used since it is rated at "200 MHz" (although the actual sample rate used was not listed).

One nice, and potentially important, thing about this portable model is that it would be "inherently isolated" in the same way all battery-powered scopes or DMM's are, verses most benchtop models with grounded wall-plug power supplies which are "Single-Ended to Ground" and NOT officially "Isolated" (...so putting probe leads across the "floating" resistive element, or across the MOSFET, could likely do BAD things to a Single Ended scope that plugs into the wall directly... Because in the amplifier circuit of those 'scopes, there is then only a resistor between the signal and Ground)... if no damage occurred, then there could at the very least be a "Ground Loop" effect that could seriously skew results (possibly dampening the pulse?).

As far as false triggering goes, it is pretty easy to see when this is happening for those who are familiar with it. With random non-repetitive signals (as Ms Ainslie reported), it is true that they can look the same as being "off-trigger"; however this is a storage scope; and it is presumed they used the capture feature at some point which completely negates false triggering issues... By showing a snap-shot of the signal at any chosen point in time... And again, the on-board measurements made by the scope are done via calcs on the displayed raw signal so they should be accurate for snap shots as well.

Fluke 199C specs:

http://www.transcat.com/PDF/190C_Scopemeter.pdf

They reported that all the data came from the DSO (presumably from its text readouts), so i would generally trust those much more than cheap DMM's for the True RMS averaging issues; although Fluke bench meters are known to be excellent regarding "True RMS" and other pulse averaging issues with complex waveforms too... They are an Industry Leader for good reasons

Frankly, imo it would appear to be very difficult to mix up 97% and 3% when looking at the scope screen.... Especially over and over again (lol but not impossible! Worse things have happened.. The "invert" button could have been on, but you would think SOMEONE would have caught that ).

But it would of course be very helpful to get feedback from Ms. Ainslie or one of her colleagues on Tinsel's well-made points . She stated she is not available for comment on the circuit itself only on theoretical aspects; but perhaps one of the peeps mentioned in the Quantum article could be of help instead (such as Mr. Buckley)?

Also stated in the article is that the resistive element was made by a company named "Specific Heat CC", they may have some insights on the characteristics of this inductor/resistor, perhaps a spec sheet on the item is available.
__________________
 

Last edited by jibbguy; 06-23-2009 at 04:39 PM.
  #93  
Old 06-23-2009, 04:41 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,562
self-oscillation

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
Also stated in the article is that the resistive element was made by a company named "Specific Heat CC"
I searched and almost nothing comes up about Specific Heat CC.

Also, am I correct in what I have read so far in this thread that nobody has been able to get the mosfet into self-oscillation?

From the Quantum article: "Reducing the gate current of the mosfet results in an oscillation that overrides the predetermined frequency and duty cycle."

So basically increasing resistance to the base until it self-oscillates just like in any Bedini type circuit or similar with a transistor - to my understanding of her explanation.

The self-oscillation is said to have this difference:
From 3.7% duty cycle @ 2.4 kHz to 1.3% duty cycle @ 143 kHz to 200 kHz
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #94  
Old 06-23-2009, 06:18 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
@jibbguy:
I don't know anything about other independent replications or their chances of error. All I can say is that I built the circuit shown in the Quantum article that you linked, from that diagram right there on the page (or rather a cleaned up version of it), and it produces the long ON duty cycle that I have demonstrated, and with the specified component values it CANNOT be made to produce the short one.
I found it strange and interesting that, in the EIT paper describing this experiment, when making the power calculations she nowhere describes the process as "integrating the instantaneous power waveform over time" to derive the energy, which the oscilloscope used is surely capable of doing, but rather describes a different process done in the spreadsheet--which may or may not be equivalent, depending on how the duty cycle was figured into the spreadsheet calculation. Also strange and interesting, in that article, is the omission of the problematic 555 circuitry.
(I see now that the 19oC doesn't do integration directly on board, but the ScopeMeter software, IIRC, can do it in the computer. Did they use this feature for power calcs?)

"Frankly, imo it would appear to be very difficult to mix up 97% and 3% when looking at the scope screen.... Especially over and over again (lol but not impossible! Worse things have happened.. The "invert" button could have been on, but you would think SOMEONE would have caught that ). "

So you would think. Of course, those silly Fluke-o-scopes have an annoying habit of showing you what it thinks you want to see, especially if you acccidentallly hit the "auto" button at any time during measurement.

Did you watch my second video? The inverted waveform looks pretty good.

I wonder why no scope shots from her experiments have been published, showing the waveforms.

@Aaron:
You will note that in my build, since I did not have the original article at first and did not know the value of the attenuating potentiometer in the EIT article's diagram, I used a 200K ohm pot. So I can indeed reduce the gate drive, much farther than can be done with the 100R pot specified in the Quantum article.
BTW, this 100R pot does almost nothing at all in my build. It changes some higher-order features of the waveform, which perhaps could have induced false triggering. But it certainly isn't able to induce any kind of strange behaviour in the mosfet .
Will the IRFPG50 mosfet behave differently than the 2sk1548 that I am using? There's one way to find out. But I'm not going to spend any more of my money on this until somebody can make a better case than just saying "it's the wrong transistor." So if somebody wants to send me their precious IRFPG50 for testing and comparison in my circuit, PM me and we can make arrangements.

