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
  #121  
Old 06-25-2009, 06:05 PM
Allcanadian's Avatar
Allcanadian Allcanadian is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 659
@Tinsel Koala
Thank you for keeping the conversation relevent and on topic.

@Dr.Stiffler
Quote:
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.
I agree with the last part, and on that note I will take my leave from here and let you gentlemen carry on with the business at hand.

@All
Now back to business, Rosemary Ainslie states there is extra heat showing up relative to the power input. Irregardless of anything stated we can conclude this heat is generated in the wire wound resistor or certain elements of it. We can also guess that this resistive/inductive heating effect is due to transient energy as she stated. Of the many possibilities it should also be considered that the heating effect could in fact be "inductive" heating. It is well know that modern oven cooking surfaces use inductive heating effects, that is a coil under a glass top will induce currents in any metallic pot or pan above it, this heats the metal but not the glass top. If Rosemary Ainslie's wire wound resistor was ceramic with metallic components and these metals were particulate and evenly dispersed then there is the possibility of micro-currents developing within the metals due to induction at high frequency. These micro-currents usually refered to as eddy currents may not produce aggregate fields as we are familiar with thus could easily go unnoticed.The wire could be considered the "emitter" the particulate metals the "reciever". In any case there are many things which may be taken for granted initially which may hold relevence. Many materials have very different properties when high frequency/high potential currents are involved.
Regards
AC
__________________
 

Last edited by Allcanadian; 06-25-2009 at 06:10 PM.

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

  #122  
Old 06-25-2009, 06:05 PM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
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?
Hey Dr

I'm "not" a Mod but .... what your describing is a VBulletin software problem ..... when editing shortly after a posting use the "Go Advance" tab ..... edit there and save as normal.

Hope this help's

Glen
__________________
 
  #123  
Old 06-25-2009, 06:11 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gauss View Post
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.
@Gauss
Well, if Dr. Lindemann does indeed make a living selling Books and DVD's I find that commendable. Unlike the circus or carnival, in the FE field the world gets around fast. If Dr. L. had nothing to offer he would have been out of existence some time ago. And indeed, what is wrong with the distribution of information? Are you of the belief that a magazine or news paper null and void because they never did what they report on? How petty indeed.

So all the great thinkers, hear me thinkers are null and void in your mind? Wow!
__________________
 
  #124  
Old 06-25-2009, 06:17 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyTomCat View Post
Hey Dr

I'm "not" a Mod but .... what your describing is a VBulletin software problem ..... when editing shortly after a posting use the "Go Advance" tab ..... edit there and save as normal.

Hope this help's

Glen
@FuzzyTomCat

Hey. thank you, I will try that. I thought the 'Advanced' thing was if you wanted to do the additional thing like why you are making the change. Gee give a clueless person a bread crumb and he wants the whole loaf, what?

Thanks.
__________________
 
  #125  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:08 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
misc

@DrStiffler,

FuzzyTomCat's solution works. When I use the regular edit button, edit then save, sometimes it glitches and doesn't save but almost always saves when I go to the advanced edit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Gauss,

There is a "logic" to this circuit that is extremely simple.

A "spike" output through a regular coil of copper wire will simply pass the spike and not allow the coil to "charge" up. I do this all the time with my various experiments with the Gray type circuit setups. The inductive spike from a coil or even the output of an ignition coil will simply go through a coil like it isn't there. Maybe at a small level there is something but for the most part and for any practical use of what I'm doing it for, there is nothing to speak of.

But if you take these hv potential spikes and put them into a coil of resistive wire, the coil will charge from current. To me, this one simple fact makes this circuit totally feasible. And if the mosfet goes into self-oscillation, which hasn't been shown yet, it might reveal more.

I appreciate your support of the Meyer technology as I've spent quite a bit of time on it myself but telling people here that this is a time waster and they should do something else is not what this forum is for.

And with the Witts heater, there are zero schematics, zero third party credible replications, zero details published, etc... that are all right here with the Rosemary heater. There may be some problems with the schematics, I don't know but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot more to go on here than the Witts and therefore this is what I would choose to spend my time on between the two.

The most effective way for you to get more people interested in Witts and Meyer's methods is for you to post positive messages in those threads instead of being negative in threads you don't agree with.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #126  
Old 06-25-2009, 07:35 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Edit Works

@All
Yes, thank you again, going to advanced does work.

Now for a scope shot. Using the text description I have duplicated the circuit in Toto!. (Not the Quantum diagram).

