COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Hi Rosemary, you know what! I don't even have a grade 10. I quit school on the day of my 16th birthday since I could never learn the way they teach. What I know now at 47 was mainly tough from my life experience. Two years ago I didn't know anything about electronics. Again, what I know today is mainly based on my doing experiments, observing the effect, sharing what I find as interesting and integrating.

I tell you this so you are aware of this fact and also to tell you that as much as EE explain to me the "classical analysis methods" I just don't get them or understand why they are so stuck on doing it only this way. Just one of those thing that go over my head.

Prior to coming to your topic and knowing what was going on here I was noticing that when I re-circulated the flyback the mosfet dramatically dropped in temperature and the inductor started heating up. That's why it was so easy for me to conclude that If I add a resistor on the flyback side pre the input to the coil the resistor would be able to catch that heat energy and the inductor may still be able to do work. Turns out my feeling was right! I like it when that happens

I'm not so clear about your post above. Are you asking me to do a new video?

Luc

YES INDEED Would you mind? Just show us the temperature on the inductor and the MOSFET. EDIT please use those 2 x 22Ohm resistors so we can compare apples with apples. If you don't mind?

I also left school at 16 - I also like questions - so we are definitely kindred spirits.

[gotoluc]

YES INDEED Would you mind? Just show us the temperature on the inductor and the MOSFET. EDIT please use those 2 x 22Ohm resistors so we can compare apples with apples. If you don't mind?

I also left school at 16 - I also like questions - so we are definitely kindred spirits.

I definitely don't mind doing more videos

So basically you want one 22 Ohm on the input side, right?... does it matter if it is on the + or the - side?

the other 22 Ohm you want on the flyback side, right? so basically it is exactly as my circuit (see attached)

and you don't want a heat reading of the resistors, just the mosfet and coil, right?

At what voltage do you want this test done at and at what % of duty cycle?

Luc

[witsend]

Gotoluc - I'm giggling. I think we need all the heat measurements again. Hoppy made the calculation that there's a certain amount of energy over on your circuit. So. We need those numbers again - but including some ballpark on the inductor and the MOSFET. If you're game I am dying to see that video. It's actually quite important.

Sorry to impose.
EDIT - by the way - also on that circuit. Spot on.

[poynt99]

What is Joit's scope shot showing?

Notwithstanding my apology to TinselKoala and others that the 555 circuitry was wrong - I've now been assured that it was, in fact, correct. I'm in the happy postion therefore of retracting my apology. I'm reasonably certain that Joit's representations will either not be acknowledged or not believed, but either way - TinselKoala has now lost all credibility in this matter.

I was going to marshall the evidence to prove not only a prejudice but the deliberate distortions that TinselKoala either alluded to, or specifically referenced or simply challenged us to refute. However it is possible that this was required as a function of his interests in any of these forums that look into overunity claims. Happily I don't need to prepare that schedule. We know the facts. And Aaron's instincts in this regard were unerring.

I think we must remember that there are those out there who's mission in life is to discredit any over unity claim. There are those who simply do not believe it possible, those who are prepared to argue it, those who know that over unity is possible and those who are prepared to fight to prove it. I think we can accommodate all such opinions on this thread excepting those in the very first category. They're toxic. Fortunately these detractors grossly underestimate our general intelligence or the expert opinion that is available to us from both within and outside this forum.

I'm relying on Ramset to post this in Overunity.com and trust that this will be his last function as it relates to this forum.

Rosemary,

Respectfully, before any conclusions are made I think it would be prudent first to know what Joit's posted scope picture is representing. I could not make out with any certainty what is being displayed there, nor could I make much sense of his explanation. Also the fact that he is mentioning "triangle" and "slanted triangle" waves suggests to me either there is something wrong with his 555 timer circuit, or he is using the wrong output to drive the MOSFET.

I have tested in PSpice the 555 timer circuit as per the Quantum article, and my findings are that the 555 timer output is indeed at about a 96% duty cycle when adjusting for about 2.4kHz frequency. The full range of the 2 potentiometers were swept and the lowest duty cycle achieved was about 73%. There was no setting that could achieve 3.7% duty cycle. Obviously the flyback diode was missed in the article, but it has no bearing on the 555 duty cycle output.

It seems quite clear from your posts and from the EIT paper that the desired duty cycle for driving the MOSFET is 3.7%, and I can accept that the circuit in the Quantum article achieves quite the opposite, because as you say you had no involvement with the design or testing of that circuit. No problem there for me.

It appears the fellow that did the 555 timer design for the article was doing so to achieve 3.7% duty cycle at the MOSFET Drain rather than the MOSFET Gate . Errors and mis-communications do happen, so I think it's safe to say that the 555 timer circuit shown in the Quantum article can be dismissed as valid for your experiment, and that those wanting to replicate your experiment do so with either a function generator or some other oscillator capable of achieving the desired 2.4kHz/3.7% duty cycle wave form, and driving the MOSFET.

I'd be happy to reproduce any wave forms or schematics anyone wishes to see of my simulation of the 555 timer circuit shown in the Quantum article.

Regards,
.99

[Hoppy]

Gotoluc - I'm giggling. I think we need all the heat measurements again. Hoppy made the calculation that there's a certain amount of energy over on your circuit. So. We need those numbers again - but including some ballpark on the inductor and the MOSFET. If you're game I am dying to see that video. It's actually quite important.

Sorry to impose.
EDIT - by the way - also on that circuit. Spot on.

Luc

Please also run the test with an identical lamp at the input and output.

Hoppy

[witsend]

.99 - thanks for your post. As I understand it Joit claims that he is able to vary the frequency and the duty cycle to acheive the required output. Actually - if, as you say, this point is not critical then - maybe let's put it to bed. Next Joit will be expected to show us his 555 per video and you yours and the subject is tedious at best. Unless of course it may have relevance to my claim. But I note, with gratitude I might add, that you accept that it would - at its worst - have been a misrepresentation with no bearing on my experiment.

I really don't feel inclined to retract a retraction if that is required. It's just getting a little boring. The points hold good. Provided that there is acknowledgement that the paper's results have nothing to do with the possible error in the 555 circuitry in the Quantum article - then, quite frankly, I would hope never again to hear about the quantum paper again in my life.

But I would add that I noted the caliber of your posts on OU.Com. We're lucky to have you with us. Hopefully you'll add to the general requirement for some stringent analysis on measurements and test protocol. We need to get this up to speed or, as Dr Stiffler has said - this thread will go into infinity for want of a conclusion. It's nice to have the objective yet emotionally uninvolved - as you and Hoppy bring to the subject. Those of us who 'fight the cause' so to speak - may well be accused of a want of impartiality.

[jibbguy]

How the Pro's would do it

If i was trying to positively document such a power usage comparison test (...and my company was paying, lol); i would use a PC-based Data Acquisition system to record 4 channels at a fairly high sample rate (at least 1 Megasample per voltage channel to insure all the transient spikes are captured):

> Reading Voltage across the heating resistor element (Channel #1), using an isolated "DC" Amplifier/Signal conditioner module that could read the proper full scale value.

> And across the total Voltage at the Source (Channel #2, with a similar DC signal conditioner).

> Channel #3 would be the "Temperature" of the resistive element (which could be a vastly slower sample rate such as "1 per second", if it can be individually selected).. I guess a Thermistor would do for this; but a "J" or "K" Thermocouple with appropriate amplifier/signal conditioner would probably be a little better.

> Channel #4 would read total current across the Source (the Current across the Resistive Element could later be calculated via it's known Resistance). I would accomplish this one by reading across a very low Resistance shunt such a "2 Ohm" in series near the Negative terminal... As a "Hall" would not be very trustworthy here imo. This channel should use a "High-gain DC amplifier/signal conditioner" that was fully "Differential / Isolated"; so it could read down to "25mV Full Scale", off-Ground, with good accuracy.

Thus after a warm-up period and being adjusted for desired Frequency and Duty Cycle, a "1 Minute Run" could be performed (longer would be fine too, but then it would be storing one heck of a lot of samples !

Multiple Runs with different F's and Duty Cycle's should be done as well for later comparison. Often a "Full Scale Calibration Voltage" is thrown in at the start or end just to show accuracy.

When it was ended and the data analyzed; the voltage in Channel #1 could be Averaged in a very accurate way using the software features of the analysis package (eliminating the weird problems seen with DMM's in these cases with transients), and that multiplied against the calculated current: The result being "Apparent Power" across the resistive element. This can then be compared to channels #2 multiplied by #4 (representing the total Apparent Power at the Source).. These multiplications could be done via the analysis software to give resultant additional virtual "channels", reading in "Instantaneous calculated V/A" (Channels "#5" and "#6").

... All for a result less arbitrary than that seen with "battery charge usage" calcs, which as was pointed out are subject to controversy.

Such results would be much easier to prove to others' as they would be permanently archived; and as long as similar analysis software was run on another PC, the raw sample data could be later "e-mailed" and re-analyzed any number of ways a User desired (FFT's, PF calcs, Integrations over time, etc).

I suppose a DSO could also be used in storage mode for 20 milliseconds or so of stored data for the voltage calcs, once the circuit had a chance to warm-up for at least half an hour first; and that data transferred to a PC and analyzed via the same software package if a real DAQ wasn't available (the time limitation there being that most 'scopes can't store many samples at a time). But it would be nicer and more convincing to see the "Temp" and the "Source Current" all in the same Run of data.... And please note that the 'scope would need to be battery-powered or truly "Isolated" to avoid "single-ended to Ground" problems.

Such data acquisition runs are performed in commercial electronics and manufacturing engineering every day; and the results used to justify Multi-Million-Dollar capital investments or important academic Studies. They are generally considered "the last word" as far as accuracy and reliability goes as long as they were performed properly and all the amplifiers calibrated and certed up-to-date.

The total accuracy of the system would be the sum of the current shunt Resistor's accuracy, that of the Amplifiers/Signal Conditioners (usually +/- 0.25 % of full scale for voltage, and about +/-2% F-S for Temperature), plus the inherent DC accuracy of the DAQ system itself (usually +/-0.5%). But of course this is all reliant on the Sample Rate to insure no "Digital Signal Aliasing" occurs (which refers to "sampling too slow" and so losing the "spike" data), and the physical Frequency Response of the DAQ system and amplifiers (often "1 MHz", sometimes this can be set by adjustable Low Pass Filters).

Such a DAQ and analysis system with separate 4-slot signal conditioner box and appropriate signal conditioners would usually start at about $4k ... Although they can also be rented for 1 month (usually the minimum charge), for much less ("G.E. Quick Rents" or "ElectroRents").

[witsend]

jibbguy - it's some time since you've posted. Nice to see you're still on the subject. Those analysis requirements are good. But my guess is that provided we get something over with lots to spare then the experimenter may well be able to access a 'loan' at an engineering lab. It's more or less how I started out and I can assure you that people are willing to loan, provided obviously you can interest them in the test objects. And quite frankly - they find the subject really interesting as a rule - again my experience.

But let's get a number that looks like it may be worth exploring first.

[Aaron]

thanks Rosemary!

Actually - if, as you say, this point is not critical then - maybe let's put it to bed. Next Joit will be expected to show us his 555 per video and you yours and the subject is tedious at best. Unless of course it may have relevance to my claim. But I note, with gratitude I might add, that you accept that it would - at its worst - have been a misrepresentation with no bearing on my experiment.

I really don't feel inclined to retract a retraction if that is required. It's just getting a little boring. The points hold good.

Rosemary, the only thing that TK proved or help prove as it relates to your character is that you are a person of high integrity that can admit an error - if you are in error.

You did say you can't speak to the Quantum article a LONG TIME AGO anyway and you said to use the circuit from the paper - so for him to persist on the Quantum article issue is all-telling.

I asked him to not post here anymore and if he did, I posted that I would delete any further posts, which I can do since I started this thread. He posted - I honor my word as myself - and I would be out of integrity if I let his posts stick so I deleted them. One had a picture or diagram and in his youtube vids, he is saying I'm censoring him.

Ridiculous. We have posts here to ou.com and he can post anything there and on youtube. Anyway, I appreciate your patience with the disruption here at Energetic Forum. This kind of thing is happening more often recently and is actually a VERY VERY RARE thing here. There are countless posts in this thread talking about how much of a pleasure it is to be in this forum that is free of all the jibberjabber.

Thanks again for your valuable contributions!

[Aaron]

resistor

Just got my resistor in the mail.

It is a L50J10R, 50 WATT, 10 OHM. Ohmite brand resistor. Wirewound, ceramic, hollow core.
RESISTOR POWER 10 OHM 50W - L50J10R

The mosfets are supposed to take 1-3 weeks to get here from Hong Kong.

In the meantime, I do have a few circuits that have been begging me to insert this inductive resistor and I'll report anything interesting.

[Aaron]

@Gotoluc

For your entertainment and or correcting my understanding.

Yes, please beware of that individual - see my first post in this old thread:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/2118-drevtoobe-hugh-misinformation-service-inc.html

[witsend]

Hi Aaron - so nice to see you've waded through the posts. For me an historical day.

The nicest part is that our thread contributors are back. And it seems that most prefer the reasoned argument to those egotistical tantrums.

I am so grateful to ENERGETIC FORUM. It's got to be the nicest place for mind on mind - at it's best.

[Joit]

poynt99
I did my shot at the Output (Pin3) from the Timer.
Its an ST NE555N
I did not connect it now to the Base of any Transistor, for that, i play extra around.
This 'Line' what you see, is the laying Triangle, looks more like it generates a Sawtooth Wave. But you can turn it down or up.
With the 100Ohm Potentiometer at the Base of the Transistor you should can set the Duty Cycle.
You are using 3 Pots at all?
I will try to make a Video, and see, what i else can do with it.

[gotoluc]

Okay Rosemary, here is the new video with all the measurements hopefully

The only thing I thought of after the video is I did not show the temperature of an non heated item in the room. So I measured one and it is at 24 degrees Celsius.

Video Link: YouTube - Effect of Recirculating BEMF to Coil test 7

Luc

[gotoluc]

Luc

Please also run the test with an identical lamp at the input and output.

Hoppy

Hi Hoppy,

sorry, been busy making a new video and missed your post.

I can make another video of just that if you think it can help things.

Let me know since that would be fast to do since everything is still set.

Luc