"The self-oscillation is said to have this difference:
From 3.7% duty cycle @ 2.4 kHz to 1.3% duty cycle @ 143 kHz to 200 kHz"

Said by whom? How was this determined? Can a scope shot be found?

The load resistor as described is an ordinary high-wattage wire-wound hollow ceramic resistor, as far as I can tell, so that's what I used. The physical dimensions are right, the inductance is close.
If anybody can make a case for using something different I'd be glad to do so.
__________________
 
  #95  
Old 06-23-2009, 07:04 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
@jibbguy:
I don't know anything about other independent replications or their chances of error. All I can say is that I built the circuit shown in the Quantum article that you linked, from that diagram right there on the page (or rather a cleaned up version of it), and it produces the long ON duty cycle that I have demonstrated, and with the specified component values it CANNOT be made to produce the short one.
I found it strange and interesting that, in the EIT paper describing this experiment, when making the power calculations she nowhere describes the process as "integrating the instantaneous power waveform over time" to derive the energy, which the oscilloscope used is surely capable of doing, but rather describes a different process done in the spreadsheet--which may or may not be equivalent, depending on how the duty cycle was figured into the spreadsheet calculation. Also strange and interesting, in that article, is the omission of the problematic 555 circuitry.
(I see now that the 19oC doesn't do integration directly on board, but the ScopeMeter software, IIRC, can do it in the computer. Did they use this feature for power calcs?)

"Frankly, imo it would appear to be very difficult to mix up 97% and 3% when looking at the scope screen.... Especially over and over again (lol but not impossible! Worse things have happened.. The "invert" button could have been on, but you would think SOMEONE would have caught that ). "

So you would think. Of course, those silly Fluke-o-scopes have an annoying habit of showing you what it thinks you want to see, especially if you acccidentallly hit the "auto" button at any time during measurement.

Did you watch my second video? The inverted waveform looks pretty good.

I wonder why no scope shots from her experiments have been published, showing the waveforms.

@Aaron:
You will note that in my build, since I did not have the original article at first and did not know the value of the attenuating potentiometer in the EIT article's diagram, I used a 200K ohm pot. So I can indeed reduce the gate drive, much farther than can be done with the 100R pot specified in the Quantum article.
BTW, this 100R pot does almost nothing at all in my build. It changes some higher-order features of the waveform, which perhaps could have induced false triggering. But it certainly isn't able to induce any kind of strange behaviour in the mosfet .
Will the IRFPG50 mosfet behave differently than the 2sk1548 that I am using? There's one way to find out. But I'm not going to spend any more of my money on this until somebody can make a better case than just saying "it's the wrong transistor." So if somebody wants to send me their precious IRFPG50 for testing and comparison in my circuit, PM me and we can make arrangements.

"The self-oscillation is said to have this difference:
From 3.7% duty cycle @ 2.4 kHz to 1.3% duty cycle @ 143 kHz to 200 kHz"

Said by whom? How was this determined? Can a scope shot be found?

The load resistor as described is an ordinary high-wattage wire-wound hollow ceramic resistor, as far as I can tell, so that's what I used. The physical dimensions are right, the inductance is close.
If anybody can make a case for using something different I'd be glad to do so.
@All
I have a problem in the accuracy of the diagram of the 555 PWM that is shown in the Quantum 2002 Article, my primary concern is Pin#6, the Threshold. It is connected to nothing but the capacitor as indicated.

555 PWM's can indeed get to low ON duty cycle rates. I use them all the time and they work quite fine if you select the values properly, as any good spec and sample sheet will provide.

For one of the simplest PWM's I have seem out there one can see this link.
DPRG: A Simple PWM Circuit Based on the 555 Timer

I doubt very, very much that a number of people made the same Electronics 101 mistake.
__________________
 
  #96  
Old 06-23-2009, 08:24 PM
jibbguy jibbguy is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 987
Small Clarification: When i mentioned "area under the curve" i was not suggesting they did a proper "Integration" as a specific measurement... I was simply "Differentiating" ( ) between the usual complaints of possible error we see with DMM's using mainly hardware-generated calcs... Which should not be a factor with DSO's that use the more reliable "soft" calcs done on board in nearly "real-time" (... RMS based mainly on calculating "Area" then further massaging the result), on the original signal trace.... Verses running the signal through an actual circuit to convert it into a conditioned DC representation before sending it to the A-to-D as most DMM's do.

Regarding the scope set-up errors you suggest could be involved here (such as letting the dreaded "Auto Setup" have it's head, which i totally agree is always a bad idea, lol...): Again we would have to conclude that the North Carolina lab people made the same exact error (and it's no "little" one, either; it's a "duzie")... Lol and one thing i do remember about instruments' "auto setups" are, that expecting them to work the exact same way twice is very dicey

But the problem of not getting the 555 to duty cycle that low is very interesting for sure.
__________________
 
  #97  
Old 06-23-2009, 08:46 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 912
I find it a tid bit odd that such duty cycles are chosen for the frequency at hand. In my opinion, the duty cycle should reflect inductive time constants dictated by the inductor. The frequency then should take into consideration the time it takes for the inductor to discharge into the capacitor, which would be around (.5 * fn) of the would be tank that is created by the inductor and cap (Fn is the natural freq, one half is used because we are only interested in one half of the cycle, the discharge) . From what I see here, there is a ton of "dead" time in between cycles, this directly relates to efficiency.

