COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[FuzzyTomCat]

Fuzzy - if you're there please take my last post across if Ramset's too busy to do so. I'd be obliged.

Hi Rosie,

I've done what you have requested .....

Best Wishes,
Glen

[witsend]

Thanks Fuzzy - very much. They've blocked me again so I can't actually see it. But am happy to know that it's there.

As always Fuzzy, what can I say? I wish I could clone you and keep you here at my keyboard. I think I'm going to have much need of tigers and sharp teeth.

[witsend]

The following quote from Aaron.

Here is what I found late last night, which is interesting. Can anyone else verify this?

.99, your simulation showed return to the battery was more without the diode? That was without oscillation in the mosfet right?

There may be something to that.

What I found was that when the mosfet was NOT in oscillation and was truly triggered by the 555 signal, the negative spike on the shunt was larger without the diode. That seems to corroborate with your simulation finding.

HOWEVER, with the diode there WITH oscillation in the mosfet, the negative spike on the shunt was BIGGER.

In both cases, the negative spike recharge is there with or without the diode.
So without oscillation, bigger spike on the shunt without diode.

With oscillation, bigger spike on the shunt with diode.

Nice find Aaron. Perhaps .99 can help us here?

[witsend]

@wistend
Maybe he will bring you the flowers and the cake once,
because, when i did not get this wrong, hes in Africa too.

Btw, can someone tell me, if the Shunt is good for anything else or just for measurements.
Is a Potentiometer a equal Replacement?
And where is the use of 24V instead only 12V. Thats about the better increasing Performance?

Right now i play with a Coil and a heat element in series around too, till i got my Shunts.
Got nice Spikes back,i should try it with some more Amps.

Aaron - Peter, someone, please help Joit out here. He's struggling.

[witsend]

Rosemary,

What does make me weary is the actual raw data itself. We do not have much information as to how it looked, nor how it was massaged in the spreadsheet. Another thing that I have doubts about is the equipment sampling your data. How good is it? Is the sample rate high enough to capture ALL those fast spikes? Is the equipment being fooled at all by them? These are issues that need to be worked out before testing begins.

Same thing goes with MH's protocol. The data needs to be solid and the number crunching checked, i.e. exactly how the numbers are to be massaged. This is where many errors are probably made.

If I had my Joule meter fully designed and built, for me that would be the way to go. Every component would be monitored simultaneously, and you would have a real time readout of anything you desired, COP, Watts, Current Voltage, and of course a running accumulation of Joules.

.99

.99 thanks for this. No problem with the Fluke - Spescom got Fluke to guarantee the results at the frequencies measured to within? can't quite recall the error margin. But it was neglible. We applied the error only to the return energy to discount it and were still >16COP.

Thanks for the objectivity .99. I had a shrewd idea it'd be available. Regarding constant downloading - I WISH. I'm speaking to the guys at Fluke to see what can be done within their Fluke parameters. But will need to get back to you on this.

WHAT NEW INSTRUMENT? This sounds like an interesting development. Well done.

[Joit]

Yep dave, that sounds not bad at all, because there is maybe a posibillity to get Energy back.

Somehow i got slowly another Picture about that. EM Field, Heat, Water/Current compression.

Ramset did post a Vid at Free Energie Step by Step.

And btw Ramset, it can be, that the Forumscripts are not compatibel to eachother, so Copy and Past over there can maybe not work, when it are Big letters, they usual need some Parameters like /Font=20, what you dont copy over when you only copy the text.
Same for Pictures, they have hidden Links at the source Code (what you see, when you rightclick on the Box and click View Source).
But i still agree, that you better should better not cheer him up, maybe you need to type the rest manually in.

Seems he really got enough Problems.
Otherwise, i think, with my good will Eye, he s a Person, what reallly need to have his Solid Proofs for his Life, otherwise, he maybe get lost.
I know this Phenomen from a lot Citizens at the Cityjungle.
But not the Point to spend a lot Time to try to Debunk others Efforts, as to look by hisself psoitive, to get something out of this Concept.
I think more did get it now, what it actually does.

