 |
|
|||||||
| Inductive Resistor Open source development of highly efficient inductive resistor circuits. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
10-09-2009, 03:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Those two images the 40us and the 20us is part of the wave form oscillation light show from the TDS 3054C, it gets washed out some with the white screen background in the .PNG's small data file ..... much more impressive in person with the black background and I'm unable to change it, so it looks missing but no parts really are missing .... Glen            |
|
10-09-2009, 11:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi Fuzzy. So many thanks for all this hard work. I'm blown away. There seems to be a difference in the two waveforms between these two tests. Here's my take - and from a rank amateur and as best I can describe the 'harmonics' - I think is the term. The previous looks like a tower at the edge of lake with the sun rising north, north east behind the tower - which throws a long shadow of the tower into water. This last waveform? Is that the same? Harvey, someone - can you check on this? I don't know how to make a graph of the wider sample range.
EDIT I'm referring to the source shunt - blue trace? But thank you Fuzzy. Yet again. You threatened you'd keep us busy and indeed you are. Cannot tell you how impressed we all are.   Last edited by witsend : 10-09-2009 at 11:29 PM. Reason: Hope I've done the edit right |
|
10-10-2009, 12:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Glen, this is really good work
 Your documentation of the tests are impeccable.I got up around 6:00AM (after retiring at 2:30AM) just to check the results. I DL'd several of the files, from hour 1, 6 & 7 and did the quick ballpark averages. It would appear that the battery average drops by about a volt over the test period, and the average battery power delivered also drops by the end as does the Ohmic treatment for Load Power. My quick calcs showed ~12W at the beginning dropping to ~10W battery delivery power by the end. The Ohmic treatment for Load Power is over 600W - very similar to your previous run. But the increase in Battery delivery power seems to indicate that we have slipped out of the efficient operation you presented before. I still have to evaluate the caloric significance in both tests. Some have expressed concerns regarding the 600+W Ohmic, and the 165+W phase shifted values as being too great, and I agree they are. Not yet included in any of my calcs are the inductive and capacitive reactance effects of the load circuit. Rosemary did ask if I could calculate that for the pulse period - just grabbing an arbitrary inductance value of 14µH (I really don't recall the number we had before for those windings), along with 400ns spike cycle width, I very loosely determined a 219Ω inductive impedance in the load during that period. Real inductance would be needed to correctly value this. And of course that impedance changes during the periods that activity is not so narrow. And likewise, there is a capacitive reactance involved as well. I was explaining to Rosemary, that that value can be very dynamic in a flexible coil arrangement due to the magnetic interactions of the windings. As the spacing between the windings changes, so does the capacitance - it is all very small, but does impact the impedance. So the impedance plays a big part in bringing those high values down to the 17W that Rosemary's first team documented. There seems to be two obvious differences in the test procedure that may have been responsible for the increase from around 1W battery power to 12W battery power. The first is the very clear aperiodic operation. I have seen the duty cycle climb to ~90% in this mode on my rig for parts of the period. It would seem that your somewhat periodic operation from the last run provided a leaner and cleaner result  The second, although visibly obvious, the actions may be a bit more subtle - that is the closed resistor. As resistive materials increase in temperature, they also increase in resistance. This is a self regulating feature of this particular circuit, but it may open some insight as to how the energy flow interacts. MH's chimney arrangement provided a continuous convection of new cool air to chill the resistor. It's effect is evident in the temperature readings that shows a clear cyclic heating and cooling. As the resistor cools, the convection stops, then as it heats it starts up again. I have to give the implications some thought as to how the disallowed dissipation of the horizontal plugged version steals from the battery recharge - very counter intuitive, but may be related to the phase shift of the current in some way. The results were unexpected.I need a way to relate the caloric values to the power. I don't think its possible to accurately map the resistor itself based on material dissipation characteristics and surface area. I think the base line test is probably the best approach in this regard. Accurately mapping the specific resistor for a given applied power , which should not matter if it is AC or DC except for the aforementioned reactance. It would be interesting to run the resistor on a straight 2.5MHz sine wave and see the thermal footprint. We are all greatly indebted to the painstaking efforts you have put into this thus far and I for one would like you to know how much it is appreciated  One thing I want to stress here, even though we are seeing a marked increase in battery delivery power over the last test, it does not mean the system is not operating at a COP > 1. The Ohmic treatment is 65:1 and that 65 gets reduced by the phase shift and reactance - how much? I bet MH could math it out better than me  I just had an idea for a floating FET recovery switch, I need to write this down before I forget it...  |
|
10-10-2009, 09:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Please investigate what Otto posted in Oveunity.com thread Steven Marks secret
Seems that I was right, ground of signal generator should not be connected with battery connected to FET and heating resistor-inductor. Negative impulses are also used. Just read this thread |
|
10-10-2009, 09:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
EDIT: NM read it. Last edited by Harvey : 10-10-2009 at 09:51 AM. |
|
10-10-2009, 10:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Looking at the possible effects of inductive impedance combined with current lag (phase angle of voltage to current):
Excel Data Analysis I bet there is some enterprising young programmer that could build a java interface to do this , but us old farts just look at the numbers and graphs.Cheers, Harvey |
|
10-11-2009, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Happenstance
Guys - here's a synchronous event that has to defy the odds. 10 years ago when I was trying to put this circuit together I knew nothing about inductance - resistance - or indeed anything much. I was looking for a resistor and simply shopped for the biggest diameter with the thickest wire that I could find. I think Harvey mentioned that this is usually his criteria for grocery shopping. Back then all I wanted to do was generate as much counter electromotive force as I could and - big seemed better.
Then the results - that crowded in around this were unarguable and widely accredited. But still - wherever it was advanced on any theoretical basis it was met with scepticism - notwithstanding the evidence which then was still demonstrable. I was entirely unable to advance the technology. Then, on these forums the same thing. Rank scepticism - and more of it - and only small evidence of gains. Then Fuzzy made his own resistor and used the only reliable criteria available being the diameter of his resistor. The wire, the windings and the rest of it were developed on a 'best guess' basis. But his resistor seems to have cracked that elusive barrier. I am wondering if the effect needs that wide space inside the coil and somehow - hamper this - and the effect goes away. Just a thought. If so, then it's no wonder that the benefits here have eluded detection and for so long. And then too, it would explain the rank disbelief that was the unhappy reaction to our own claims. Perhaps Fuzzy can explore a resistor with a smaller diameter and check if this can reach that same optimised performance. |
|
10-11-2009, 10:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi Rosemary,
It is an interesting thing to evaluate - the coil diameter. The formula for determining the inductance of a single layer air core coil is L = (r²N²)/(9r + 10l) This places r² over 9r. This is interesting because as r increases we find that we eventually approach a value that nets to 1 (81/81). That value is 9. In other words, it would seem that when the coil equals 18" in diameter (9r), the inductance formula would simply becomes the number of turns squared (N²) divided by 10 times the length (10l). In fact, r² over 9r simply resolves to a percentage of 9. For instance, if r were 2.25", then the factor would be 1/4 (0.25) or 2.25 divided by 9 because 2.25 is one fourth of 9. But that would be too simple. Algebraically we flavor the equation by multiplying the numerator of this factor by the number of turns while adding the denominator to 10 times the length. So even though we see r² divided by 9r, we cannot reduce it as I have indicated above. (81 x N²) / (81 + 10l) is not the same thing as (1 x N²) / (1 + 10l). But we do get a feel here for how the radius impacts the inductance. Let's make things easy - let's say we have a 1 turn coil, 1 inch long. Now N² = 1 and 10l = 10 *1. Now lets see how different radii impact the inductance. First we'll choose a radius of 2.25"... L = 0.17µH . Now let's try 4.5"... L=0.4µH. Now let's try 6.75" ... L = 0.64µH and so on. So increasing the diameter, increases the inductance. How does the number of turns and length effect it? The length decreases the inductance, while the number of turns increases the inductance. Interestingly, a radius of 20" and a length of 2" always works out to have an inductance of 2(N²). But that is a big ask coil. I know I wouldn't ask for a 40" diameter coil...ok, maybe I would - depending on what I was doing. Now the inductive reactance is simply 2πfL so clearly as the inductance increases and the frequency increases, the reactance increases. This is why a length of resistive wire plugged into the mains doesn't melt in two when coiled where it would if it were straight - all based on the inductance and the mains frequency (50 - 60 Hz). Now I pose an interesting question for our readers: Is the inductive reactance a product of the frequency or the rate of change of voltage and current? To illustrate the question better, lets compare two different waveforms. First, a continuous cyclic sinus waveform of a given frequency. We will say, that this wave form passes through zero 120 times per second (60Hz) and is always in transition, a perfect sine wave. Second, we will take that same waveform, but we will bunch it up so that the cycle completes in 1/10 of the time, but we still wait before issuing another cycle so that the frequency is still 60Hz. We still only get 60 cycles in a second, its just a quick pulse and then some flat time before the next one. Since frequency is a count of how many cycles we have in a period, does the second waveform change our formula 2πfL? Or do we need to shift our definition of frequency to mean how wide the cycle itself is (dV/dt) rather than how many their are in a period? We already understand this difference when dealing with electromagnetic wave propagation like light and radio. We quickly determine the frequency based on the wavelength of a single cycle and have developed different sorts of vernacular to describe the second example above - such as single cycle burst, burst frequency etc. We even have DTMF, dual tone multi frequency common in telephony. But for some reason, when we get into power systems where we begin thinking of current as a flow of particles, i.e. electrons, the concept gets a bit muddied. I draw attention to this matter, because the RA circuit power is in fact a member of the second example. While the quantity of high voltage spikes may arrive at a frequency in kHz, the actual frequency of the spike is in the MHz, and that changes the calculations for inductive reactance. Last edited by Harvey : 10-11-2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason: left out 10 * |
|
10-12-2009, 03:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Now I would like to address the matter of optimizing the RA circuit.
There are several factors to consider. First, the FET output capacitance. This plays a part in the resonant frequency with the inductor. A quick look at a nomograph shows that for 250pF and the quoted 8µH inductance a resonant frequency would develop around 3MHz. In FTC's case, the data seems to point at around 2MHz. Different FET's can have different output capacitance. Another factor closely related to the first is the internal capacitance of the inductor. This is caused by the windings being parallel to each other with a dielectric (even air) between them. Each winding appears as a curved capacitor plate to its neighbor with a resistor between the plates. So that internal capacitance can shift the resonant frequency accordingly. It also has an effect on the phase angle of current and voltage running through the inductor. Next we need to consider how much energy the inductor can store as a magnetic field.  This is how Descartes viewed the magnetic field as drawn in 1644. Of course Peregrinus had already mapped the magnetic field of a sphere magnet in 1289 AD. So the knowledge that magnetic fields exist have been with us for many centuries. But it wasn't until the 1800's that we were able to get a glimpse of the energy storage nature of the magnetic field. Poisson gave us this accurately even though his theory was inverted. Translating those equations to our use here we arrive at E = ½LI² where E is Joules, L is henries and I is amperes. It is easy to see if we want a classical treatment of the energy output we will need a greater inductance. This can put us in the unsavory position of having to decide if we want frequency or brute power. That brings us to our next consideration. Where does the 'heat' come from? How do we get 'more'? This is really the heart of the matter. Classical treatment simply tells us to evaluate the power dissipated in the resistance. Good idea...what power? Voltage time Current = Power (P=EI) [E stands for Electromotive Force which is a fancy term for Voltage] . So the lazy way out is to just figure Battery Voltage across Circuit resistance. In the RA power circuit this is 24V / 12.25 Ohms [10 for the load, 2 for the FET and 0.25 for the 'shunt]. So, Timer on - we get 1.96A which translates to 47W ... for 15µS every 400µS, or about 1.76W/s with a duty cycle of ~3.7%. So if measure 17W of worth of heat then one of these things must occur. Either extra energy is supplied from outside the conventional circuit, or the duty cycle must increase or both. Or the phase angle in the inductor must change such that the magnetic energy stored there can be used to produce heat. How much could we expect to get back from the field if we brought it all back in phase? Would you believe 16.6µJ ? Yep, even for 100% duty cycle the field will only store 16.6 micro joules of energy for the 8.64µH inductor - that's what I calculate using the above formula, but it seems really low - anyone care to double check that for me? So where are the 520V spikes coming from? Well either they have extremely low power, or the power they do have needs to be described by non-classical means. Why do I say this? Because when they are present, the classical flow of energy has stopped. They are the full product of the magnetic field. Rosemary's hypothesis was that in this mode, a secondary source of energy is disturbed and that source allows energy to flow into the circuit adding to the voltage spike. But that energy needs to be in phase to produce heat in the resistor. Another matter, is dielectric heating. This can occur when the coil is operated above 10MHz and does not necessarily require the current to be in phase with the voltage. All that is needed there is a potential capable of stressing the material that frequency. So, it would seem that the inductance plays a much bigger role in generating high frequency magnetic perturbations than storing up energy to be released later while the FET is off. What are your thoughts on the matter? |
|
10-13-2009, 06:42 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit - TEST #5
Hi everyone,
This is a repeat attempt of the results on TEST #3 with some new data which may surprise everyone but maybe not ... The Load Prototype "Quantum" 10 ohm resistor was mounted vertical with two (2) size #5-1/2 rubber stoppers inserted in each end, elevated 3" from the desk surface.  TEST #5 Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit "Quantum" October 2002 Replication Components - 1) International Rectifier - IRFPG50 HEXFET® Power MOSFET w/ Sil-Pad insulator between Mosfet and Heat Sink 2) Fairchild Semiconductor - NE555N Timer 3) Vishay Spectrol - SP534 Percision Potentiometer/ 10-turn 2-Watt 4) Exide Technologies Battery "Liquid Lead Acid" Model # GT-H - TRACTOR 12V 12Ah CCA 235 5) CSB Battery Company "Gel Lead Acid" #GP 1270 F2 / 12 Volt 7.0 Ah 6) Prototype "Quantum" Load Resister 10 ohm + - 1% 7) Shunt Resistor - "Dale" RS-2B 0.25 ohm, 3 watt, 3 % Temperature Measurements - Fluke 62 "mini" IR Themometer ( used maximum reading on each componenet ) Digital Mulit Meter - Fluke 87 DMM true RMS ************************************************** ******* Channel 1 - Mosfet source shunt Channel 2 - Mosfet drain Channel 3 - 555 Timer pin #3 Channel 4 - 24 VDC "Liquid" Lead Acid Battery Bank START 1_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 1_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  1_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 1_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File 1_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 1_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File HOUR 2 2_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 2_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  2_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 2_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File 2_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 2_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File HOUR 3 3_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 3_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  3_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 3_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File 3_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 3_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File HOUR 4 4_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 4_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  4_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 4_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File 4_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 4_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File HOUR 5 5_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 5_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  5_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 5_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File 5_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 5_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File HOUR 6 6_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 6_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  6_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 6_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File 6_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 6_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File FINISH 7_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 7_40us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  7_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 7_20us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File 7_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 7_2us_520V-02_10_11_09 .xlr Spread Sheet File TEMPERATURE DATA-  ADDED WAVE FORMS -  1us_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 400ns_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File 200ns_520V-02_10_11_09 .png Image File All Images and data from a Tektronix TDS 3054C from the Tektronix Corporation Glen Last edited by FuzzyTomCat : 10-13-2009 at 05:26 PM. Reason: tired -grammer - channel info |
|
10-13-2009, 06:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Power Circuit Anislie
Hi all,
Just a little input of a circuit for power output, excuse the pun. This is part of what I am working on and I thought that someone would like to try this. I have been testing this and I am getting some very good results. I think that with some tuning on the pots of the 555 circuit you will be able to send charge back to the battery and power a 220v 20w bulb. I am not using the same FET as I do not have one at the moment and the triggering circuit is different, but the basic idea will be sound for the circuit of Rosemary. I am away for a week doing an exhibition and so I can not test more at the moment but I can light a 20w, 220v bulb to full brightness and send power back to the battery. Will check in when I can in the next week, all keep up this very good work Mike |
|
10-14-2009, 12:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FUZZY I held back comment so that I could do some numbers on your data dumps. You've excelled here. It intrigues me that the waveform - oscillations and harmonics seem to vary throughout the test period. But all variations seem to point to extraordinary gains. Frankly I want Harvey to confirm the values and post the official results from this. Do not trust my talents and nor have I managed to open all the files.
I notice that your resistor is again hung? I get it that this is preferred as there is less evident rf. MH may very well feel vindicated here - lol. In which case we will likely get another slew of posts. But all I can give you is praise. The collation of this data is complex and clearly handled by the master. We are all blown away by the expertise here and truly indebted - on so many levels. And it is indeed interesting that Stefan has reserved all comment on these results. Rather strange? Anyway Fuzzy - this is getting repetitive but it's a repetition that I thoroughly enjoy. WELL DONE YET AGAIN. And THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.  |
|
10-14-2009, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
still have many of the boards left so don't be shy just email me your address at: gotoluc@yahoo.com to receive your FREE board.Keep up all the great work Luc |
|
10-14-2009, 04:31 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit - TEST #5
Hi everyone,
Here is a "YouTube" video of Test #5 "FINISH" the last of recording of Images and Data at 40us, 20us and 2us divisions of the 6 hour test with circuit set up and additional wave forms included ...... Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit - TEST #5 - Image and Data Recording Rosemary Ainslie COP17 Heater Circuit - TEST #5 - Image and Data Recording - Complete - with Set Up and Additional Wave Forms Enjoy !! Glen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EDIT - Added Image and Data Recording - Complete - with Set Up and Additional Wave Forms Video Last edited by FuzzyTomCat : 10-15-2009 at 12:55 AM. Reason: added video |
|
10-14-2009, 08:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hi All,
It has been a long day for me, but I did want to post up the results for the Battery Power Averages for the last 21 sample files: Code:
Battery Power AVG Hour 2µs 20µs 40µs 1 1.514827571 -2.479456000 1.500064000 2 -3.205999153 -4.045888000 -5.239488000 3 -5.533148312 -5.207520000 -1.636576000 4 -2.350759808 -1.969696000 -3.160768000 5 -2.070294717 -3.493984000 -4.054848000 6 -1.257904431 -4.098176000 -2.052608000 7 -2.550643907 -4.765152000 -3.565344000 AVG -2.207703251 -3.722838857 -2.601366857 I do not have the original CSV files, but instead I have the XLR files that Glen uploaded for the 2µs & 20µs data. I need to check with him on the actual precision for those data dumps. The wide variance in average voltage between dumps in the same hour points to missing data in between the collection times and I have asked for at least one hour to be taken at 1/10th HR increments (6min). We may have to keep increasing this resolution until we can establish with confidence, the limits of the deviations above and below zero. The preliminary treatment of this data indicates that out of 21 different sample sets comprised of 10000 individual samples for each set, with a time period of 2, 20 and 40 microseconds respectively, the battery delivery power is negative 90.5% of the time on the average. Time was spent to ensure that the method of averaging was an accurate means of integrating the data. Because of the varied waveform the integration must be approximate because the y function would be too complex to consider within the scope of this endeavor. However, the Midpoint Rule seems adequate where each sample voltage represents the y value at midpoint. The difference between an actual area integration and the general averaging was negligible in the one sample I did over Aarons similar data. Readers with more accurate integration tools may wish to import the data and verify that this is the case. It is undetermined whether or not another rule, such as the Trapezoidal rule, could be a more accurate method of integrating this particular complex waveform. When baselines are established for these resistors that give us a means to compare the caloric values to the power needed to produce those values, then we will be in position to compare these battery readings to the output power. A cursory approach on a single sample intimated that the load resistor is operating at a total impedance of ~23.33 ohms with a 90° phase shift in current. This arrangement allows a voltage spike of 522V to produce a negative battery power of 358.4W (See Row 18 of Hour 1 20µs - The current is considered shifted to 90° lag at row 23) It should be noted, that the average battery voltage seems to decline over the seven hour period by a small amount. It is noteworthy that if the events were truly negative throughout the entire period 90.5% of the time, the battery should recharge instead of discharging. I am willing to accept that there may be extenuating circumstances in this circuit that prevent this from happening in some way. I am encouraged by the repeatability of this effect in 3 different locations. It may be necessary, to provide an external HDD to be used for realtime data dumps at close resolutions during a 1 hour run. I don't know if the equipment in use can provide that seamless flow or not. As we close in on this tighter, it does appear that the efficiency of this circuit is quite high. |
|
10-15-2009, 01:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Amazing work Guys. And to get it all done on a shoe string budget and spare time
Am preserving all your hard work so every one does not get tired fingers Thanks so much Aaron Harvey and Glen.Last edited by ashtweth : 10-15-2009 at 05:19 AM. |
|
10-15-2009, 04:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
battery charge
Quote:
|
|
10-15-2009, 06:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Belated Tribute To Your Hard Work
Quote:
The thread is already crowding into 3000 odd posts and it's barely 5 months old. That's a lot of writing and based on a mountain of data. That we have you to carefully sift through the relevant from the nonsense, and to keep everything accurately archived - is acknowledged with an onerous sense of gratitude. It has got to be the most critical and possibly the most challenging of all the tasks related to this. Truly monumental. And clearly in the most capable of hands. Thank you Ash for all this wonderful work. Thank goodness we can rely on your unerring eye for the pertinent. If nothing comes of this I take it that it was a labour of love and therefore not entirely a waste of effort. And if anything does result from this - then it will all be of some historical significance. Love's labour won. You are our truly our librarian and well qualified as such. Many - many thanks. Much appreciated - I know this - by all of us.  Rosie Last edited by witsend : 10-15-2009 at 06:44 AM. |
|
10-15-2009, 06:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
10-15-2009, 07:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit - TEST #6
Hi everyone,
I did a short test on the Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit with a standard store bought 10 ohm 100 watt ( "MEMCOR" # FR100 ) load resistor, and after a short time the results were not as expected. The best arrangement for added gains in this circuit is to have the Mosfet source or Channel 1 to be the lowest mV as possible 30 to 70 is ideal but anything over 100 mV gains in circuit efficiency lowers. The "load resistor" temperature was higher but so was the consumption of battery energy loosing .3 Volts every hour on my Fluke 87 DMM connection. 40us 40us_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .png Image File 40us_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  20us 20us_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .png Image File 20us_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  2us 2us_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .png Image File 2us_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  10ms 10ms_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .png Image File 10ms_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .xlr Spread Sheet File  100ns 100ns_STD_10ohm_10-14-09 .png Image File  All Images and data from a Tektronix TDS 3054C from the Tektronix Corporation Glen Last edited by FuzzyTomCat : 10-15-2009 at 08:59 AM. |
|
10-16-2009, 01:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 , i just try to pitch in my part and consider my self equal like ever one working together, its addictive being a community We are almost onto winding Glen's inductor for some more tests. Sorry we have not been able to contribute much technical but rest assured when we get the Inductor done can do a whole bunch of tests for all. |
|
10-16-2009, 03:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
better trigger
How about triggering the FET with switching transistor instead of directly from 555? Maybe this is usefull for increasing the switching capability of the FET, although efficiency may decrease.
I found out that by using signal from 2955, my 3055 can make my one wire neon lighted almost twice as bright. This make me think that the signal from 555 is not sharp compared to signal from 2955. I only need to remove/add the diode at the 555 chip to convert my circuit. Basically change the 555 mode between long OFF time and long ON time. Last edited by sucahyo : 10-16-2009 at 03:33 AM. |
|
10-16-2009, 07:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ash,
Really looking forward to your tests, the more data we have for comparison the better it will be to determine the best modes. Sucahyo, That is an interesting observation. The 555 does seem to have a pretty steep falling edge but your driver may be sharper I don't know. Would have to look up the stats. It is noteworthy that there is a charge relationship on our FET that your 3055 doesn't have, but they are both related to current. I see that when the gate current increases, the desired oscillations ensue. In your case, it may be a combination of the two, increased amperage and sharper rise and fall times. From a thermal loss perspective, the fast rise and fall times are the ticket to prevent the heat in the transistor. And, from an inductor perspective, the sharp fall time is important to converting the stored field energy to a high voltage, while the sharp rise time is important in stimulating a secondary field undetected by us (according to Rosemary's theory) to result in a secondary generation of energy separate from the battery, but attached to the same circuit. It is all very interesting experimental research - thanx for posting the results and ideas |
|
10-16-2009, 08:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Glen,
Thanks for the countless hours of work you have been putting into this. I would like to overlay the Test #6 10ms PNG file with a new 10ms PNG file from a sample taken during a negative mode of operation. The harmonic envelope may have some things to teach us there. And thanks to Aaron as well for drawing our attention to the resolution values surrounding the different timing and voltage settings on the scope. I learned some things about this scope regarding bandwidth and maximum voltage that I otherwise would not have learned had you not encouraged us to look into the matter more closely. I had no idea that the maximum voltage at the BNC was limited to 150V rms or that the bandwidth is limited to 150MHz for 500mV settings. It was also interesting to see the waveform clipping messages when we set the system to 500mV for Glen's rig. I'm glad we didn't just march ahead without giving this all due consideration EDIT: Correction - The bandwidth is 500MHz for 500mV and is 150MHz for 1.5mV (1mV - 1.99mV) Last edited by Harvey : 10-16-2009 at 08:52 AM. |
|
10-16-2009, 08:24 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
. I use my circuit to charge battery, and I just notice that two 1.2V nicad would heat up very quickly using one transistor circuit in 20 minutes, it wouldn't heat up as fast using two transistor. Maybe it is like what you mentioned, the quality of the sharp fall time made the difference in energy transfered. One transistor version has less spike and more normal current and made the battery fill up faster using normal electricity and heat them up. While the two transistor version is the opposite, more spike, fill up slower but without the heating. |
|
10-16-2009, 10:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just a quick post here in between tasks for those that are reading Rosemary's Magnetic Theory at Rosemary's Magnetic Field Model
Magnetic Monopole's? Spin Ice? Interesting. |
|
10-17-2009, 10:43 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit
Hi everyone,
Their is many replicators out there that are asking how can I do this with my older oscilloscope that is 10mhz to 150mhz ...... well its not easy but you can definitely get in the ball park for sure. The resistance on the gate pot needs to be between 7 and 3 ohms using a DMM across the pot terminals .... 5 to 6 ohms for best results The battery voltage across the 24 volt battery bank can be monitored with another DMM and tuned to the highest voltage using the gate pot for fine adjustments between the 7 and 3 ohm area. The Channel 1 is used at the Mosfet shunt area between the 0.25 ohm resistor and the Mosfet "source" pin, "SCOPE" - set at 50mv and probe at X10 The Channel 2 is used at the 24 Volt battery bank positive and negative but connected within 18 inches from your "load resistor", "SCOPE" - set at 2v and probe at X10 The "load resistor" will be from 110 degrees F to 150 degrees F The "Mosfet" will be from 140 degrees F to 160 degrees F ( temperatures measured with a IR non contact thermometer ) If using these setting this is what should be seen .....     A example of a earlier run using the Tektronix TDS 3054C Channel 1 - Mosfet "source" shunt Channel 2 - Mosfet "drain" * Channel 3 - 555 timer / pin #3 Channel 4 - 24 Volt Battery Bank As you can see the Mosfet Drain @ 520 Volts rises at the same time the 24 Volt battery bank rises to 70 Volts I hope this helps all the replicators out there so you know this can be done and get some impressive results yourself Glen Last edited by FuzzyTomCat : 10-17-2009 at 11:02 PM. Reason: Edit - * no shunt on "Mosfet" drain |
|
10-18-2009, 05:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit - TEST #7
Hi everyone,
Here is some data from a test run using a new 10 ohm Mosfet gate potentiometer to try to bring a better percentage accuracy to the required 5.8 to 5.3 ohms that seems to make this circuit run much more efficient. The test although a very short one was stopped for a good reason when the circuit seemed to self osculate and the Mosfet "drain" voltage went above 610 Volts and the battery's were spiking at around 98 Volts, I immediately terminated the test run because of possible damage to the equipment. And the results were interesting to say the least ..... and the final Image and Data dump on the 100ns had gains that hasn't ever been seen before, and if possible to maintain these values would be incredible ...... This test was using the same components as TEST #3 and #5 with my prototype "Quantum" 10 ohm load resistor ...... ************************************************** ******* Channel 1 - Mosfet source shunt Channel 2 - Mosfet drain Channel 3 - 555 Timer pin #3 Channel 4 - 24 VDC "Liquid" Lead Acid Battery Bank 10ms 10ms__10_15_09 .xlr Spreadsheet File 10ms_10_15_09 .png Image File  40us 40us__10_15_09 .xlr Spreadsheet File 40us_10_15_09 .png Image File  20us 20us__10_15_09 .xlr Spreadsheet File 20us_10_15_09 .png Image File  2us 2us__10_15_09 .xlr Spreadsheet File 2us_10_15_09 .png Image File  100ns 100ns__10_15_09 .xlr Spreadsheet File 100ns_10_15_09 .png Image File  All Images and data from a Tektronix TDS 3054C from the Tektronix Corporation Glen |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