Maybe things were drawn out to have measurements over a very long period of time?

Not sure, but if it takes such a small time to charge the inductor, why would it take 33times longer for it to discharge.....it doesnt, the ideal proportions are not exact to the 50 / 50 standard duty cycle, but much closer than 3% - 97%.

just a thought.

Fantastic work guys, This is a thread to be envious of. No BS, brings a tear to my eye.
__________________
 

Last edited by Armagdn03; 06-23-2009 at 08:50 PM.
  #98  
Old 06-24-2009, 01:14 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,562
quantum article quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
"The self-oscillation is said to have this difference:
From 3.7% duty cycle @ 2.4 kHz to 1.3% duty cycle @ 143 kHz to 200 kHz"

Said by whom? How was this determined? Can a scope shot be found?
This is a quote directly from the Quantum magazine article.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #99  
Old 06-24-2009, 03:25 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
@All
I have a problem in the accuracy of the diagram of the 555 PWM that is shown in the Quantum 2002 Article, my primary concern is Pin#6, the Threshold. It is connected to nothing but the capacitor as indicated.

555 PWM's can indeed get to low ON duty cycle rates. I use them all the time and they work quite fine if you select the values properly, as any good spec and sample sheet will provide.

For one of the simplest PWM's I have seem out there one can see this link.
DPRG: A Simple PWM Circuit Based on the 555 Timer

I doubt very, very much that a number of people made the same Electronics 101 mistake.
Please take another look at the diagram in the article. The pin names are out of register with the wire leads. The pin 6 threshold is connected normally, to pin 2 and to the diodes D1, D2 and capacitor C3.

If there is an error in the circuit, it isn't this one. I doubt very very much if anyone would make that Electronics 101 mistake. Especially since the diagram is pretty clear.
__________________
 
  #100  
Old 06-24-2009, 03:55 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
This is a quote directly from the Quantum magazine article.
Thanks--I see it now. It was split over two pages and I missed it.
Unfortunately my MOSFET doesn't behave this way.
It sure would have been nice to see a scope shot though.
__________________
 
  #101  
Old 06-24-2009, 04:05 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jibbguy View Post
Small Clarification: When i mentioned "area under the curve" i was not suggesting they did a proper "Integration" as a specific measurement... I was simply "Differentiating" ( ) between the usual complaints of possible error we see with DMM's using mainly hardware-generated calcs... Which should not be a factor with DSO's that use the more reliable "soft" calcs done on board in nearly "real-time" (... RMS based mainly on calculating "Area" then further massaging the result), on the original signal trace.... Verses running the signal through an actual circuit to convert it into a conditioned DC representation before sending it to the A-to-D as most DMM's do.

Regarding the scope set-up errors you suggest could be involved here (such as letting the dreaded "Auto Setup" have it's head, which i totally agree is always a bad idea, lol...): Again we would have to conclude that the North Carolina lab people made the same exact error (and it's no "little" one, either; it's a "duzie")... Lol and one thing i do remember about instruments' "auto setups" are, that expecting them to work the exact same way twice is very dicey

But the problem of not getting the 555 to duty cycle that low is very interesting for sure.
Umm.
I have located a FLuke 199 Scopemeter to play with. And as I had recalled correctly, the "trace invert" function isn't a real button on the panel, rather it's a "check box" buried 2 levels down in a software menu and its setting is not displayed during signal measurement.

Is it possible to get access to the original report of the North Carolina lab's replication?

And I have checked, yet again, the timing component values and hookups of the 555 circuit, just to make sure my caps weren't marked wrong or misconnected or something.

Can't somebody just breadboard up the 555 circuit from the Quantum article and see if I am right about the duty cycle? I hope I have made a mistake, because this is an interesting project and I'd like to proceed to the output measurements...but if the whole claim of excess energy is based on an erroneous duty cycle setting there isn't much point, is there?
__________________
 
  #102  
Old 06-24-2009, 04:43 PM
poii poii is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 27
Cap charge

Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
I find it a tid bit odd that such duty cycles are chosen for the frequency at hand. In my opinion, the duty cycle should reflect inductive time constants dictated by the inductor. The frequency then should take into consideration the time it takes for the inductor to discharge into the capacitor, which would be around (.5 * fn) of the would be tank that is created by the inductor and cap (Fn is the natural freq, one half is used because we are only interested in one half of the cycle, the discharge) . From what I see here, there is a ton of "dead" time in between cycles, this directly relates to efficiency.

Maybe things were drawn out to have measurements over a very long period of time?

Not sure, but if it takes such a small time to charge the inductor, why would it take 33times longer for it to discharge.....it doesnt, the ideal proportions are not exact to the 50 / 50 standard duty cycle, but much closer than 3% - 97%.

just a thought.