And still what i say about. it isnt a OU creating Energie Machine, what pulls out endless Power, as he suspect,
This assumption is wrong, when he got this.
It is, to use the Energy, what is circulating very efficient, or, i did overlook something, and its something else.
But hey, maybe he can make it, that he can arrange it, that the Heating Element is at the Place of the Transistor, then he got his Heat.


About the Auto- settings at the Scope is what i did guess too, you can see it at Manual settings,
otherwise, the Scope will maybe catch it up, and shows it as a standing Wave.


Btw, the Circuit is running at Real Counterclockwise in this Circuit.


Edit @Witsend, no, i am not struggling, just playing around, but Thanks for looking
And usual i dont take Help from outside, i think i am mature enough for that.
I still dont have the right Parts by me now, but i will get a Pg50 and some Shunts, and will compare then, if there is a different.
Otherwise, i look for more Ways, to get something out from this Behave of the Circuit.
And even if its nothing i will post this.
But my Time is to sparly, to show with expansive Results, what could be wrong here.

[Aaron]

good night

Very exciting to see more experiments being posted here.

Anyway everyone, I apologize for allowing myself to be dragged down to TK's level. He started insulting Rosemary, etc... and everyone knows the rest. I just wanted to defend my own first shot circuit and did just that because of his fraudulent claims as evidenced by quotes of his I posted word for word. Laughable yes, but really not that funny.

I have such a deep passion for truth and justice and when I see dishonestly rear its ugly head, sometime it gets the better of me. Unfortunately, some people have no issue with that.

Hope to see more productive progress. I predict there will be plenty.

Good night!

[witsend]

Aaron - you spoke up under attack. What could be wrong with that? it's something I think we all have to learn. And, personally I think your defense was unassailable. I'm sure we all do.

Personally I love a strong argument strongly expressed. You did both. And you certainly exposed his want of fair representation. In any event I think we're all proud of that effort. And on your own out there.

Not easy.

EDIT By the way - I think it was your countermoves that actually tipped the scales. All that excess. In short we've lost a whole lot of battles - but not the war.

[poynt99]

The following quote from Aaron.



Nice find Aaron. Perhaps .99 can help us here?

Hi Rosemary,

I did offer some tips to help get that MOSFET oscillating, but I have not yet watched TK's latest videos where he demonstrates perhaps a better more reliable way using high frequency sine waves.

Aaron, do you have a function generator? If not, you really should get one off ebay or something, like Luc did. With some DC offset, and lower amplitude wave form (try all 3 types), it might be possible to tickle the MOSFET into it's natural parasitic oscillation.

Also Rosemary, I offered an explanation/characterization as to the cause and effect of all the spikes occurring in this circuit a couple posts back. Did you not see it?

http://www.energeticforum.com/61923-post1065.html

.99

[gotoluc]

Hi everyone,

a sneak update taken at 9:30am this morning of the exchanged batteries tested on the (gotoluc) circuit.

Both batteries are identical 12 volt 5 Amp/hr Sealed Lead Acid Batteries. One as supply and the other on charge in series on the flyback return side instead of the resistor or bulb. The 555 PWM that controls the IRF840 is set at 5KHz with a 30% duty cycle.

Test started Wednesday 22nd at 11pm

Supply Battery: previously at 12.82 and charged by circuit to 12.90

Charge Battery: previously used as supply at 12.95 and dropped to 12.91

Voltage check Wednesday 23rd at 9:30am while circuit still operating.

Supply Battery voltage now at 12.80 (under load voltage)

Charge Battery voltage 13.01 (under charge voltage)

It does appear that after a 10 hour period the battery charged from 12.82 to 12.90 went down faster (now used as supply battery) then the prior test which the supply battery started at 12.95 and dropped to 12.91 (after 2 hours of sitting time) and this was after a 24 hour period.

I'm off to work again but I'll let it run and stop it late this evening and post the results after a 2 hour settle down time.

Stay tuned.