The attached scope shot is what I see and it does not show an oscillation in the Gate. There is a worthless spike on the Gate, but the Drain is not abormal for what we are using.

I am using the correct components. Should I order more? Is this like my Exciters where only the MPSA06 from certain vendors work?, or is this maybe a layout problem? Like some parasitic C that causes the oscillation?

Damn this is like lying on a bed of nails, yes, lower carefully and have tough skin.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg an003.jpg (13.2 KB, 43 views)
__________________
 
  #127  
Old 06-25-2009, 09:45 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
@All
Yes, thank you again, going to advanced does work.

Now for a scope shot. Using the text description I have duplicated the circuit in Toto!. (Not the Quantum diagram).

The attached scope shot is what I see and it does not show an oscillation in the Gate. There is a worthless spike on the Gate, but the Drain is not abormal for what we are using.

I am using the correct components. Should I order more? Is this like my Exciters where only the MPSA06 from certain vendors work?, or is this maybe a layout problem? Like some parasitic C that causes the oscillation?

Damn this is like lying on a bed of nails, yes, lower carefully and have tough skin.
Why don't you duplicate the circuit IN TOTO like you say, and use the PUBLISHED CIRCUIT of Rosemary Ainslie, including HER published 555 circuit? Otherwise you aren't doing a replication, are you?
Hint: if you DO use her circuit, exactly, you will be able to duplicate her heating results. If you continue to use a FG, or some other 555 circuit that actually does produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, you will NOT get the heating in the load that Rosemary got.

Go ahead and prove me wrong.
__________________
 
  #128  
Old 06-25-2009, 09:55 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Damn, it's like pulling teeth or something.
We are at the point where somebody claims to get a certain result using a definite specified circuit. The circuit is built and performs like the somebody said--it heats the load, etc. BUT it turns out that the circuit as specified cannot produce OU because it doesn't produce the duty cycle that the first somebody said it does.
So the conclusion that you seem to come to is that the original circuit as printed, over and over, is WRONG and isn't what was used to produce the results in the first place. Even though the results produced by the "wrong" circuit, in terms of heating, are actually right....

Come on, this makes no sense at all. If the circuit is a misprint it would not work at all or it would produce some random combination of frequency and duty cycle. If the circuit is built as the diagram shows it definitely does produce the heating claimed--it just doesn't produce the OU numbers because of the duty cycle.

So the error MUST be in the interpretation of the results. The mistaken duty cycle, from the circuit in the diagram, was used to produce Ainslie's heating results, and the MISTAKEN duty cycle figure was used to produce her COP>17 figure. Nothing else makes sense--unless of course I am wrong about the duty cycle that her circuit produces.

Why doesn't anybody just put the silly circuit together and check it? Are you perhaps afraid of what you might find?
__________________
 
  #129  
Old 06-25-2009, 10:01 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.

(snip)
I doubt very, very much that a number of people made the same Electronics 101 mistake.
I'm just re-quoting you to make the point that you might not always be seeing correctly what is right in front of you.
__________________
 
  #130  
Old 06-25-2009, 10:36 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Where's the error here?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg index.php.jpg (40.8 KB, 100 views)
__________________
 
  #131  
Old 06-26-2009, 12:01 AM
ashtweth's Avatar
ashtweth ashtweth is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,493
Send a message via Skype™ to ashtweth
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
@Gauss
Well, if Dr. Lindemann does indeed make a living selling Books and DVD's I find that commendable. Unlike the circus or carnival, in the FE field the world gets around fast. If Dr. L. had nothing to offer he would have been out of existence some time ago. And indeed, what is wrong with the distribution of information? Are you of the belief that a magazine or news paper null and void because they never did what they report on? How petty indeed.

So all the great thinkers, hear me thinkers are null and void in your mind? Wow!
Gauss, Peter doesn't just jump on any thing i know this from emails a few times, i would rather he scout out things he finds have promise and we help him investigate , not to mention with Peter we always learn some thing in the process, this is far better then giving money to witts or arguing about the caliber of info Peter was able to obtain.

If you want perfection then please CONTRIBUTE to it, this is far more objective then elevating your self from defaming others.

Respectfully
Ash
__________________
 
  #132  
Old 06-26-2009, 02:07 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Oscillation, Not Correct one, but interesting

Well after going through a number of the same brand MOSFET I found one that under certain conditions would produce an oscillation, although it is orders of magnitude higher than described, yes of value in seeing how the LR reacts under the conditions.