Fantastic work guys, This is a thread to be envious of. No BS, brings a tear to my eye.
I did a SIMetrix simulation starting with a 3% duty cycle @2.4khz and there was a huge current spike on the first cycle and <10% of that on the following pulses "if " they were in phase. The current wave form on all pulses was like:

l
l
l
l
l
l
l
ll
ll
ll
l l
l l
l \___----
l



I think to the left of the flat part of the curve is the cap charge and to the right is the inductor.
It seemed like power in was minimum if the pulse was shortened to just after zero slope with little effect on the strength of the ring.


Ditto on the:
Fantastic work guys, This is a thread to be envious of. No BS.
__________________
 
  #103  
Old 06-24-2009, 04:47 PM
Allcanadian's Avatar
Allcanadian Allcanadian is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 659
@All
Does anyone find it odd that so many well educated people could have so much trouble with a circuit that in it's basic form requires only five simple components? A source of potential(a low voltage DC source battery), an inductance (resistive wire wrapped in a solenoidal form), a capacitance to store energy, diodes to direct current flow and a means to disrupt or produce change within the circuit(a switch). A man by the the name of Victor Schauberger once stated that we should comprehend and copy nature but it seems we have little if no understanding of how nature charges her atoms or how such an incredible range of motions found in nature would seem effortless, why is it that we suppose to understand everything from the quantum world to the cosmos yet I am willing to bet few can tell me exactly how a simple tree can transport large volumes of water upward to it's extremities in a single day, why the wind blows, why no two snowflakes are alike?.
Concerning the circuit of Rosemary Ainslie, I have built countless circuits which utilize exactly the same effects and it should be understood that there are two distinct currents at play in this circuit, each having distinct qualities and these qualities can produce very different effects in each component at any given time. I have another question for some of you, why do you spend so much time and effort to disprove Rosemary Ainslie's circuit? It would seem many have made up their mind before they have even started. Personally I can tell you that I found success when I stopped making excuses for my failures, my personal failure to understand---as there is no one else to blame. If you can do this then you may find yourself looking back and wondering what in the hell you were thinking--this is easy, you may also find yourself wondering what everyone else could possibly be thinking, LOL.
Regards
AC
__________________
 

Last edited by Allcanadian; 06-24-2009 at 04:51 PM.
  #104  
Old 06-24-2009, 08:08 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allcanadian View Post
@All
Does anyone find it odd that so many well educated people could have so much trouble with a circuit that in it's basic form requires only five simple components? A source of potential(a low voltage DC source battery), an inductance (resistive wire wrapped in a solenoidal form), a capacitance to store energy, diodes to direct current flow and a means to disrupt or produce change within the circuit(a switch). A man by the the name of Victor Schauberger once stated that we should comprehend and copy nature but it seems we have little if no understanding of how nature charges her atoms or how such an incredible range of motions found in nature would seem effortless, why is it that we suppose to understand everything from the quantum world to the cosmos yet I am willing to bet few can tell me exactly how a simple tree can transport large volumes of water upward to it's extremities in a single day, why the wind blows, why no two snowflakes are alike?.
Concerning the circuit of Rosemary Ainslie, I have built countless circuits which utilize exactly the same effects and it should be understood that there are two distinct currents at play in this circuit, each having distinct qualities and these qualities can produce very different effects in each component at any given time. I have another question for some of you, why do you spend so much time and effort to disprove Rosemary Ainslie's circuit? It would seem many have made up their mind before they have even started. Personally I can tell you that I found success when I stopped making excuses for my failures, my personal failure to understand---as there is no one else to blame. If you can do this then you may find yourself looking back and wondering what in the hell you were thinking--this is easy, you may also find yourself wondering what everyone else could possibly be thinking, LOL.
Regards
AC
@Allcanadian
At least from my view I 'am not' trying to prove anything wrong with her work. I will say that the diagram in the Quantum article must have been copied into the article as it is not going to do what is stated in the text. Some one that is versed is reading cryptic diagrams or reading between the lines may go for it, but my direction is to meet the text description.

Now having said that I might jump onto using a generator and not the 555, but in 5 minutes you can build a 555 PWM that meets the requirement, sans the article. I have seen some strange thing happen when you drive isolated gate circuits from a 555, therefore when I first saw this thread I constructed the coil to meet spec as far as L and R, the difference is I wound it on Pyrex so it would work in mu calorimeter.

I have included a few pictures, scope and coil. So far I see no oscillations, but the turn off time of the MosFet is very long, strange.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg an000.jpg (17.5 KB, 56 views)
File Type: jpg an001.jpg (20.2 KB, 48 views)
__________________
 
  #105  
Old 06-25-2009, 01:47 AM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
It's rather amazing to see how this is running. A worker publishes an article with a circuit in it, in black and white. The article is presented over and over during several years, and astounding claims are made for the behaviour of the published circuit--which has appeared on sites endorsed by the original researcher.

Now, when another researcher innocently tries to build and test THE EXACT CIRCUIT published and apparently endorsed in the article, he finds that a critical feature does not perform as stated, and it has nothing to do with the MOSFET or its characteristics.

So what happens? "The circuit was inserted in the article, it's cryptic, it leaves something out..." or "It's a misprint" or something else.