Luc

[witsend]

.99's questions / answers

Regarding oscillations - I don't care where they're from really. Faulty equipment - aether - bad scope readings. They've got a curious nack of adding to the sum of the energy on a circuit.

But I see a need to at least identify it's source away from resonance. So. Whatever input you can put in here .99 - guys - much appreciated. Just don't go and eliminate them. They're very beneficial.

Also Rosemary, I offered an explanation/characterization as to the cause and effect of all the spikes occurring in this circuit a couple posts back. Did you not see it?

I'll go back and visit the link. Maybe try and bend my mind around this again.

[witsend]

Regarding Asron's question about there being oscillation in the spikes I saw in the simulation, and regarding MH's clarification in his post #1058 above, I'd like to say that the "spikes" going back into the battery are indeed different with and without the diode.

I've mentioned this a few times and it's importance has been overlooked, but here goes again, just in case anyone wants to know how these "spikes" are showing up at all. It's because of the parasitic capacitance inherent in the MOSFET. If they were not there, the spikes would be gone.

Another overlooked device parasitic of sorts is the junction capacitance of the flyback diode. It too has a marked effect on the appearance of these spikes.

First without the diode, indeed MH's description is mostly correct. However, upon flyback of the coil there really is a very short duration of very high frequency ringdown, even though at first inspection it looks merely lilke a single negative spike, which it is not. This ringdown current does appear in the battery, but because there is an equal number of undulations of positive and negative current, the net charging effect in the battery is zero. These undulations occur on the trailing edge. So Rosemary, indeed the current during the ringdown is AC and fluctuates in both directions at about 2MHz.

The electrical path for these high frequency undulations while the MOSFET is "OFF", is mainly provided via the D-S, D-G, and G-S parasitic capacitors. Also we should not forget the Gate drive path, as this provides a path for the D-G capacitor. In general, there are several paths to allow current to flow during these undulations, but again their net average is zero.

When the flyback diode IS present, there is a slightly different scenario that plays out. Due to the junction capacitance of the flyback diode, there is a extremely short impulse of current that goes into the battery, and this on the leading edge! This is unexpected but it in fact results from the drive pulse on the Gate. The leading edge current path is through G-D, then through the flyback diode into the battery. We have in effect the MOSFET driver charging (very very very meagerly) the battery.

Fun fun fun

.99

Thanks .99 I've copied this to get it back to the page - I'll try and answer your points.

[witsend]

.99 my best shot.

I'd like to say that the "spikes" going back into the battery are indeed different with and without the diode.
Are they bigger with the diode or smaller? And, are you acknowledging that they return to the battery?

...parasitic capacitance inherent in the MOSFET. If they were not there, the spikes would be gone.
Is this proven or assumed? Not sure if we're back to classical assumption or classical analysis.

Another overlooked device parasitic of sorts is the junction capacitance of the flyback diode. It too has a marked effect on the appearance of these spikes.
Same question as above.

This ringdown current does appear in the battery, but because there is an equal number of undulations of positive and negative current, the net charging effect in the battery is zero. These undulations occur on the trailing edge. So Rosemary, indeed the current during the ringdown is AC and fluctuates in both directions at about 2MHz.
I'm inclined to agree here. The advantage to the ringing simply adds energy dissipated at the load resistor. The 'spike' is evident across a shunt at the negative terminal of the battery - together with the input voltage. I'm inclined to think it goes though the battery? Cannot swear to a recharge cycle - but there does seem to be a correct voltage to allow this.

The electrical path for these high frequency undulations ...In general, there are several paths to allow current to flow during these undulations, but again their net average is zero.
Agreed - except in the energy that is then given to the load.

When the flyback diode IS present, there is a slightly different scenario that plays out. Due to the junction capacitance of the flyback diode, there is a extremely short impulse of current that goes into the battery, and this on the leading edge! This is unexpected but it in fact results from the drive pulse on the Gate. The leading edge current path is through G-D, then through the flyback diode into the battery. We have in effect the MOSFET driver charging (very very very meagerly) the battery.
I get it. Again is this proven? If not, how can we prove it?

So .99. I guess I'll have to pay better attention to alternate explanations. They're imortant if we're going to get some answers here. It is fun. I actually LOVE THIS SUBJECT y

[poynt99]

.99's questions / answers

Regarding oscillations - I don't care where they're from really. Faulty equipment - aether - bad scope readings. They've got a curious nack of adding to the sum of the energy on a circuit.

But I see a need to at least identify it's source away from resonance. So. Whatever input you can put in here .99 - guys - much appreciated. Just don't go and eliminate them. They're very beneficial.

Also Rosemary, I offered an explanation/characterization as to the cause and effect of all the spikes occurring in this circuit a couple posts back. Did you not see it?

I'll go back and visit the link. Maybe try and bend my mind around this again.

I haven't eliminated the "spikes" (ringdown undulations really), in fact I have agreed that they are there, and explained what causes them and what effect they are having.

Rosemary, unless I specify otherwise, assume that I am coming from the classical perspective on things.

Whether they add to the total output power is the essence of what this is all about.

The high frequency aspects of the circuit can be modeled using capacitors, inductors and resistors, but I have not considered the lead inductances at this time. Do you understand an electrical schematic Rosemary? It can all be drawn out and analysed that way, but there is no point if you feel you will not glean any useful information from it.

.99

[poynt99]

.99 my best shot.

I'd like to say that the "spikes" going back into the battery are indeed different with and without the diode.
Are they bigger with the diode or smaller? And, are you acknowledging that they return to the battery?

They are bigger without the diode. Again they are undulations or oscillations that go both positive and negative, which means the average current from these undulations is zero, and hence the charging effect on the battery is also zero.

...parasitic capacitance inherent in the MOSFET. If they were not there, the spikes would be gone.
Is this proven or assumed? Not sure if we're back to classical assumption or classical analysis.

This again is classical analysis and classical observation. These undulations and spikes are present in SPICE simulations, and when the MOSFET is replaced with and IDEAL switch (i.e. no parasitic capacitance or inductance), the undulations in the battery are eliminated because the current path is now truly cut OFF, unlike the case with an actual or modeled MOSFET switch.

Another overlooked device parasitic of sorts is the junction capacitance of the flyback diode. It too has a marked effect on the appearance of these spikes.
Same question as above.

Replace the real or modeled diode with an IDEAL diode model (i.e no junction or lead parasitics), and that path is also eliminated, and there will be no current spike sourced from the Gate drive.

This ringdown current does appear in the battery, but because there is an equal number of undulations of positive and negative current, the net charging effect in the battery is zero. These undulations occur on the trailing edge. So Rosemary, indeed the current during the ringdown is AC and fluctuates in both directions at about 2MHz.
I'm inclined to agree here. The advantage to the ringing simply adds energy dissipated at the load resistor. The 'spike' is evident across a shunt at the negative terminal of the battery - together with the input voltage. I'm inclined to think it goes though the battery? Cannot swear to a recharge cycle - but there does seem to be a correct voltage to allow this.

Yes I agree, this ringing could add to the total dissipation in the coil resistance.

When the flyback diode IS present, there is a slightly different scenario that plays out. Due to the junction capacitance of the flyback diode, there is a extremely short impulse of current that goes into the battery, and this on the leading edge! This is unexpected but it in fact results from the drive pulse on the Gate. The leading edge current path is through G-D, then through the flyback diode into the battery. We have in effect the MOSFET driver charging (very very very meagerly) the battery.
I get it. Again is this proven? If not, how can we prove it?

It has been "proven" to be so in my simulation, and in the classical sense, the simulation does not lie (provided it is used properly).

You can prove it by scoping the voltage across the flyback diode. You will observe a spike on the leading edge of the switch-ON. You could also use a low resistance shunt in series with the diode to see the current directly. Which direction does the current go at the leading edge? From my findings, it appears to go into the battery, but this one really is a "spike" in the truest sense. Just one narrow impulse (~20ns) going back into the battery. Again, this extremely brief impulse appears to be sourced from the MOSFET Gate drive.

.99