The scope shot was adjusted to separate the gate and drain traces so they can be seem more clearly. There is another shot on my web page for this attempt if you want to follow it. It can be reached from my index page.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg aosc001.jpg (17.1 KB, 41 views)
__________________
 
  #133  
Old 06-26-2009, 03:46 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
Well after going through a number of the same brand MOSFET I found one that under certain conditions would produce an oscillation, although it is orders of magnitude higher than described, yes of value in seeing how the LR reacts under the conditions.

The scope shot was adjusted to separate the gate and drain traces so they can be seem more clearly. There is another shot on my web page for this attempt if you want to follow it. It can be reached from my index page.
These of course are very similar to the shots I posted last week on OU forum.
I note a couple of things: First, you don't seem to be using the voltages specified by Ainslie. Second, if you are monitoring the Source and Drain pins of the mosfet you aren't at the same places that Ainslie was monitoring. This will make a difference. Third, if your bottom trace is set at 20 volts per division, the bottom valley should read "2 volts" not what appears to be "0.2 volts" as your annotation appears to show. Of course your scope is a lot fancier than mine so I might be wrong here,,,
And fourth, these oscillations are normal, they don't look like the "random chaotic" oscillations that Ainslie describes. Of course if you use the actual Fluke 199 scope you may see some false triggering....
__________________
 
  #134  
Old 06-26-2009, 03:52 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStiffler View Post
Well after going through a number of the same brand MOSFET I found one that under certain conditions would produce an oscillation, although it is orders of magnitude higher than described, yes of value in seeing how the LR reacts under the conditions.

The scope shot was adjusted to separate the gate and drain traces so they can be seem more clearly. There is another shot on my web page for this attempt if you want to follow it. It can be reached from my index page.
@Dr. Stiffler and all
I refer to my posts 77 and more so at 81, as you have found Dr. I also found that you can use the same mosfet number and maker and not all work the same. If this is the case and we want to produce a salable model for all to use, how are we going to do it, there are so many, "works only if's", to produce a production model will be so expensive due to a mosfet that has a 1 in possible 1000 flaw, which normally is not a problem, but in this case is a must.

I have moved on to look at how to produce the oscillation required without the need for the mosfet, possibly in 10 years time, if I am still around , I will have the answer

Sorry no scope shots as I have blown my scope and it is in for repair

Mike
__________________
 
  #135  
Old 06-26-2009, 04:06 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
I see that it is futile to attempt to have an actual dialog or discussion on this forum, so until that situation improves this will be my last posting.

Here is a summary of my findings and opinions in this matter:

1) The Ainslie circuit as described in the Quantum article produces a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle at 2.4 kHz and with the component values specified cannot be made to produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle.
2) This high ON duty cycle produces heating in my load that is similar to the heating reported by Ainslie in her papers.
3) When the circuit is triggered by a function generator or a properly-made 555 circuit at a true known 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, no heating of the load or the mosfet is evident. This finding seems to be independent of the MOSFET used, although I have not been able to find the exact mosfet she used, the IRFPG50. I used IRFP450, 2SK1548, 2SK5138. All gave similar results, with the exception that the IRFP450 showed long turn-off times on the order of 2x gate pulse width at the short input cycles.
4) All mosfets could be made to show inductive spikes, ringdown and parasitic oscillations, but none showed "chaotic" or "random" oscillations as described in the Ainslie papers. It is my opinion at this point that she was seeing false triggering of her oscilloscope and interpreting it as random oscillation.
5) Because of the error in duty cycle, the power calculations in the Ainslie paper, which were done "by spreadsheet" (instead of by the Fluke software integration routines, apparently) are also in error.
6) It has been maintained that my findings show, not an error in the OU calculations, but rather an error in the published circuit diagram of Ainslie. I reject this explanation because an error in the diagram would not have produced a functioning timer, and for other good reasons.
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.

__________________
 
  #136  
Old 06-26-2009, 07:42 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Run with oscillation

This is of course not what I should be doing, but I wanted to see if that 50V hash would do something that would not make sense.

Anyway as it turns out it is 'ho hum', here is the data from the run, 31.4% eff. is what one might expect, but more to come that we do not expect.