But strangely, the specified "misprint" cryptic circuit is easy to build and check, and strangely, produces the exact specified frequency range and the exact INVERTED pulse width waveform...accidentally...from an inserted misprint...

OK, I agree: it's hard to argue with logic like that.

(And Dr Stiifler your scope shots are missing important details. I don't see any ringdown or inductive spikes on the trailing edge. Try turning off "bandwidth limiting."
My circuit's mosfet pulses track the input pulses well, I don't see the long turnoff delays that you have shown, at short or long duty cycles. I'm sure you will see heating since your mosfet is staying on half the time.
Have you tried building the EXACT 555 circuit listed in the Quantum article? There is a cleaned up version on overunity that may be easier for you to read, since you seem to have trouble with the Quantum version...)

And still, the issue, as far as I am concerned, is this: did the testing reported in the Quantum article use the circuit specified in the Quantum article, or not? If so, what about the inverted duty cycle? If not, what circuit WAS used and how did the wrong one get in there?
__________________
 

Last edited by TinselKoala; 06-25-2009 at 01:57 AM.
  #106  
Old 06-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Gauss Gauss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 233
IF her circuit would have worked she would have sold 1000s of samples over the web a long time ago after she first published her findings, there is no hard parts to master in her circuit so letīs just agree on the massive probability this is just useless tech and a waste of time.

I am inclined to believe Rose-Mary has very limited electronics expertise and has trusted a guy behind her, and this guy was just wrong. Why Mr Lindemann has put months and months of his extremely valuable time(interviewing the woman and not building anything) into this without just replicating the circuit in a few hours in his professional lab seeing the poor results for himself instead of letting Tinselkoala do all the work and disprove his "thrills" yet again, well....

There is no logic in this circuit being able to heat water. Look at Meyerīs steam resonator instead, there is at least some logics to back it up with the water dipole structure. And the level of circuitry is also considerrably higher.
__________________
 
  #107  
Old 06-25-2009, 10:12 AM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,134
Gaus, there IS much logic behind all this. As I have stated above, I have seen as much as 4x greater currents flowing through the coils than what is coming out from the power supply. And any current that is flowing through a resistance, will create heat. So I have no reason not to believe Rosemary or Peter.
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.
  #108  
Old 06-25-2009, 11:35 AM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
It's rather amazing to see how this is running. A worker publishes an article with a circuit in it, in black and white. The article is presented over and over during several years, and astounding claims are made for the behaviour of the published circuit--which has appeared on sites endorsed by the original researcher.

Now, when another researcher innocently tries to build and test THE EXACT CIRCUIT published and apparently endorsed in the article, he finds that a critical feature does not perform as stated, and it has nothing to do with the MOSFET or its characteristics.

So what happens? "The circuit was inserted in the article, it's cryptic, it leaves something out..." or "It's a misprint" or something else.

But strangely, the specified "misprint" cryptic circuit is easy to build and check, and strangely, produces the exact specified frequency range and the exact INVERTED pulse width waveform...accidentally...from an inserted misprint...

OK, I agree: it's hard to argue with logic like that.

(And Dr Stiifler your scope shots are missing important details. I don't see any ringdown or inductive spikes on the trailing edge. Try turning off "bandwidth limiting."
My circuit's mosfet pulses track the input pulses well, I don't see the long turnoff delays that you have shown, at short or long duty cycles. I'm sure you will see heating since your mosfet is staying on half the time.
Have you tried building the EXACT 555 circuit listed in the Quantum article? There is a cleaned up version on overunity that may be easier for you to read, since you seem to have trouble with the Quantum version...)

And still, the issue, as far as I am concerned, is this: did the testing reported in the Quantum article use the circuit specified in the Quantum article, or not? If so, what about the inverted duty cycle? If not, what circuit WAS used and how did the wrong one get in there?
@TinselKoala
Your right I'm just clueless....
As far as clouding a scope shot that integrates to near nothing, I missed the point again, monster hv spikes are magic.
__________________
 
  #109  
Old 06-25-2009, 12:15 PM
Gauss Gauss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 233
And what is the simple logics of physics for this unit and did you hear about reactive energy and phase angle?

Are you sure you are measuring correctly what you are inputting integrating the duty cycle input, it seems like many experimenters just repeat the same mistakes about true input. Tinselkoalaīs results show us the truth, no need to waste your time on this.

IF Peterīs circuit from 2009-02-15(or Rose-Maryīs circuit for that matter) would have worked he would have told us long ago.... Instead he is showing us his circuit designs but not telling us anything about his results when building it himself(if he ever tried to build anything that he drew)....... Funny isnīt it, a guy draws stuff but does not tell us how his circuit is performing.....

Why is it there?..

Peter is preaching about stuff(after we discussed Witts functional water heater with COP of 10 000 he wanted to change focus suddenly) but has nothing to show after months of "work" on the phone with Rose-Mary without building any of her circuits and checking the results before preaching about "thrills" about this super simple circuit performing magics.

Just consider how Peter is working. Many threads, alot of speculations, no experiments, never showing any test results by himself despite drawing alot of printer paper circuits, changing subjects often, refuses to visit Witts COP 10 000 unit in Ohio but he reportedly spends months of work time for free on Rose-Mary Ainsley from South Africa, has spent 20+ fruitless years on FE research... Reportedly lives off FE book revenues. See a pattern anyone?

