COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Allow me to try another approach.

Rose, would you like me to do your experiment and would this please you?

If yes, then I would ask you this:

I have a wire-wound ceramic resistor, actual value of 10.4 Ohms and 29uH inductance. How would you receive my results using this resistor?

.99

PS. Rose, are you on the chat network Skype? I'd like to chat with you in real time if you are so inclined.

Download Skype for Windows - Skype

[boguslaw]

Maybe it's time to compute resonant frequency of output circuit (battery and inductive heater) ? Only resonance occurring here would allow COP > 1

[boguslaw]

Something important is here :
Effects of harmonics on power systems

[witsend]

Hi Bogus. I've missed you this last week. I'm not sure of Poynt's point here. But I think yours is good. Surely the RF should also be factored in as power out? I've never thought of that.

But to satisfy Poynt's actual objects here. I think the concern is that he'll run the test - wont duplicate the results - and then we'll discount it based on the fact that the resistor was not the same so why accept his results. Actually that would be my reaction.

But in all seriousness - whether or not he duplicates our results - here's the thing. I very much doubt that he'll get under 95% efficiency even without trying that hard. If he runs the switch from the same battery supply - he should get 100% (zero wasteage) - also without trying. If he gets that magic 'sweet spot' he may get as high as COP >1.5. That much has been evidenced on replications.

But that was not my claim. My claim was COP >17 - and that has been entirely elusive. My hope is that we'll get it with the resistor Fuzzy's making. if not - then I must admit defeat - at least until I can track down my original resistor (which may yet be possible - given a little more time).

Meanwhile - I must admit the only excitement was Aaron's ability to generate that remarkable waveform over the resistor - but unfortunately at very low wattages. Fuzzy's duplicated this - but the numbers need to be 'firmed up' and run on more exacting instruments (Tektronix - what else?). And frankly - albeit at low values - this number is actually more remarkable than COP>17. But it's commercial value would be more questionable. Certainly at zero loss to the supply it speaks very well to my thesis - for what it's worth.

[dllabarre]

It was clear to me....

Goodness Rose

Please clarify your response in general to the requirement of the inductive resistor's specifications for your experiment.

OR, as put previous:

Please clarify your response to dilabarre regarding the resistance and inductance value of the load resistor. (To benefit ALL here).

Thank you.

.99

My question was answered (clearly for me).
My understanding from her answer is that the resistor at 10 ohms and 8.63 micro Henries is important to replicate her results.

So I'm going to try to replicate this resistor at 10ohms and 8.63 micro Henries.

[witsend]

Thanks dllabarre - from just so many levels.

[boguslaw]

witsend

Maybe you can check if your inductive heater resistor has some special features ? Something like constant ratio of inductance to resistance in every temperature from some range for example. I really don't know what to look for...but certainly that resistor element seems important
Do you have a picture of it ?

(If you posted that photo previously then excuse me , I'm not watching this thread very carefully )

[boguslaw]

Why not just test resistive heating element in series with small choke to match parameters or orginal heating element ? Of course that's not the same as original element ,but a lot simpler.There is small probability it will work the same

witsend

Can you confirm the circuit which Aaron is/was using ? Is that the same as in your experiments ?
Pay attention to the wire connecting both batteries. Is that really what was in original circuit ? Would the circuit work WITHOUT that connection ?
Please, could somebody test it and comment ?

[poynt99]

Boguslaw,

What is the issue with the ground connection? I see none.

What I do see as a faux pas is Aaron's deletion of the 555 shunt and connecting all it's circuitry common to the MOSFET Source

But hey, Aaron's been working hard to defy good design and build practices from the very beginning, why stop now? On top of that he's got a bloke advising him to freely place all his probe grounds wherever he wants. Good thing "common sense" stepped in and saved the scope from a potential catastrophe (pun intended).

.99

[Harvey]

Boguslaw,

What is the issue with the ground connection? I see none.

What I do see as a faux pas is Aaron's deletion of the 555 shunt and connecting all it's circuitry common to the MOSFET Source

But hey, Aaron's been working hard to defy good design and build practices from the very beginning, why stop now? On top of that he's got a bloke advising him to freely place all his probe grounds wherever he wants. Good thing "common sense" stepped in and saved the scope from a potential catastrophe (pun intended).

.99

.99, that is twice now you have made rude Jibes at Aaron regarding his choice for the current sensing resistor location.

Please explain for the readers the difference between his current sensing resistor and a galvanometer in its place as per your strenuous and repeated prior requests.

I see none. The resistance is of such a minuscule value by comparison to the rest of the circuit it is doubtful it will have any effect at all apart from raising the voltage at the source perhaps a volt and a half at maximum continuous amperage (which cannot possibly happen with the normal operation of this circuit). It is not uncommon for ammeters to have shunt resistors with these values (and yes, I am using the term shunt correctly in this case).

The only faux pas I see here is your inability to engineer my requested waveforms even when given the full latitude to choose any values needed to do so. Or perhaps you were unable to read my post clearly enough to understand that? At any rate, I've resorted to doing it myself in my impatience, and I'm glad I did as I have discovered a few things I doubt you would have shared here. Thanks for your efforts nonetheless.

[Harvey]

Why not just test resistive heating element in series with small choke to match parameters or orginal heating element ? Of course that's not the same as original element ,but a lot simpler.There is small probability it will work the same

witsend

Can you confirm the circuit which Aaron is/was using ? Is that the same as in your experiments ?
Pay attention to the wire connecting both batteries. Is that really what was in original circuit ? Would the circuit work WITHOUT that connection ?
Please, could somebody test it and comment ?

Hi boguslaw,

You can view the schematic here on page two:
Quantum Article

And more information here on page 4 & 5:
Electric Heater Experiment - Aka 'White Paper'

You'll notice that there are really 3 batteries. Two in series for the 24V and a single separate battery for the timer. I have to admit, for my tests I did not provide a separate battery for the timer circuit - instead, I tapped the timer off the intermediate junction between the two series batteries. All of the 'grounds' were shared and bonded to an 8' copper rod in the ground via the scope probe references and scope chassis ground. A separate path to earth was strictly avoided to prevent ground loop currents. Therefore, in my case the circuit itself was 'free floating', only being tied to Earth via the scope chassis. There was no noticeable difference between having two references connect or just one, even though if a potential did exist it could have looped through those parallel circuits. The Ainslie circuit in the white paper clearly shows a zero reference being tied to the circuit, and that same reference is schematically shown as the scope chassis. How this was accomplished physically, I do not know specifically. Since the unit was operated at more than one location, it is reasonable to conclude that the zero reference was probably tied to the scope chassis or electrical earth ground by some wire. How much and by what wire gauge, we would need to ask Rosemary.

Cheers,

[poynt99]

.99, that is twice now you have made rude Jibes at Aaron regarding his choice for the current sensing resistor location.

Please explain for the readers the difference between his current sensing resistor and a galvanometer in its place as per your strenuous and repeated prior requests.

I see none. The resistance is of such a minuscule value by comparison to the rest of the circuit it is doubtful it will have any effect at all apart from raising the voltage at the source perhaps a volt and a half at maximum continuous amperage (which cannot possibly happen with the normal operation of this circuit). It is not uncommon for ammeters to have shunt resistors with these values (and yes, I am using the term shunt correctly in this case).

Once again you've missed the boat completely my friend. I was not referring to replacement of a shunt with an ammeter, my cause for concern was the complete deletion of the 555 shunt in lieu of attaching all it's commons to the MOSFET Source! This is per Aaron's own post #2627. The diagram dated 2009-AUG-26 is as I believe it should be with two separate shunts, but in his last edit in that post he clearly states that he is not using two shunts...get it? He has combined BOTH commons to the single Load shunt. Now unless I mis-interpreted what he said, that's just wrong. It's quite clear:

EDIT - actually, I'm not using 2 separate "shunts" for power measurements.
I have neg of 555 connected to source side of that "shunt" so I can see
power draw of both at same time.

Anyway, do what you guys want, just pay a little closer attention to what's been written ok?

The only faux pas I see here is your inability to engineer my requested waveforms even when given the full latitude to choose any values needed to do so. Or perhaps you were unable to read my post clearly enough to understand that? At any rate, I've resorted to doing it myself in my impatience, and I'm glad I did as I have discovered a few things I doubt you would have shared here. Thanks for your efforts nonetheless.

You first thank me, then later insult me by pulling the plug on my efforts and imply that it is because I am not able to translate your nonsensical techno-babble Come on man, you didn't even make an attempt at answering my last questions. Remember IT WAS YOU that asked me to make the efforts, and I indulged you for the sake of making a good gesture towards you, and this is how you reward those efforts?

Keep doubting about me Harvey because you haven't a clue. I take exception to your comment about what I might or might not share. Please refrain from projecting my intentions here, you have no right and you're certainly not qualified to do so. Also, you may have Rose, Aaron and a few others fooled with your sundry techno-babble, but rest assured, its charm is determinate

Looking forward to your "discoveries". I certainly hope they are of OU Can't wait to get my hands on the circuit since you're going to share and all

.99

[witsend]

Quotes from Poynt.

Once again you've missed the boat completely my friend. I was not referring to replacement of a shunt with an ammeter, my cause for concern was the complete deletion of the 555 shunt in lieu of attaching all it's commons to the MOSFET Source!
It seems, Poynt. that you have elected yourself as some kind of critique adjudicator. I, as an amateur, know that the most critical value here is to determine the amount of energy delivered by the battery. The inclusion of no more than one shunt at -B. on the ENTIRE CIRCUIT is needed for this. Harvey's request that Aaron add more shunts was for purposes of determining the wave shapes during the switching cycles. Why do you not undestand this? Frankly - I'm concerned that you should so insistently require the extra shunts when you and everyone reading this thread know that only one shunt is required for determining the acutal power drawdown. The rest were simply included to allow Harvey, and not you, to determine the energy drawn and dissipated during the switching cycle.

You first thank me, then later insult me by pulling the plug on my efforts and imply that it is because I am not able to translate your nonsensical techno-babble
I am reasonably certain that any gratitude expressed here was for purposes of keeping the 'tone' of this thread upbeat and perhaps to placate your evident and brittle ego.

Come on man, you didn't even make an attempt at answering my last questions. Remember IT WAS YOU that asked me to make the efforts, and I indulged you for the sake of making a good gesture towards you, and this is how you reward those efforts?
Where had you 'indulged' anyone for goodness sake? You were dancing. You were parading your requirement for 'niceties' and nonsense. All that was needed here was some effort to stress Spice parameters and 'explore'.

Keep doubting about me Harvey because you haven't a clue. I take exception to your comment about what I might or might not share. Please refrain from projecting my intentions here, you have no right and you're certainly not qualified to do so.
Harvey is the only active member of this thread - thus far - who has proposed confidence in your objects regarding your interest in this thread and this forum.

Also, you may have Rose, Aaron and a few others fooled with your sundry techno-babble, but rest assured, its charm is determinate
How dare you refer to any contributor's efforts as 'techno-babble'. You need to withdraw this statement and apologise.

Looking forward to your "discoveries". I certainly hope they are of OU. Can't wait to get my hands on the circuit since you're going to share and all.
I resent the snide sarcasm. it's inappropriate in any context. I, for one will be reporting you to a moderator and I hope that other contributors will follow suit.

You have dismissed Lighty - whose expertise I, for one, would be most glad to enjoy. You are now insulting Harvey? I suspect you feel that by criticising him you pull yourself to some sort of level with him? How absurd. Harvey is a star player here. You're not even in the reserve. You know what the difference is here Poynt apart from his rank expertise? It's in the sincerity of the search. You self-evidently want this side to lose and any results that you disclose will thereby be discounted or dismissed - even at best. You have now over-played your hand.

[Harvey]

I draw the readers attention to Poynt99 Post #2255 where in he states:

If you're not open to the capacitor source test, then insert an ammeter in place of one or both of the shunts (red to the positive side). Set on "DC milliamps" the meter should average the current and will indicate either + or - current and you will then know without the need for any fancy equipment. If the meter stays on the - side, then indeed a net current is going into the battery.

The ammeter would have to placed between the HEXFET source and the battery. Therefore, if an ammeter can work there accurately as a single device, then so can a single current sensing resistor.

Next I would like to draw the readers attention to Harvey's 'Techno-Babble' #2523 where I state:

It is currently the only conventional answer to this problem I see so far and I think we must allow ourselves latitude in the part values to accommodate the claimed result.

I gave Poynt99 complete latitude to use the simulator as he sees fit to produce the desired results. I can only conclude that he cannot engineer the proper parts values or arrangement to produce those results. He has already shown willingness to deviate from the actual schematic by inserting an unnecessary resistance in series with the power source (evidently he thought he had to model extra source impendance) and he chose to use a pulse source rather than modeling the 555 circuit. Well, in his defense, I did the same thing at first - it is easier - but not a true simulation.

I was surprised that my simulator produced waveforms very similar to the aperiodic actions we have seen when the HEXFET current was pushed to its limits. Well, more on all that later - I am still busy tasking 3 projects at once including this - but I am so interested with this it occupies most of my thoughts. In the recesses, I know that the measuring technique of subtracting power during the negative excursions was an error for Ainslie's group, but consciously the energy content contained in that portion seems much too small to account for the total values even though that is a compounded error in that it adds to the heat but was subtracted from the current sensing readings. Still at it.

[Aaron]

how to report offensive posts

If there is ANY post that anyone finds offensive that is insulting to anyone here and appears to violate the terms and conditions and purpose of this forum, please click the icon at the top right of the message that looks like this: and report it to the moderators.