Tmin qa qc Vs Is Q = c m dq ein (J) CEC
0 26.4 28.50 12.00 0.022
10 26.3 29.90 12.00 0.020 117.236 151.200
20 26.3 30.02 12.00 0.018 10.049 136.800
30 26.5 31.00 12.00 0.018 82.065 129.600
40 25.8 31.90 12.00 0.018 75.366 129.600
50 26.3 32.00 12.00 0.018 8.374 129.600
60 25.6 32.00 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600
70 26.0 32.50 12.00 0.018 41.870 129.600
80 25.4 32.50 12.00 0.018 0.000 129.600

334.960 1065.600 0.314339339

Gate pulse was 37uS and the Drain pulse was 72uS

Sorry the Greek symbols do not come across, but qa is the ambient temp, qc is the cell temp and of course Vs and Is need no further. What is so very interesting is that first 10 minutes.
__________________
 

Last edited by DrStiffler; 06-26-2009 at 07:46 PM.
  #137  
Old 06-27-2009, 08:13 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Moving closer

From ~1.5'C in 10 min to 1'C in four minutes, now it starts to look a bit better.

Included is a scope shot of the last run.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg aosc002.jpg (20.3 KB, 56 views)
__________________
 
  #138  
Old 06-29-2009, 06:17 PM
Justalabrat Justalabrat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinselKoala View Post
I see that it is futile to attempt to have an actual dialog or discussion on this forum, so until that situation improves this will be my last posting.

Here is a summary of my findings and opinions in this matter:

1) The Ainslie circuit as described in the Quantum article produces a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle at 2.4 kHz and with the component values specified cannot be made to produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle.
2) This high ON duty cycle produces heating in my load that is similar to the heating reported by Ainslie in her papers.
3) When the circuit is triggered by a function generator or a properly-made 555 circuit at a true known 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, no heating of the load or the mosfet is evident. This finding seems to be independent of the MOSFET used, although I have not been able to find the exact mosfet she used, the IRFPG50. I used IRFP450, 2SK1548, 2SK5138. All gave similar results, with the exception that the IRFP450 showed long turn-off times on the order of 2x gate pulse width at the short input cycles.
4) All mosfets could be made to show inductive spikes, ringdown and parasitic oscillations, but none showed "chaotic" or "random" oscillations as described in the Ainslie papers. It is my opinion at this point that she was seeing false triggering of her oscilloscope and interpreting it as random oscillation.
5) Because of the error in duty cycle, the power calculations in the Ainslie paper, which were done "by spreadsheet" (instead of by the Fluke software integration routines, apparently) are also in error.
6) It has been maintained that my findings show, not an error in the OU calculations, but rather an error in the published circuit diagram of Ainslie. I reject this explanation because an error in the diagram would not have produced a functioning timer, and for other good reasons.
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.

Nice work TK!
__________________
 
  #139  
Old 07-01-2009, 08:19 PM
Allcanadian's Avatar
Allcanadian Allcanadian is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 659
Nice work indeed, TK has managed to kill this topic through repetitious posting---in no less than two forums, LOL. No matter, the facts always have a way of disclosing themselves when their time has come.
Regards
AC
__________________
 
  #140  
Old 07-01-2009, 08:36 PM
SkyWatcher's Avatar
SkyWatcher SkyWatcher is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,173
Hi AllCanadian, I was going to say the same thing. It seems to be a common occurrence in the energy forums lately, the so called controllers must be getting concerned. And yes there is no stopping the world of abundance that is to come and that includes free energy.
__________________
 
  #141  
Old 07-01-2009, 08:47 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyWatcher View Post
Hi AllCanadian, I was going to say the same thing. It seems to be a common occurrence in the energy forums lately, the so called controllers must be getting concerned. And yes there is no stopping the world of abundance that is to come and that includes free energy.
@SkyWatcher & AllCanadian

What is that saying? 'Ignorance is bliss'? Now we have Penguin Debunkers

Sorry for them all that the illusion they see in the mirror is their reality.
__________________
 
  #142  
Old 07-01-2009, 09:07 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,282
Gentlemen
Tk's is the only replication [or attempt]of Rosemarys' circuit in this thread
If you have information that would assist in getting better results ,Please share !! He seems quite anxious to share/discuss ,but nobody wants to discuss this with him
One good thing ,a fellow from Norway showed up on the thread at OU
and says he will be posting a build with part#s soup to nuts COP< 2-5[next week] I believe based on Rosemaries patent APPLICATION
Chet
PS I will be sure to share the link here
__________________
 

Last edited by RAMSET; 07-01-2009 at 11:10 PM. Reason: Fellow from Norway
  #143  
Old 07-01-2009, 09:11 PM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Does the Quantum article contain a misprinted circuit diagram or not?

If so:
Why hasn't it been corrected? What is the correct diagram? Why does the "misprinted" diagram produce the heating behaviour described, if it's wrong? How are replicators supposed to replicate if the published diagram is wrong?

If not:
What is the explanation for the inverted duty cycle that the circuit produces? What is the effect of using the Correct duty cycle figures on the energy input/output calculations? If the values in the paper were obtained using the published circuit, why haven't they been retracted, since they are wrong?

It isn't me who "killed" two threads. I'm just asking questions and looking for answers that make sense. If nobody's got answers--then perhaps it is they who have killed the threads.

(And, DrStiffler, you still have your scope shots labelled incorrectly. Where it says "0.2 volts" shouldn't it say "2.0 volts" since your vertical scale is at 20 v/div and that peak is 1/2 division below the "12 volt" peak...and 12 minus 10 is 2, not 0.2 ... but what do I know, right, Ignorance is Bliss...)
__________________
 

Last edited by TinselKoala; 07-01-2009 at 09:19 PM.
  #144  
Old 07-01-2009, 09:11 PM
Mark Mark is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 796
Ramset I think you need to read this thread from the beginning.
__________________
 
  #145  
Old 07-01-2009, 10:26 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,282
Mark
Perhaps I am naive,when Peter and Aaron first posted this circuit I was quite excited to see it verified [still am]
Some folks here seem to know things about this that they are not willing to discuss.
Or are they willing to let TK's replication/findings be the final word?
If there is some history here [bad feelings etc...] between members ,what a shame to have it come to light at this time!
I can not fathom a reason to hold back productive comments on this circuit
Isn't that why you are here?
A guy takes the time and effort to replicate a posted circuit,and people throw stones [instead of roses]
Guy's that have the ability to replicate are a great resource for this community.
Guy's that have the ability to comment on those replications are just as important.
YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENING
Chet
__________________
 
  #146  
Old 07-01-2009, 10:48 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 912
just speculation,

But it seems like here, the strict replication is what people are interested in and after. Really, I haven't done many, if any replications, only experiments. But maybe a discussion on why this circuit works, how it should best be built if no component values were provided etc.
__________________
 
  #147  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:15 PM
DrStiffler DrStiffler is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
just speculation,

But it seems like here, the strict replication is what people are interested in and after. Really, I haven't done many, if any replications, only experiments. But maybe a discussion on why this circuit works, how it should best be built if no component values were provided etc.
@Rosemary Ainslie & @Armagdn03

If you are watching this thread would it be possible for you to contact me at stifflerscientific at embarqmail dot com. I have a question about the problem of the R value increasing due to its own heating. It appears after many runs that a built in limitation is present that is influenced by the changing R more so than the lack of higher currents for greater heating.
__________________
 
  #148  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:19 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,282
ArMagdn03
Hopefully the retired EE [33yrs] from Norway will put this on the fast Track next week.He is in contact with user Groundloop From OU [THE RIGHT STUFF] about the details now
Chet
PS ArMagdn03 love your work!!,and your approach [to solving this]
__________________
 
  #149  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:58 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
replicate self oscillating mosfet

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
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
I just quoted myself. lol

Anyway, the Quantum article seems to state that the self oscillation deal as described above is where the magic happens and I'm not sure if this has been replicated yet.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

  #150  
Old 07-02-2009, 01:48 AM
TinselKoala TinselKoala is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
I just quoted myself. lol

Anyway, the Quantum article seems to state that the self oscillation deal as described above is where the magic happens and I'm not sure if this has been replicated yet.
These data in the Quantum paper are taken from the ScopeMeter Fluke 199's readouts. I have tested the Fluke 199 scopemeter on the Ainslie circuit, in parallel with my analog oscilloscopes. I have looked at the behavior of 4 different MOSFETs in the circuit. (No, I still don't have an IRFPG50, unfortunately. I am mostly still using the 2SK1548.)
The increased frequency reported by the FLUKE is easy to replicate. Unfortunately it isn't telling you the real frequency of the pulses at that point. The reduced duty cycle reading is also an easily-replicable Fluke anomaly, caused by reading the "shoulders" of the mosfet's pulse. I have reproduced both of these behaviours on the Fluke 199. The analog scopes are less sensitive to this sort of thing.

The Quantum article is wrong, the heating happens because the mosfet in the published circuit is ON almost 100 percent of the time. Making claims about short duty cycles and increased frequencies doesn't change that fact.
__________________
 
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 04:21 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