No wonder we are still stuck with fossil fuels.....

Letīs continue building the Steam resonator shall we...

When Peter or anyone else gets this Rose-Mary circuit working I will gladly take back what I said but not before I see that unit working. Which probably will not be today... I suggest everyone turns their head to logics which is that water is a dipole.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetijs View Post
Gaus, there IS much logic behind all this. As I have stated above, I have seen as much as 4x greater currents flowing through the coils than what is coming out from the power supply. And any current that is flowing through a resistance, will create heat. So I have no reason not to believe Rosemary or Peter.
__________________
 
  #110  
Old 06-25-2009, 03:08 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
@TinselKoala
Your right I'm just clueless....
As far as clouding a scope shot that integrates to near nothing, I missed the point again, monster hv spikes are magic.
Nobody is saying you are clueless; I follow your work and I acknowledge that you are doing good work.

But you did make that error in looking at the 555 diagram in the Quantum article..."pin six connections..."

And it seems that understanding integration of an instantaneous power waveform is at the root of the problem being discussed in this thread. Many people apparently do believe that monster HV spikes are magic--because that is the only conceivable mechanism for power transfer to the Ainslie load, IF her circuit is in fact using the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle that she claims.
However, IF her circuit is as published, and if my build of it is correct, the main mystery goes away--because it is unremarkable for a load resistor to get warm when it's provided with 50 watts of power on a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, and it's unremarkable for a storage battery to indicate anomalously high voltage for its state of charge, if it has been subjected to HV spikes during "charging".

So please calm down Dr Stiffler, and if you really want to add to knowledge, please breadboard up the exact 555 timer circuit from the Quantum article and tell us how it behaves. Did I build it wrong, or does the Quantum circuit really provide 96.3 percent ON??

And if Ainslie is reading this thread, can you at least tell us for sure one way or the other: is the circuit in the Quantum article correct or not?
__________________
 
  #111  
Old 06-25-2009, 03:30 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 912
Accidental Post
__________________
 

Last edited by Armagdn03; 06-25-2009 at 04:03 PM.
  #112  
Old 06-25-2009, 03:42 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
Nobody is saying you are clueless; I follow your work and I acknowledge that you are doing good work.

But you did make that error in looking at the 555 diagram in the Quantum article..."pin six connections..."

And it seems that understanding integration of an instantaneous power waveform is at the root of the problem being discussed in this thread. Many people apparently do believe that monster HV spikes are magic--because that is the only conceivable mechanism for power transfer to the Ainslie load, IF her circuit is in fact using the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle that she claims.
However, IF her circuit is as published, and if my build of it is correct, the main mystery goes away--because it is unremarkable for a load resistor to get warm when it's provided with 50 watts of power on a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, and it's unremarkable for a storage battery to indicate anomalously high voltage for its state of charge, if it has been subjected to HV spikes during "charging".

So please calm down Dr Stiffler, and if you really want to add to knowledge, please breadboard up the exact 555 timer circuit from the Quantum article and tell us how it behaves. Did I build it wrong, or does the Quantum circuit really provide 96.3 percent ON??

And if Ainslie is reading this thread, can you at least tell us for sure one way or the other: is the circuit in the Quantum article correct or not?
@TinselKoala
Oh, don't get me wrong either 'I'm very calm', yet I fail to understand your continued pointing to the circuit in the Quantum Article?? I guess you have never experienced making a mistake in a circuit diagram versus the actual circuit? Well rest assured I most likely 99% of the rest of the technical world has at least once. In fact I do get very upset when my circuits leave my control, you start depending on others to transcribe for you and you have trouble.

I have no intention of building the circuit from the article, not just because I fell it was amateurishly drawn and one had to match wires with mis-positioned captions but I knew from looking at it there was a problem, maybe you should look again.

Anyway I built as stated a 555 PWN to match the 'test' description of operation. I have no doubt in my mind at all that under the right conditions an oscillation can take place as described. I did indeed a few years back build a circuit that worked in a parametric pumping mode and was a result of just such an oscillation: You can see the circuit at stifflerscientific.com/images/CE4Cir01.gif.

Now in testing her circuit I am currently doing the tables of the data obtained. No! I have yet to see excess heat, but far better than 50%. Indeed the last was 83% and this does not account for the missing heat from the FET. Sooo...

There is a page I posted somewhere on this thread that I am updating, so if you were so inclined to could look now and then.

So how about in the interest of not turning this into some show thread we drop the interpretation of the Quantum Drawing? I see it different than you and find no fault in the errors, you see it different, so whats to banter about here, we see it differently, right?
__________________
 
  #113  
Old 06-25-2009, 05:09 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
I really do not understand this.
An article is published with a circuit diagram. Claims are made that the circuit performs in such and such a manner.
When somebody FINALLY actually builds the exact circuit it is found NOT to behave as claimed; in fact it behaves exactly OPPOSITE to the claimed behaviour.
I submit that this is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve "by accident" or by misprint. Any misprint or incorrect component values in the 555 circuit would have resulted in it not working at all, or making some random combo of freq and DC. But the published circuit has the correct frequency range and the correct Duty Cycle ratio--just inverted.

This is, again, impossible to have by accident.

Additionally, the published circuit generating the inverted duty cycle DOES produce the heating in the load that Ainslie reported, while everybody who is using an actual FG or some other source producing a known 3.7 percent ON duty cycle is NOT seeing much or any heating of the load.

Again, impossible to have by accident.

Now, you might not think it significant that the published data from the researcher herself contains either the wrong circuit diagram that was NOT used in the tests, or the right diagram but faulty interpretation of results--
But I certainly do. One way or the other, the article is wrong. There are simply no two ways about it. Either the diagram is wrong and should be retracted and replaced with the correct diagram by the author, OR the data and interpretations are wrong and should be retracted by the author.
OR, of course, it's possible that my build of the 555 is wrong--even though I've built 3 different copies of it by now--which is why I have kept on asking for someone else to build the exact 555 circuit from the Quantum article published by Rosemary Ainslie, and tell me whether they get what I get or not. If I am wrong I will gladly retract my findings and go on to calorimetry.
However if I am right...it has certain implications that are not trivial.

But for goodness sakes, why is there so much resistance to building and testing a simple circuit? I would have thought that people would be especially eager to PROVE ME WRONG, regardless of how they might feel about Ainslie or OU in general. Just construct the 555 circuit and tell us what kind of Duty Cycle it produces, and tell us what implications that finding has for results quoted in the Quantum article and the EIT pdf paper.

Please.
__________________
 
  #114  
Old 06-25-2009, 05:14 PM
Allcanadian's Avatar
Allcanadian Allcanadian is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 659
@jetijs
Quote:
As I have stated above, I have seen as much as 4x greater currents flowing through the coils than what is coming out from the power supply. And any current that is flowing through a resistance, will create heat. So I have no reason not to believe Rosemary or Peter.
I would agree, irregardless of any errors made in any publications, a person skilled in the art should understand it is the spirit or intent that matters. As well there is an issue of common sense, You should at least have a premise in mind when building, that is some idea of what you believe is required to produce a successful outcome as it relates to what was presented initially. Some major issues I have with any validation also concerns substitution of critical components. For example if a different Mosfet is used, is the internal resistance the same?, is the gate capacity the same?, is the internal diode threshold the same, what are the rise and fall times?. As well concerning the wire wound resistance, what is the former material? is it ceramic?, what is the metallic content?, if so what are the concentrations?, what is the crystalline structure and concentration of any quartz in the ceramic?-- if it is a coated ceramic then there are dielectric properties to consider, at peak transient voltages the wire may charge the ceramic dielectric and discharge within itself or through the conductor. What is the size and mass of the former relative to wire--this is a capacitive issue regarding surface area. To conclude, I can basically write you a book regarding the properties of the five simple components in this circuit and in every case the properties of every component can be considered as critical to an accurate outcome in some way and this does not even include the external field geometries, there phase relationships or magnitudes. In regards to experiments and constuction of prototypes I have one simple rule ---- everything matters, every detail no matter how small.
Regards
AC
__________________
 

Last edited by Allcanadian; 06-25-2009 at 05:19 PM.
  #115  
Old 06-25-2009, 05:27 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Here's my award-winning chocolate cake recipe. It's been independently reproduced by cooks at the University of the Trees, and has won many county fair awards. I can't seem to get it published in any cookbooks, but that's because the editors are too traditional and can't see the innovations of my recipe.

Take one large sack of ready-mix concrete
one gallon of water
twenty pounds of clean beach sand
and some dark brown Tempera paint powder.

Place solid ingredients in a wheelbarrow; slowly add water with stirring until ingredients are folded in.

Pour mixture into a large cake pan and let sit overnight.

Voila! An award-winning chocolate cake.

I encourage replicators. This recipe is foolproof, and you can even alter certain ingredients and it will still work.




What's that you say? All you get is a brown block of concrete?

Well, perhaps there's a misprint in my recipe. That shouldn't matter at all, should it?
Just alter the recipe however you want, to get a chocolate cake that you like. Don't worry that my theory of chocolate cakes is based on my recipe being correct...And don't worry that your "replication" is no longer a replication, but is instead a fantasy trip...
__________________
 
  #116  
Old 06-25-2009, 05:41 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allcanadian View Post
@jetijs

I would agree, irregardless of any errors made in any publications, a person skilled in the art should understand it is the spirit or intent that matters. As well there is an issue of common sense, You should at least have a premise in mind when building, that is some idea of what you believe is required to produce a successful outcome as it relates to what was presented initially. Some major issues I have with any validation also concerns substitution of critical components. For example if a different Mosfet is used, is the internal resistance the same?, is the gate capacity the same?, is the internal diode threshold the same, what are the rise and fall times?. As well concerning the wire wound resistance, what is the former material? is it ceramic?, what is the metallic content?, if so what are the concentrations?, what is the crystalline structure and concentration of any quartz in the ceramic?-- if it is a coated ceramic then there are dielectric properties to consider, at peak transient voltages the wire may charge the ceramic dielectric and discharge within itself or through the conductor. What is the size and mass of the former relative to wire--this is a capacitive issue regarding surface area. To conclude, I can basically write you a book regarding the properties of the five simple components in this circuit and in every case the properties of every component can be considered as critical to an accurate outcome in some way and this does not even include the external field geometries, there phase relationships or magnitudes. In regards to experiments and constuction of prototypes I have one simple rule ---- everything matters, every detail no matter how small.
Regards
AC
Then you should be really concerned about the substitution of a function generator for the 555 circuit published in the Quantum article.

The circuit I built is from the Quantum publication. If there is an error in printing, what is the correct circuit? If there is no error in printing, what is the explanation for the inverted duty cycle?
Perhaps there's also an error in printing the power balance figures, or the type of MOSFET used, or...
If every detail, no matter how small, matters, why has the "misprint" if it is such, been allowed to remain in place for so long?
And if every detail, no matter how small, matters as you say, how can anyone ever expect to reproduce the quoted results? Especially if the published diagram is wrong...

I maintain that the published diagram is probably NOT wrong, because the circuit built with that diagram WORKS--that is, it heats the resistor, the current and voltage values are correct, and so forth. The only thing that is wrong is that the input power is miscalculated because of the inverted duty cycle.
On the other hand, when people use the stated 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, they get mostly...nothing.


(Oh, and by the way, I have now tried 3 different N-channel MOSFETS in my build and they all behave substantially the same--except the IRFP450, which gives a similar long turn-off time to DrStiffler's mosfet--but not quite that long, only about double the initial pulse width. But if I turn the gate drive resistor down (to low resistance) the response pulse shortens and squares off and the turn-off delay is now mostly in the inductive ringdown. I also tried a high-voltage silicon junction transistor, BU508A, which I believe promptly failed, but it made an interesting waveform before it went...)
__________________
 
  #117  
Old 06-25-2009, 05:49 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allcanadian View Post
@jetijs

I would agree, irregardless of any errors made in any publications, a person skilled in the art should understand it is the spirit or intent that matters. As well there is an issue of common sense, You should at least have a premise in mind when building, that is some idea of what you believe is required to produce a successful outcome as it relates to what was presented initially. Some major issues I have with any validation also concerns substitution of critical components. For example if a different Mosfet is used, is the internal resistance the same?, is the gate capacity the same?, is the internal diode threshold the same, what are the rise and fall times?. As well concerning the wire wound resistance, what is the former material? is it ceramic?, what is the metallic content?, if so what are the concentrations?, what is the crystalline structure and concentration of any quartz in the ceramic?-- if it is a coated ceramic then there are dielectric properties to consider, at peak transient voltages the wire may charge the ceramic dielectric and discharge within itself or through the conductor. What is the size and mass of the former relative to wire--this is a capacitive issue regarding surface area. To conclude, I can basically write you a book regarding the properties of the five simple components in this circuit and in every case the properties of every component can be considered as critical to an accurate outcome in some way and this does not even include the external field geometries, there phase relationships or magnitudes. In regards to experiments and constuction of prototypes I have one simple rule ---- everything matters, every detail no matter how small.
Regards
AC
@Allcanadian
Accurately and professionally stated, except you left out the second book on thermodynamics and how to properly construct, calibrate and interpret a calorimetry. I'm now 1000% sure this could take years the way tis thread has digressed, I would think it time for for someone to put a stop to it or it has become just another beat my chest forum.
__________________
 
  #118  
Old 06-25-2009, 05:52 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
So why can't I edit out my spelling errors?

@Moderator

Why if the 'Edit' button is available and one does an edit followed by a 'Save', nothing happens?

If its not possible to do an edit, should the edit button be there?
__________________
 
  #119  
Old 06-25-2009, 06:03 PM
Joit Joit is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
@Moderator

Why if the 'Edit' button is available and one does an edit followed by a 'Save', nothing happens?

If its not possible to do an edit, should the edit button be there?
Sometimes it just happens, i would try it to edit later again.
I can not edit some Posts few Minutes later, too.
But a bit later i can.
Seems, first someone has to have a look at the Topic.
__________________
Theorizer are like High Voltage. A lot hot Air with no Power behind but they are the dead of applied Work and Ideas.
  #120  
Old 06-25-2009, 06:05 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Gee, and I thought this thread was about replicating Ainslie's claimed COP>17 overunity circuit that was published in the Quantum article and again in the EIT pdf article.
But it now appears that it is about doing calorimetry on some other unspecified circuit that has nothing to do with Ainslie's reported numbers.

Speaking of Ainslie's reported numbers:

"* 10 Ohm ceramic, hollow core, wire wound resistor. Length is 150mm. Diameter 32mm. 48 turns of resistive wire spaced 1mm"

Are we then to assume that this resistor is NOT wound with resistive wire, but rather with 2 mm (0.080 inch)wide resistive ribbon? Because when I use my resistive wire, it's only about 0.009 inch diameter (0.225 mm), so 50 turns spaced 1 mm apart only takes up 50 + (50*.225) = about 61 or 62 mm. So what's the other 90 mm or so of the length?
Using 2 mm ribbon would use up the length, but would also produce less resistance and inductance.
__________________
 
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers