Follow by Email

Sunday, December 26, 2010

29 introduction to the report being prepared

Dear all,

This is a draft of the introduction to the report that I hope will be completed before the end of this week - before the NEW YEAR. It comes with my best seasonal greetings.

Rosemary

REPORT ON A NEW DISCOVERY RELATED TO ENERGY AND THE APPLICATION OF ENERGY

1
A little about the background and problems related to the structures available to progress new discoveries.

It is evident that a simple switching circuit is able to dissipate more heat at a load than the amount of energy supplied by a battery supply source. This was first recorded in an article published in the October edition of Quantum magazine in 2002 – and subsequently widely reported on the internet in a test replication completed at the end of 2009. Both tests gave evidence of a co-efficient of performance in excess of 1, the first by a factor of 17 and the second by a factor of 7.

The essential design of both tests was a simple battery supply source placed in series with an inductive resistive load and a MOSFET transistor driven by a 555 circuit. Measurements were confined to a calorimetric evaluation of the energy dissipated at the load compared to a control. And the measure of the energy delivered by the battery supply was based on the voltage measured across a non-inductive shunt resistor placed in series with the negative rail of the battery to determine the rate of current flow.

The question is why either test generated so little public interest given the extraordinary nature of the claim? The reason for this is that our application to publish in a reviewed journal was denied. The rejection of the first paper may possibly have been excused on the bases of insufficient data and possible inadequacy of the measuring instruments used. But the second paper detailing these results rather erred on the side of excess. And the instrument that recorded this data was a Tektronix TDS3054C that was more than adequate both in terms of its rated bandwidth and the sophistication of the software that enables due record.

The actual reasons given for the rejection of the second paper, even prior to review, was that the technology was based on a thesis that was outside the expertise of the reviewers. The suggestion was made that it would, therefore, be more appropriate for publication in a physics journal. But, in as much as electrical measurement falls outside the expertise of our physicists, it seems that the paper may forever remain profoundly and fundamentally unpublishable. In the light of the extraordinary nature of the claim one hopes not. The more so as the results show a technological potential that may address those manifold concerns related to pollution. These concerns dog our burgeoning energy needs and our somewhat profligate use of this.

The fact is that our Thermodynamic Laws are that entrenched in our general and mainstream physics paradigms that it is now entirely impossible to give a reasonable account of breach of this through any respectable medium whatsoever. Claims of breach are met with rank scepticism and dismissed on the basis of ‘assumption of error’. And all solicitations, to either attend a demonstration or to comment after such attendance, were only ever met with a blunt refusal accompanied by a parade of contempt and condescension. And it is unlikely that such an attitude can be considered appropriate to science. Science is only ever progressed through experimental evidence. To deny that evidence, or more appropriately, the careful evaluation of that evidence, serves nothing but prejudice. And neither prejudice nor assumption can ever serve the truth.

As it applies to an evaluation of our own experimental evidence, this less than satisfactory attitude is entirely unacceptable. The circuit is simple. The component parts are easily identifiable. The measurements are instantaneously available subject only to the use of an appropriate oscilloscope. And to compare each and every aspect of the test claim as it relates to the dissipation of heat against a control, then a short half hour would suffice. To refute the claim would take a matter of minutes for any expert qualified in power engineering. The numbers are neither elusive nor marginal. The results are unambiguous and repeatable. And they consistently point to a breach in Thermodynamic constraints that merits considerably more attention than they have actually, historically managed.

As mentioned, the review process allows publication of experimental evidence that interested parties can then evaluate the experiment to progress it or to use it as required. But, historically, this progress has been confined to incremental improvements and small variations where results remain substantially within thermodynamic constraints. The only vehicle available for publication of results that defy these limitations are through Open Source and the internet.

But herein lies a second danger that rather exceeds the risk of test evidence being merely overlooked. Internet communication is by individuals who, more often than not, hide behind an avatar or an assumed identity. There is an overriding lack of accountability and, not being accountable allows contributors the freedom of expression that is as unrestrained as ‘road rage’ and often as destructive. Opinion, unsubstantiated allegation, calumny and rank unprofessionalism abound. Technology is promoted or destroyed with far less effort and far less merit than the carefully composed chapters of those many papers submitted through traditional channels. And where claims of unity breach are actively encouraged through multiple forums they are also as readily dismissed due to the flagrantly self-serving opinions of those many who subscribe. While the facts of any issue are recorded for posterity, the memory of its readers and contributors is short. Open source is indeed vulnerable to gross and even to criminal abuse. And it can, therefore never be considered a reasonable alternative to progress new knowledge.

In conclusion therefore, it is evident that there is no vehicle, no procedural blue print, where new thinking and new discoveries can be appropriately addressed. Scientific merit is only ever attributed within the tight confines of popular opinion be it learned or otherwise - be it through the channels of academic publication or through free internet publication. Either way is fraught. The hope here is to forge some system, some method that can breach these barriers. The thinking now is that demonstrations should be limited to a prepared audience and that their subsequent evaluation carry the required accreditation to merit publication in a reviewed journal. Publication would then, hopefully, satisfy mainstream that the experiment requires fuller research. There is more than enough experimental evidence to proof to of concept. What is now required is that these tests be put up at multiple benches through many different laboratories and institutions that the full extent of the claim can be carefully evaluated and verified or refuted as that knowledge grows.

References
Reference 1 - http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/12/finally-our-tie-paper.html

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

28 this was published in oped and copied over from my scribd file

CRASHING THROUGH THE ENERGY BARRIER

A discussion on the emergence of a dynamic new energy source from dark energy

By Rosemary Ainslie 1-2010

Opinion is divided on the causes of Global Warming. The question is whether this is entirely the result of carbon dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere from our profligate energy demands, or whether it is some cyclical occurrence that has more to do with solar rhythms. The consensus, however, is that our manufacture and use of energy is somewhat less than responsible. And the alarming effects of Global Warming have precipitated a thinly disguised global hysteria. These concerns were articulated at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was concluded in mid December 2009. The mandate endorsed the general requirements of the Kyoto Accord with detailed proposals for implementation at this accord’s expiry in 2012.

This convention was held in Copenhagen which, through a curious quirk of coincidence, was also the birth place of modern physics. Here, in 1941 Bohr and Heisenberg formulated the principles of quantum mechanics which, in turn, has systematically enabled the unravelling of the structure of the atom and its particles. In effect the expanding knowledge of quantum mechanics introduced those very same modern technologies that, today, are widely exploited in the manufacture of energy. And while, at the time, the event was newsworthy, it did not carry the banner headlines afforded to the UNFCCC. The year is now 2010 and our need for ‘clean and green’ energy dominates our attentions. And this is the more so as we learn of the fragilities associated with Nature’s need for balance to ensure some continuity of our species. Doomsayers abound and even the more moderate amongst us are aware of that nervous inner reference which speaks to possible annihilation of our entire species. It is seen as a kind of Armageddon where the affront comes not so much from an international assault but from some unstoppable turbulence within Nature herself.

It is perhaps, as a consequence of this concern that a fringe group of experimentalists have come into their own and they use the vehicle of the Internet to test new forms of energy. This is not a minor event, hidden within some small chapter of “Google”. Rather it is a fast growing movement spearheaded by some extraordinary talents in applied electrical engineering. And its growth seems exponential. Some of the larger forums that are dedicated to these discussions are Energetic Forum and Over Unity. Others include Free Energy, Rex Research, ZP Energy, and on and on. The “dot-com” list is long and growing; and the discussion threads varied and well subscribed. And the readership of these topics is also growing at pace. So much so that the forums have become a required advertising medium and, in some instances very evidently and profitably so. And the contributors to those threads, the experimentalists themselves, take pride in the quality of their presentations, the accuracy of their measurements and the effectiveness of their devices to reduce pollution or to enhance efficiency. The overriding theme, the need to explore new energy and new ways of applying this energy.

But this, in turn brings one’s focus back to those Laws of Physics which tell us that we can never get more energy out of an energy supply source than was first put in. It is widely understood in the same context as “what goes up – must come down, what goes in must come out”. The battery that supplies our starter motors cannot give more energy than is available in the battery. The plug that feeds power to our lights cannot give us more energy than the power available from that plug. And so it goes. These principles are known as Thermodynamic Laws and they constrain a maximum efficiency in the delivery of energy to “1”. For this reason it’s known as an equivalence principle and it’s been a rule that has been tried and tested since it’s inception when Sir Isaac Newton uncovered the gravitational force at the turn of the 18th Century. This was subsequently expanded to include the forces from induction and then the nuclear forces themselves. Always there is a required conservation of energy and as always, there is this restriction, this constrained value in the exchange of energy, which is evident - - everywhere.

Or is it? Ten years prior to the Copenhagen Convention, that historical meeting of the minds, that well publicised confrontation between the charismatic Bohr and the less than engaging Heisenberg, was the first quiet announcement of yet another force. A full decade in advance of the birth of quantum principles was the certain evidence of a new force both proposed and located. It was first called hidden matter and subsequently defined as dark energy from dark matter. And it is now conservatively proposed that this energy and its variously-proposed particles make up 96% of the entire universe. And notwithstanding the search for this force, a search that has now spanned four generations, no one has ever seen or identified the particle that is understood to be the foundation upon which visible matter rests. It is only known by default. The fact is that according to mainstream’s knowledge of physical laws, our galaxies should, by rights, be systematically unravelling. Something extraneous to those galaxies is also holding their star structures together. This is also variously referred to as zero point energy or “the God particle” and is measured through the art of gravitational lensing. It is thought to permeate the universe in considerable abundance. It is entirely invisible to light. It responds to gravity. But in all other ways it’s properties can only be determined by a “best guess” exercise that our scientists themselves find less than satisfactory. Consensus on its overarching description is that its particle does not fall within the standard model. And no textbook description of the particle is possible because, quite simply, and notwithstanding extraordinary efforts to do so, no one has ever seen it.

But there is absolute consensus on one thing. If the source of this energy could be located, if the particle could, indeed, be identified, then it promises an abundance of energy that will more than satisfy the urgent demands of our mushrooming energy requirements. Perhaps it is a response to this challenge to discover or uncover this energy that motivates those myriad threads in those manifold Open Source Energy forums. Or perhaps it is simply the desperate, last and earnest reach of a minority interest to salvage humanity from its own excesses. But whatever it is that initiated this obsessive interest, it is now fuelled by constantly growing claims that this energy can, indeed, be accessed. The energy barriers that were determined by that equivalence principle appear to be crashing down with monotonous regularity. And many such claims seem to show a signature transient ‘spike’, an unusually large momentary voltage level induced across a variety of components in inductive switching circuitry. The configuration of the circuits are as varied as the objectives. But the constant theme is that whether it is heat or motion that is required – it is readily available and at a cost that has blown the energy barrier into history together with those rigid paradigms established by our mainstream scientists and articulated in their Thermodynamic Laws.

A little over a decade ago this author developed a magnetic field model using the atypical tools of dialectic reasoning. While such is usually applied to philosophical questions the application here was tested against observed physical realities and were seen to conform to such. But more to the point, the developed model was also able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. The underlying proposal is that composites of a superluminal magnetic dipole may comprise all visible matter. But it is the conclusions to that model which is the subject of this exercise rather than the model itself. It points to the fact that the thing that binds our galaxies, that new and dark force, is the same thing that binds all atomic structures into three dimensional objects. In other words everything that has a three dimensional property, bricks, stones, electric kettles, even the very ground of the earth, is bound by fields of these particles that are referred to as zipons. And the departure from mainstream thinking is precisely that the atomic value of the atom remains untouched in this exchange of energy, in this binding of matter. The actual exchange of energy, be it thermal or kinetic, is managed by these particles in their interaction with atomic energy levels which in turn also comprise their own fields of zipons. The binding fields are seen to be extraneous to the atomic structure itself.

If these proposals are fundamentally correct then their implications are profound. In effect the proposal is that measurable mass has an energy quotient that is not in its particles, those electrons and protons that we can and do measure, but is actually in these fields of zipons that remain outside the scope of our measuring instruments. It can only been seen or measured when some applied imbalance alters these fields and induces it to move outside that bound condition. Then a chain reaction sets up a cascading series of imbalances while these fields readjust and, in some instances, entirely unravel that bound state. The result can vary between a mild and evident fatigue in that structure, all the way to a total atomic disassociation from its bound condition. It can result in a break in the filament of a light or in a heap of ash from burnt wood. And conversely, and without that applied potential difference, the field is in a state of balance. And then the atoms that it binds are in a state of comparative rest. In this more quiet form the field holds its position albeit that it continues to orbit.

It is proposed that the velocity of the particle in its orbit is the reason that the field remains invisible. It moves at superluminal speeds and light itself cannot find it. But break those symmetries and one can either see or feel the heat off its broken and cascading strings of zipons. Or we can use and measure the voltage which then induces a current flow. The model also proposes that the mass of the zipon carries both a kinetic and a thermal property both of which can vary. In a field it becomes cold and fast and small. Outside the field it becomes hot and slow and big. And the two manifestations are in a direct and inverse proportional relationship to each other. But energy itself, the thing that moves through space and in time, the thing that varies the position and properties of the amalgams that it binds, the thing that manifests as a flame to impart heat or as a voltage to impart current flow, those things are also proposed to be the source of all the energy that we use. The questions then remaining is how true to observed realities are these proposals? And what changes are introduced regarding any new insights into the exchange of energy?

Here’s the thing. It means that inductive components in electrical circuitry, anything that can experience an induced voltage, is also able to generate its own energy. This thesis suggests that the filament in a light bulb is able to generate as much energy as was fed to it by the plug source. The element in an electric kettle can give back the same amount of energy that was delivered to it to make it hot. And this energy is dynamic. It can be as great or greater than the amount of energy first supplied to it and it only depends on the mass of that component to determine the amount of energy that it is able to regenerate and on the rate of the switch to determine the number of times it can perform this ‘cycle of regeneration’. And in this way, and always with the proviso that some switching system is applied to “give it a chance” the model proposes that this energy is useable, or better yet, reusable. It refunds the fund of energy first applied and suggests that the cost of energy is then the difference between what was first given and what was then put back. Within the approved system of recycling all things, it is suggested that energy itself can be recycled. And the model proposes that this is done by and with courtesy from these very fields of invisible matter.

And then to the second question. How accurate are these claims? Here opinion has been divided. The training within academia has traditionally denied the possibility of breaching these thermodynamic constraints. This tradition is long and well grounded in evidence. Switching circuits are well known. All varieties of applications have been tried and tested. And “always” results conform to the required parameters of these equivalence principles. However, a breach of these laws, as it applies to this model, was proved in an experiment detailed and published in the October edition of Quantum Magazine, in 2002, written by this author in collaboration with Brian Buckley. Every effort was first made to get this published in a reviewed journal so that the information could get academic attention. But those efforts were unsuccessful. The published claim indicated a co-efficient of performance in excess of “17”. In other words the amount of energy delivered by the battery supply source used, was exceeded 17 times by the amount of energy dissipated at the load. This co-efficient of performance is generally referred to as “COP” and in this instance it is COP>17. It was an extraordinary claim but it faded from a minor flurry of South African media attention, probably because there was no academic comment. The publication was subsequently also posted on the Internet at rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com. Various Open Source Energy forums then picked up on the information and their evident desire to replicate the experiment was then communicated to this author.

Which is where these forums’ experimentalists come into their own. Glen Lettenmaier, also known by his avatar as “FuzzyTomCat”, was the first to successfully replicate the test detailed in that original quantum paper. He was given the use of a Tektronix TDS3054C Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope, which is state of the art measuring equipment. Then through a series of well documented tests he studied the required parameters to realise the gain using the same experimental apparatus that was detailed in that earlier paper. What he uncovered, largely due to the sophistication of that measuring equipment, was that there was a signature harmonic waveform required to establish the gains. It appears that the circuit is able to establish a preferred aperiodic oscillating condition that holds, within it, a signature pattern. This can be pictured as a swing that pushes in one way and is then pushed back in the opposite direction. Then at a certain precise speed the swing will move in both directions, the forward thrust giving enough energy to secure the backward thrust. Then a short period or a “wobble” where that ‘harmonious’ pattern is lost and then again, the cycle is repeated. Subject only to the evidence of that harmonic the actual cost of energy expended by the battery appears to be zero. But because the harmonic pulses are intermittently lost, the actual expenditure is slightly greater than zero. But always, when properly tuned to resonance, it is less than the amount of energy that is dissipated at the load. The ratio here is “COP>4” when one takes only the heat at the resistor into account. If all the heat evident throughout the circuit is also taken into account, then the value is more in the region of “COP>9”, or thereby. In other words, the claim in the original Ainslie / Buckley document was validated and the particular requirement for the over-unity performance definitively exposed.

It is important to give some explanation for the fact that this effect has been overlooked by mainstream science and for so long. In point of fact the real miracle is that this condition was found at all. In the first instance applied switching applications are designed to hold a frequency. Any condition of aperiodicity, any evidence of a chaotic waveform, would systematically be factored out of the application as being corruptive to the objects of that application. There are papers written on how to reduce this chaos. Historically all such conditions were considered less than satisfactory. It has never been encouraged. And consequently nor has this innate advantage ever been seen nor studied.

The implications of this are extraordinary. It points to the real possibility that if the circuit were sufficiently finely turned so that the resonating frequency could always include that harmonic, then the indications are that energy can be delivered by a supply source at absolutely no cost from that supply. Yet this is not a “perpetual motion” claim. The battery will lose mass to evaporation. The plates will be corrupted over time. The battery supplying the signal source will lose voltage. And the bound condition of the resistive element itself may systematically degrade. But that’s pocket change. The cost of supplying energy through this technology remains seductive and promising and, in truth, seems to answer the overriding need for an inexhaustible supply of energy at a cost that Nature herself can afford. Which is good news indeed.

However there are certain hurdles that need to be crossed before this technology passes through to the production lines and enters the world as a usable technology. There is a radiated “RF” (radio frequency) component in that resonance that will need proper shielding in some applications. There is the need to develop circuitry that is better able to maintain the signature harmonic. The optimised shape and size of the various resistors need to be tested. Different inductive and resistive materials need to be considered. And all this will take a great deal of research and with it, research funding. Traditionally such funding is channelled to universities, technical institutions and privately owned laboratories. This funding is usually supplied by companies with a vested interest in exploiting the technology and/or securing patent rights. But there’s a caveat to investment. This is that the research itself is not that unrealistic, that exotic, that it flies in the face of thermodynamic principles. And this is the very point at which this application falls on its knees and dies. These claims are indeed, that ‘far out’ and that bazaar. No self-respecting researcher will endorse such a study, nor a self-respecting investor fund its research, unless and until the claim has been published and closely scrutinised by a broad range of academics.

So, for this technology to move forward, publication in an academic medium is required. It must be understood that there are two reputable sources of publication that, between them, control the publication of virtually all academic papers written in English. The first is the Institute of Electrical Technologies, (IET) which is the European arm and it’s sister body across the Atlantic being The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, (IEEE). Between them they hold significant control over nearly all academic paper submissions of this type. The first application was submitted to the IET in January 2009. This was rejected out of hand and was not even submitted for review. The second was submitted shortly thereafter to the IEEE. The editor here was evidently prepared to look to the experimental evidence and the paper was submitted for review but summarily rejected – probably by consensus vote from the reviewers themselves.

But by now the replication exercise on one of those many Open Source forums had taken off. This was energeticforum.com on a thread named “COP 17 heater / Rosemary Ainslie”. The readership of that thread is in the thousands per day. And the postings have evolved to evidence multiple replications. There are many experimentalists who have done some variation of that initial “Quantum” test as it is referred to. Two such players are Aaron Murakami and Glen Lettenmaier. But it was Lettenmaier who pipped everyone to the finish line with the accurate and transparent evidence of the required and unequivocal evidence of heat being dissipated at the resistive load at a cost that was singularly less than that being supplied by the battery. His experimental aptitudes were exemplary and his data and multiple “YouTube” video demonstrations together with live streaming broadcast of the actual waveforms was done without any editing of the facts. This therefore proved that the circuit was able to regenerate usable energy. More to the point, the measurements relating to that supply source was determined by state of the art measuring equipment.

As a consequence of these efforts some of those members decided to rally together, to collaborate and submit an Open Source paper to the IEEE. This is possibly a first of its kind, and is intended to confront those same academic editors with the evidence of this new data based on these carefully recorded tests. In evaluating the strength of a thesis it is required that there is some experimental proof and that the experiment itself is replicable. In other words, a claim is never substantiated unless and until the conditions of that claim can be tested and replicated and proved. Then indeed the thesis may have merit. Here the initial test was designed to prove that the circuit components themselves were capable of producing regenerated energy. This first submission carried with it the accreditation and endorsement of BP (South Africa), SASOL (SA, who also offered a bursary award for its advancement), ABB Research (North Carolina, USA) and others. But the circuit was actually Replicated only by ABB Research, the others being Verifications of the existing built circuit. The Open Source replications proved that the first tests were not an anomalous result from some freak, co-incidental and haphazard assemblage of experimental apparatus that produced a “one-off” effect. And this is the point. That entire replication exercise is usually and traditionally advanced within our academic institutions who, in turn, are alerted to these technological breakthroughs courtesy of the publication of papers in those journals. But failure to publish prevented those same academics from knowing about this claim let alone testing it. In effect, Open Source had filled the gap that had been closed by a handful of editors and/or reviewers who pontificated that, on the basis of probability, the experimental evidence presented in that initial paper, was erroneous.

Some talented members of the Open Source community collaborated in this publication, including this author, Harvey Gramm, Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth Palise, Andrew Gardner, Donovan Martin and Steve Windisch. Each contributor brought their own expertise into the exercise. And this time the paper has not been rejected but rather has been referred to a different journal with a different emphasis. It has been deemed to more appropriate to the journal devoted to renewable energy rather than power generation. Which may be good news. The hope is that this recommendation was well considered. Meanwhile the technological breakthroughs are happening at pace. The latest feat is by Michael John Nunnerley who has done a live broadcast of his own circuit variation of these principles that shows the battery recharging over a 17 hour period while systematically running a compact florescent lamp which is burning something in the region of 11 watts.

All of which points to unequivocal evidence of over unity results – that challenging claim that goes to the throat of our Thermodynamic Laws and calls to question it’s applicability to the dark energy that the thesis claims as its source. But to get this argument to mainstream, to those academics who between them can evaluate the evidence in that paper, it first needs to get through that rigid editorial process. The hope is that, should that process fail, should the sheer lack of credibility in the reviewers prove to be an insuperable barrier to publication, then this article and others like it can alert our public to these facts. Indeed the good news is that energy is available and it is inexpensive and it is clean and green. It will put paid to our dependency on both utility supply sources and oil. It may thereby cause a certain amount of social upheaval as the broader populations rid themselves of their dependency on traditional energy supply sources. But the good news is that energy usage will be freed from the pollutant excesses that have resulted from so many years and so many generations of abuse. Nature herself will get a much deserved break. And, whatever the causes of global warming, our own culpabilities will then no longer be at question.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

REJECTED BY TIE

27
Dear reader - the following is the TIE paper FINALLY published.  Still a few glitches in the download of this but the most of it's here.  Please note - this is authored by R.A Ainslie, H.W Gramm, G.A Lettenmaier, A.Palise, A. Gardiner, D Martin, S. Windisch.  IT HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED BY TIE and I am simply referencing it here as the work done by Open Source.

As a reminder it is the work of collaborators and in terms of copyright pertaining to a collaboration ALL authers are entitled to use, publish or distribute this work individually, as they require.  In the event that anyone get financial rewards for publishing then those rewards must be shared.  And a further reminder - I'm therefore legally permitted to publish this here on my blog just in case Harvey or Glenn again try and get this removed by unreasonable claims of plagiarism.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary



          Evaluation of power transients generated to 
         improve performance coefficient of resistive 
                             heating systems

Abstract— This experiment is designed to test the predictions of a thesis that determines material hidden properties of charge in circuit components. A MOSFET switching circuit is applied in series with an inductive resistive load and an interactively tuned duty cycle on the gate then enables an aperiodic, self oscillating frequency. Subject to overlying harmonics this is seen to improve the circuit’s coefficient of performance above four. The thesis proposes that this level of efficiency is due to the induced transients where the resultant current flow emanates from the circuit components.  It is proposed that these have an alternate material source of charge to that of the supply. This energy is further proposed to be the source of the anomalous heat signatures as the circuit components enable this charge flow through the battery supply thereby also enabling a conservation of charge.

 Index Terms— Transient analysis, Heating, MOSFET circuits, Resistive circuits



I.    Introduction

THE following tests were designed to evaluate a thesis  that predicted anomalous heat signatures on an inductive resistor placed in series with a switching circuit. The thesis is developed from a non classical magnetic field model but a full description of this falls outside the scope of this submission.  What is pertinent here is some overview of that thesis as it applies to current flow. The following paragraph is intended as a broad brushstroke description of this and is further clarified as described in the Appendix I.
The model proposes that charge has the property of mass with the material properties of velocities and thermal capacities associated with that mass.  These particles do not conform to the standard model and remain hidden within three dimensional solid or liquid objects or amalgams.  They are extraneous to the atom itself and only interact with the atomic energy levels that, in turn, comprise independent fields of the same fundamental particle. These extraneous fields are responsible for the bound condition of the amalgam. This interaction between the fields and the atoms’ energy levels results in a balanced distribution of charge throughout the amalgam. Measurable voltage reflects a transitional state of imbalance throughout these binding fields that, subject to circuit conditions, then move that charge through available conductive and inductive paths to reestablish a charge balance. In effect the circuit components that enable the flow of charge from a supply source are, themselves able to generate a flow of current depending on the strength of that applied potential difference and the material properties of the circuit components. Therefore both inductive and conductive circuit components have a potential to generate current flow in line with Inductive Laws.
Classical assumption requires an equivalence in the transfer of electric energy based as it is on the concept of a single supply source. Therefore voltage measured away from the supply on circuit components is seen to be stored energy delivered during closed circuit conditions of a switching cycle. The distinction is drawn that if indeed, the circuit components are themselves able to generate a current flow from potential gradients, then under open circuit conditions, that energy may be added to the sum of the energy on the circuit thereby exceeding the limit of energy available from the supply. Therefore if more energy is measured to be dissipated at a load than is delivered by the supply, then that evidence will be consistent with this thesis.  The experimental evidence does indeed, conform to this prediction.
This submission details the experimental apparatus, the applied measurements protocol and the data from a test that is designed to adequately assess the data as it relates to the thesis. It is considered that this submission of the experimental results will allow a wide dissemination both of the experiment and some consideration of questions relating to these anomalies, as being preferred and required.
The circuit is designed to enable a secondary, current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields over the resistor during the ‘off’ period of the duty cycle as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). This induces a flow of current in anti phase to the initial current from the source and this is seen to return to the battery supply source to recharge it.  The performance coefficient is enhanced through an applied duty cycle that allows the circuit components to oscillate at a naturally recurring frequency.   This is referred to herein, as a preferred mode of oscillation which, in turn, results in an aperiodic, self-regulated, resonating frequency.  Distinctive harmonics are evident in the waveform and these are seen to be a required condition to the circuit’s enhanced performance as it relates to the efficiency of the recharge cycle over the battery. However the precise parameters of the duty cycle, determined by adjustment of the potentiometer at the gate of the MOSFET transistor, are found to be both critical and elusive.
The fact that these benefits to an enhanced coefficient may have been overlooked under usual applications can be attributed to the narrowness of the range required for this setting. Under usual applications such aperiodicity is considered undesirable and therefore systematically factored out of standard switched applications.  
Also included is a discussion on ‘meshed currents’ that are evident and a detailed account of the data analysis that was applied to all measurements.
A series of related tests are appended that variously record the progress of the applied test parameters and the improved methods of measurements as the knowledge of the application unfolded. This schedule includes an evaluation of the inductance required on the load resistor to optimize the effect, as well as an evaluation of the comparative diameters of that resistor to determine optimized conditions. Other tests include the measurements that were performed to address a variety of concerns including grounding problems, voltage differentials and applied high frequencies without the required harmonics.  These have been appended, together with an overview of the thesis relating to this effect, for both purposes of record and to afford a fuller evaluation as required.
The test that is described herein has results that appear to be consistent with the predictions of that thesis. The returning current from CEMF is seen to reduce the battery discharge rate while sustaining a higher level of energy dissipated at the load. This has a resulting advantage to the coefficient of performance. Indeed, the actual measurements indicate a potential for an absolute conservation of charge at the supply. The conclusions to the tests include a broad discussion of the potential of this technology and indicate a need for expert evaluation of both the results and the theoretical paradigms that predicted the results.

II.    Experiment

A.    Description

The experiment described herein is one example taken from more than 14 individual tests. All of the tests demonstrate various aspects of the preferred operation as well as exposing specific characteristics that relate to the circuit being evaluated. The test that is chosen for full description is shown to comply with a required and stringent measurement analysis as the standards of testing progressed throughout the test period.
The positive terminal of a 24 volt battery bank is applied in series with a 10 Ohm wire wound inductive resistive load, an N-Channel Power MOSFET [1] (Q1) Fig. 1, and a 0.25 Ohm shunt resistor (R2) Fig. 1. A separate 12 volt battery supplies a 555 (U1) Fig. 1 switching circuit which is capable of variable duty cycles and frequency adjustments. Q1 was chosen with an
Fig. 1.  MOSFET Heater Circuit – R7 and R4 is for duty cycle adjustment. R1 is for adjusting to preferred mode of oscillation

avalanche protection body diode [2] feature that enables conventional reverse current flow during the off period of the duty cycle and protects against high voltage CEMF.
U1 drives the gate [3] of Q1 directly through a precision variable resistor (R1) Fig. 1. Specific adjustment of R1 and the variable resistors R4, and R7 shown in Fig. 1 enables a preferred mode of oscillation that overrides the predetermined frequency and duty cycle. The fundamental and harmonic waveforms that result vary greatly from one cycle to another. The transient voltages that are deliberately generated, then compound this variation. The duty cycle is adjusted using R4 and R7 whereas R1 is critical to enabling a preferred self oscillation.
 
TABLE I
CIRCUIT COMPONETS
Part
Description
C1
0.01 µF Capacitor
C2
0.001 µF Capacitor
C3
0.047µF Capacitor
C4
100 µF Capacitor
D1
1N4007 Diode
D2
1N4148 Diode (1N914)
D3
1N4148 Diode (1N914)
Q1
IRFPG50 HEXFET MOSFET,               International Rectifier
R1
100 Ohm Potentiometer 10-Turn 2-watt,         Vishay Spectrol #SP534
R2
0.25 Ohm 30 watt 1% non-Inductive Resistor, Caddock Electronics Inc. #MP930
R3
10 Ohm + - 5%  Custom Prototype wire wound “Quantum” Load Resistor
R4
2K Ohm Potentiometer 10-Turn 2-watt,         Vishay Spectrol #SP534
R5
110 Ohm 1/8 watt Resistor
R6
330 Ohm 1/8 watt Resistor
R7
10K Ohm Potentiometer 10-Turn 2-watt,       Vishay Spectrol #SP534
R8
330 Ohm 1/8 watt Resistor
U1
NE 555N  Timer, Fairchild Semiconductor
V1
12 V “Liquid” Lead Acid Battery  (Qty-2)                           Exide, GT-H, Group U1, 12 aH  (24aH - total)
V2
12 V “Gel” Lead Acid Battery                             CSB Battery Company, LTD., GP 1270 F2,  7 aH                     




































 


Names of circuit component manufacturers are provided where known.                

B.    Equipment and Connections

A Tektronix TDS3054C Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope [4] was provided for these tests offering 500MHz bandwidth and digital storage capability able to data capture 10K records at any one time period. Four probes are used as outlined in Fig. 2 and detailed in section D herein. Also used is a Fluke 87 True-RMS DMM [5] across the 24V battery bank as a visual guide during the tuning process.

Fig. 2.  Wiring Diagram showing probe locations and wire sizes 


The scope probes were also checked relative to each other for excessive relative phase discrepancies when connected to the same signal source as indicated in Fig. 3.  The signal source was provided by a Protek 2MHz function generator set to output a square wave with an instrument specified rise time of approximately 80ns.


Fig. 3.  The four scope traces show the relative phase differences when all four probes are connected to the same square wave signal source


A Fluke 62 Mini Infrared Thermometer [6] was used for all temperature measurements and was held at the distance needed to ensure proper readings without background interference. For example, the 3.2cm load resistor required a measurement distance of no more than 32cm to ensure the reception area remained within the diameter of the resistor according to the spot ratio of 10:1. The ambient temperature was always measured at least one meter from the components radiating thermal energy.
A Velleman HQ PS3003 [7] DC regulated power supply was used for obtaining the baseline heat profile for the resistor under test. The output voltage of the PS3003 was verified to be within factory specification of +/- 1% +/- 2 digits using the Fluke 87 [5] with all voltage readings being identical on both pieces of equipment accurate to two decimal places.


A.    Preferred mode of oscillation

Fig. 1.  Schematic representation of the MOSFET circuit used in the expeiment.

         The improved performance is only evident when the circuit is operating in a preferred mode of oscillation. This mode is preferred both in the sense that it produces the desired effect and in the sense that the circuit itself prefers this self triggered mode over the manual duty cycle presets. It should be noted here that this term is not describing a preferred oscillation in the resonant sense. Instead, this term is describing a very aperiodic non-resonant mode with strong subharmonic interactions
            To establish this preferred mode of oscillation involves several interactive readings and a trained eye in order to properly adjust R1. The procedure towards obtaining the preferred mode of oscillation is relatively straightforward but somewhat arduous and requires a developed skill. While monitoring the four waveforms on the oscilloscope [4], the voltage across the current sensing resistor is monitored on Channel one (CH1) with the mean value displayed in the right margin. R1 is then adjusted to produce the lowest mean value while monitoring the 24V battery voltage with the Fluke [5].
            When the circuit is operating outside the desired parameters the battery voltage drops noticeably due to the power drain. The adjustment is sought that causes a stabilization or slight increase in battery voltage. It has been determined that there is an observable delay between the signal from U1 to turn off Q1 and the inductive collapse of the magnetic field associated with the load resistor R3. This delay is desirable and necessary to produce the preferred mode of oscillation. In the tests this delay was typically around 350ns. The inductive collapse of the magnetic field associated with R3 is monitored on Channel two (CH2) and is seen as a voltage increase at the drain pin of Q1. The drive signal is monitored on Channel three (CH3) as the voltage measured on pin 3 of U1. The time between the falling edge of CH3 and the rising edge of CH2 is the delay being discussed. An additional parameter that is not critical but preferred is that there is good amplitude on the CH2 signal. When all four of these conditions are found the circuit is in the preferred mode of oscillation offering an improved performance. Tuning the preferred mode of oscillation with the single adjustment, R1, is no easy task due to the interactive and recursive nature of the aperiodic frequencies and their respective subharmonics.


A.    Data Analysis

In evaluating the data obtained at regular intervals it was observed that the resolution was greater at the faster time base but this was at the expense of the quantity of cycles required for a good average. The oscilloscope [4] vertical settings were set for voltage inputs while the horizontal settings were set to the desired time base. Using the 2V/div vertical scale with 40µs/div horizontal provided two decimal places or 10mv resolution and with 2µs/div provided six decimal places of resolution or 1µV. Similarly, using the 100V/div setting provided us with integer values or 1V resolution in the 40µs/div setting, and four decimal places or 100 µV in the 2µs/div setting. In the preferred mode of operation a typical 20µs period, that is one full screen capture at 2µs/div, would capture approximately 6 to 10 complete cycles. The oscilloscope provided excellent sample resolution of 10k samples per screen capture and this ensured accurate data collection for the frequencies observed. The entire spectrum is aperiodic in the preferred mode of operation with a fundamental frequency usually near 3.5 kHz but ranging from 140 kHz beyond 500 kHz and various subharmonics which are observed to modulate the amplitude of the fundamental in superposition [8]. It was determined that approximately 140µs of data would contain about six intervals of the superimposed signal and therefore the 400µs captures of 40µs/div would be sufficient to provide a good average of operation. Analysis was performed for each individual capture as well as an average of the composite of each 40µs/div and 2µs/div. The data captures at each six minute interval during the one hour test were taken in that order with just a few seconds in between each capture limited only by the physical need to set the oscilloscope to the desired horizontal time base setting as the scripting features were not used for this process.
The data comprises the capture of four channels of voltage measurements and a relative time marker. The associated points of measurement can be seen in Fig 2 as follows: Channel one (CH1) is the instantaneous voltage measured across R2 at the junction of R2 and the 1.9cm (0.75in) bare wire connection to the source pin of Q1. Channel two (CH2) is the instantaneous voltage measured at the drain pin of Q1. Channel three (CH3) is the instantaneous voltage measured at the timer NE555-PIN 3. Channel four (CH4) is the instantaneous voltage measured at the Voltage Source Measurement Location on the Positive Feed Wire (See Fig. 2). The objective of the analysis was to determine the average source power delivered to the load so as to compare that value to the required baseline for the same relative temperature of the load. In this way it could be determined if the circuit was providing an improvement when compared to the standard DC power baseline.         
         The data imported into the spreadsheets represented columns A - E for Time Marker, CH1, CH2, CH3 and CH4 respectively. A new column G was used for the power calculation using the spreadsheet formula E:x*(B:x/0.25) where E and B are the column references, x is the row number and 0.25 represents the resistance of the current sensing resistor (R2) in ohms. This formula is copied to all rows in column G and represents the power formula P=EI where E is the CH4 voltage and I is the instantaneous voltage of CH1 divided by the resistance of R2. A comparison was made between an average of all the rows of data for each column and just those rows which represented complete cycles with no significant difference. Also, an application of the Simpson’s Rule [9] was made to determine if the parabolic treatment of the waveforms would offer any substantial difference as compared to the spreadsheet average function (2). The formula used relates to the composite Simpson’s Rule in the form (1) where n is even and ∆x = (b - a)/n.
                                                                                (1)



The total number of data rows in the spreadsheet range from row 2 to row 10001, therefore only 9999 rows could be used for the approximate integration using the Simpson’s Rule. The difference from the spreadsheet average function and the Simpson’s Rule approximate integration was within 0.04W for 21 of the collections with the 22nd collection being 0.05W difference. Table II shows the source power average and Simpson’s Rule Integration for each sheet from the test which consisted of 22 data dumps taken at 6 minute intervals over a one hour period. At each interval two data dumps were recorded; one for 40µs/div and one for 2µs/div. The time between a 40µs/div data dump and a 2µs data dump for any given interval is only a few seconds. The temperature recordings as they relate to each sheet are found in Fig. 4 and
the baseline chart is found in Table III.

 
TABLE II
Source Power Averages and Integration
Sheet Number
AVG
SRIa
TEK00000
0.00
0.01
TEK00001
-1.05
-1.06
TEK00002
3.60
3.61
TEK00003
3.98
4.00
TEK00004
2.96
2.93
TEK00005
5.59
5.58
TEK00006
-0.87
-0.89
TEK00007
-0.44
-0.40
TEK00008
0.39
0.39
TEK00009
-1.17
-1.12
TEK00010
4.92
4.88
TEK00011
-1.59
-1.55
TEK00012
-0.17
-0.20
TEK00013
-0.41
-0.41
TEK00014
0.09
0.10
TEK00015
5.12
5.15
TEK00016
-0.71
-0.71
TEK00017
2.39
2.39
TEK00018
-0.42
-0.44
TEK00019
0.13
0.15
TEK00020
-0.12
-0.13
TEK00021
6.45
6.40
AVERAGES
1.30
1.30
aSimpson’s Rule Integration

 
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000195 EndHTML:0000083532 StartFragment:0000002943 EndFragment:0000083496 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/rosie/Desktop/paper%20for%20circulation-2-1-2-5-2-1.doc
TABLE III

Schedule of Custom Load Resistor Temperature Baseline

VOLTS DC
AMPS
°F
AMBIENT
DIFFERENCE
WATTS              
4.8
0.50
107
73.5
33.50
2.40
5.0
0.52
110
73.8
36.20
2.60
5.2
0.54
114
73.9
40.10
2.81
5.4
0.56
116
73.8
42.20
3.02
5.6
0.58
118
73.6
44.40
3.25
5.8
0.60
120
73.8
46.20
3.48
6.0
0.62
122
73.9
48.10
3.72
6.2
0.64
125
73.8
51.20
3.97
6.4
0.66
128
73.9
54.10
4.22
6.6
0.68
131
74.1
56.90
4.49
6.8
0.70
134
74.1
59.90
4.76
7.0
0.72
137
74.2
62.80
5.04
7.2
0.74
139
74.3
64.70
5.33
7.4
0.76
142
74.7
67.30
5.63
7.6
0.78
146
74.9
71.10
5.93
7.8
0.80
148
75.0
73.00
6.24
8.0
0.82
153
75.0
78.00
6.56
8.2
0.84
155
74.9
80.10
6.89
8.4
0.86
157
74.5
82.10
7.22
8.6
0.88
159
74.5
84.50
7.57
8.8
0.90
164
74.6
89.40
7.92




         

















  









 Current flow to and from the battery was determined from the voltage waveform across the 0.25 Ohm non-inductive sense resistor (shunt) divided by its resistance. The use of that shunt minimizes the inaccuracies that relate to the measurement of impedance to an oscillating waveform. Typically, batteries are not able to deliver a negative current flow. Therefore, it was determined that current delivered by the battery would be the product of instantaneous voltage measured across the shunt divided by the resistance of the shunt measured above zero. Correspondingly, any current delivered back to the battery would be determined from the instantaneous voltage across the shunt divided by the shunt’s resistance, measured below zero. The net flow of current from the battery would be the difference between these two values.
To ensure that both positive and negative transitions were accurately recorded the oscilloscope was set to direct current (DC) coupling. Multiple data dumps of ten thousand samples each were stored and downloaded to spreadsheet for analysis. The equation applied in the analysis for source power determination was
,                                                                               (2)
where V is the source voltage where measured, I is the current calculated at the shunt and X is the number of samples analyzed.

B.     Energy Dissipated at Load Resistor

         The inductive property of the load resistor was required to generate high voltage spikes during the off period of each switching cycle. Also, the impedance varies with frequency and temperature which makes it difficult to determine the accurate instantaneous impedance of the load resistor at any given moment. These conditions caused protracted discussion on the accuracy of measurement related to current phase lag within the inductive component of the load. To address these concerns it was agreed to confine the measurement of power dissipated to caloric values as proof of dissipated energy.
Measurement of the load resistor temperature was enabled through the use of an Infra Red Thermometer chosen because it is not easily affected by electromagnetic interference. The readings were recorded from the digital display in degrees Fahrenheit and were conducted in a draft free environment. Ambient room temperature was recorded consecutively. Temperature measurements were also taken of R2 and Q1 and the results recorded, as represented on the attached schedule. The difference between ambient room temperature and the load resistor was considered to represent the actual caloric value under test conditions.
The heat profile of the load resistor was manually calibrated using a variable power supply source. The supply was increased from 4.8 volts to 8.8 volts in increments of 0.2 volts each. All voltages were verified by reference to independent readings taken across the resistor with a Fluke [4] multimeter. At each interval the amperage was recorded and the power was then calculated as V*I. When stabilized after each interval the resistor temperature and the ambient temperature were recorded. The entire calibration was performed in a draft free environment. Table III shows the results of the calibration.

II.    Mesh Currents

This paper would not be complete without some discussion regarding the interactions between the timer circuit and the heating circuit. Each circuit has an independent supply source and it was necessary to consider whether the observed improvements could be attributed to a power exchange from the timer supply to the heating load. While a DC approach to this concern is relatively straight forward as there is a DC barrier between the Q1 gate and the other two circuit paths via the drain and source pins, it is also considered that there is an AC path or Pulsed DC path through this barrier. The various capacitances and even the stored energy in the inductances of the leads in Q1 can work as charge carriers passing energy back and forth across that barrier. U1 can source and sink a maximum 200mA and has a maximum operating temperature of 70°C [10]. Since this is the only conductive path for current to flow in, these parameters limit how much power can be passed via this pathway. In addition, the 2800pF Ciss [11] of Q1 represents a capacitive reactance of around 160 ohms at the fundamental frequency. Also, there are a few ohms of resistance in R1 as part of the combined limit. Therefore if one were to conservatively calculate the resistance of R1 to be only 2 ohms and if one were to also discount any reactive impedance of the load resistor and take it at its resistive value of 10 Ohms giving 12 Ohms to add to the 160 Ohm impedance caused by the capacitive reactance the result is a conservative resistance of 172 Ohms. Now if one was then able to pass the maximum allowed current of 200mA through that resistance, 34.4V would then be needed. Therefore, the maximum instantaneous power that could be transferred through that path would be approximately 6.8W. So in order to answer the question as to whether this could in fact occur it was deemed  necessary to perform an auxiliary test wherein a second current sensing resistor was placed in the interconnect path at the Voltage Source reference point. With the understanding that all of the current sourced by the timer circuit battery must return to that battery and the interconnect being the only path by which it could occur it was thought that any power being transferred into the gate must then return via the interconnect wire. For this test the probe was removed from the U1 Pin 3 position and placed on the secondary current sensing resistor lead connected to the interconnect wire identified in Fig 2 as a possible shared current path. The circuit was run in its preferred mode of operation and a data dump was performed using the 2µs/div time base. It was expected that some portion of the R3 charging current would find its way through that path in a parallel manner bypassing the R2 sensing resistor. The expectation therefore was the need to add this current to the existing current to get a full picture of the operation. Surprisingly, the net value of the current running in that leg was negative. Nevertheless an integration of both currents was necessary to get the real picture. The results indicate that a mesh current [12] flows through the source pin of Q1 and actually inflates the current reading by a value of a little under 1W. This means that the documented improvements are conservative by that quantity. As far as any currents being supplied by the timer circuit and flowing through the load resistor and 24V battery bank, that current would have been present in the same interconnect wire on its return path. Even if all the current found in this case was attributed to such an unlikely path it still falls short of the observed performance increases. Therefore it is concluded that the timer battery is not the source of the improvements.

III.    Discussion

         As the overriding purpose of the test is to evaluate the advantages in applying that second cycle from a switching circuit, a battery supply source was used. It is understood that a battery cannot deliver energy in open circuit conditions and any energy evident to the circuit during the off period would therefore be sourced away from that supply. What was evident in the voltage waveform, as measured at the source, was that the spike at the drain was able to recharge the battery. This spike results from the collapsing fields in the inductive load resistor. The extent of that recharge was also evident in the reading of a voltmeter placed directly across the battery terminals.
Battery performance requires separate and specific evaluation disciplines and it was considered to be outside the scope of this paper.  Therefore those records of duration and voltage levels were simply included as a reference. It is to be noted that the actual test results indicated a small but nonetheless, measurable net loss to the battery voltage notwithstanding the evidence of zero net loss in some measurements. This may be attributed to the evident and occasional loss of the overlying harmonics during circuit operation, which loss is seen to diminish efficiency.
Also of concern is that, in the initial tests, the point of the Source Power reference ground used for the probes and timer interconnect point were positioned about 15cm away from the shunt.  This then may have the apparent effect as that of a 100nH inductor thereby increasing the overall amplitude of the shunt voltage measurements. Therefore, measurements of this test included the repositioning of this reference point directly onto the shunt lead. Interestingly, this did reduce the overall amplitude of that measured signal which was evident when the vertical setting on the oscilloscope was reduced to 1V/div. However the net mean voltage reading actually dropped indicating a greater improvement in performance over those earlier tests.
Initial tests also included the use of a wire wound shunt with some inductance associated with that winding. To obviate this, the test detailed herein was done with a replacement non-inductive shunt as detailed in the Components schedule. But there was very little evidence of measurements difference between these two components.
Also of interest is the fact that the circuit was able to run for extended periods at less than half the optimum charged condition of the battery while still dissipating energy at the load resistor. The indications here were that the resonating condition of the supply and the inductive components of the resistor were able to sustain a potential difference to enable a continual exchange. This test is only referenced to encourage further investigation of this effect.
This test indicated a marginal net loss to the voltage of the source batteries notwithstanding periods of an evident recharge. This is in line with the thesis and is variously attributed to the momentary and occasional loss of the signature harmonics that are required for optimization of results. But the evidence is that, subject to the sustainability of those harmonics, the theoretical indications are that battery discharge can be obviated. This directs attention to the need for some manufactured means of sustaining those harmonics that may be required in optimized conditions of application and, in turn, requires further research.
Apart from the anomalous heat signatures developed over the resistive load is the evidence of anomalous waveforms that point to the simultaneous and alternate current paths that can be developed across a circuit. These paths have not been fully established and further emphasize the need for further study to determine some alternate principles to be incorporated into known paradigms to account for these effects. Of interest is that the waveforms are replicable in simulated programs, e.g. Spice. This suggests that classical algorithms can account for these electromagnetic interactions. However, phase shifts in current are not so easily modeled and the reality suggests a complex arrangement that manifests as an improvement in performance.

IV.    Conclusion

         It must be stressed that the weighted averaging of the data dumps taken from these tests, were applied to reach a conservative value of the power delivered by the battery supply source. There is more energy returned to the battery source than is measured across the shunt as referenced in the discussion on meshed currents.  And the shunt and MOSFET both dissipated heat.  But these were not included in the evaluation of the results, as the heat dissipated at the load exceeded thermodynamic constraints and was therefore considered sufficient as proof of the coefficient of performance required for this thesis and this claim.
There was also evidence of zero net loss in the integration of measurements on some of these results in line with the thesis, thereby pointing to the need for further development requirements to sustain this potential.
While these results may confront classical constraints as they relate to the transfer of energy, and as predicted in terms of the thesis it is hoped that these results may be considered or that mainstream explore alternate models to account for these effects. The evidence is that it is possible to partially or entirely conserve energy while developing anomalous heat signatures over resistive loads. This, in turn, points to the need to revise current applications to exploit this benefit which may then obviate some of the pollutant effects associated with energy generation.
It is hoped that publication of this paper will address the need for a wide dissemination of these benefits.  This document may then serve as a foundation for a more systematic research into the study and development of these effects.

Appendix I

 The following exercise is intended as a broad brushstroke description of the non classical properties of current flow that was tested in the experiment described herein.
The classical approach to current flow recognizes that charge motion is predominately that of electric charge. The aspect of this thesis that is considered appropriate to this submission relates to current flow. It proposes that current flow comprises the motion of magnetic charge which, in turn comprises elementary magnetic dipolar particles. In classical terms, these particles would align with Faraday’s Lines of Force and therefore the number of lines that exist through a particular  real or imaginary surface, would still be represented as magnetic flux while the particles themselves, in distribution along those lines, represent the magnetic field.
It is proposed that these fields are extraneous to the atomic structure of matter and are thought to play a critical part in binding atoms and molecules into gross identifiable matter. Further, the particles obey an immutable imperative to move towards a condition of balance or zero net magnetic charge. Given a source material with an ionized charge imbalance which is measured as a potential difference, and given a closed circuit electromagnetic material path, these particles will return to the source material with the necessary charge to neutralize that imbalance.
Typical electronic circuits provide such material paths through the circuit components of which they are made which includes all conductors. During the passage of current flow through such closed circuitry it is proposed that the charge imbalance is transferred to those circuit components. The individual imbalances in each component and each conductor then seek balance according to that immutable imperative. In typical electronic circuitry, each component that has been ‘charged’ by this transfer, will either neutralize the charge internally, or influence a secondary current flow  in anti-phase or opposite polarity to the first cycle.
While this is substantially in line with classical assumption as it relates to the transfer of charge, the distinction is drawn that the energy that is then transferred to such electromagnetic components, is able to regenerate a secondary cycle of current flow in line with electromagnetic laws. This energy is then not limited to the quotient of stored energy delivered during the first cycle and as presumed by classical theory. Instead it is dependent on the circuit component’s material characteristics and the means by which those materials balance a charge put upon them. Therefore there is a real energy potential in the secondary cycle which would reflect in a measured improvement to the performance coefficient of the circuit arrangement. This enhanced performance coefficient may be at the expense of the bonding of the material in the circuit components. In a worst case condition, this energy may be released as is observed in an exploding wire that is put under extreme charge conditions due to excessive current flow. In a best case condition, the energy is released gradually over time and results in fatigue to those components. This paper addresses an application of the gradual release.

Appendix II 

         The following schedule lists those tests that were conducted as they progressed to the test described herein. It provides a hyperlink to the original data for precise and detailed reference.  They are appended in the interests of submitting a comprehensive reference to assist with further investigation of this circuit effect as required.

Test 1
This test was conducted on a standard commercial resistor (Stock, R3S) of 10 Ohm. No gains were evident.

Test 2
Load resistor specially manufactured (Custom, R3C) to assessed Quantum test specifications. No gains were evident.

Test 3
R3C used. First gains evident but records only partially completed test. First evidence of the required harmonics.



Test 4
R3C used. No gains evident and also the loss of the required harmonics.

Test 5
R3C used. Gains were evident together with evidence of the required harmonics.

Test 6
R3S used. No gains evident. Nor could the required signature harmonics be found.

Test 7
R3C used. Gains evident but actual power values exceeding the voltage constraints of the DPO. Test was terminated but does point to the feasibility of advantages at higher power output.

Test 8
R3C used. Circuit was now assessed as workable for the required effect. Therefore were alligator clips removed and all leads          shortened and soldered. Gains were evident. Required harmonics was again evident.

Test 9
R3C used. Non-inductive precision shunt resistor replaced. Gains were evident.

Test 10
R3C used. Test 9 effectively re-run to improve on results. Gains were evident indicating no material difference in the voltage values          between the inductive and non-inductive shunt.

Test 11
R3C used. This test was conducted over a one hour period with intensive sample capture to determine that the range of voltage          across the shunt fell within acceptable levels.

Test 12
New resistor wound as a further attempt to duplicate the properties of the original Quantum Test. No gain observed and evident      loss of the required harmonics.

References
[1]    Duncan A. Grant and John Gowar, Power MOSFETs, Theory and Applications, Wiley-Interscience, 1989
[2]    International Rectifier, HEXFET Power MOSFET Designer’s Manual, 2nd ed. vol. 3, El Segundo, CA: 1995, pp. 1575-1581
[3]    International Rectifier, HEXFET Power MOSFET Designer’s Manual, 2nd ed. vol. 3, El Segundo, CA: 1995, pp. 1541-1566
[4]    Tektronix TDS3054C 500 MHz 4 Channel Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope Data Sheet [online], Available:  http://www2.tek.com/cmsreplive/psrep/13406/41W_12482_17_2009.07.16.16.00.09_13406_EN.pdf
[5]    Fluke 87 True-RMS Multimeter User Manual [Online]. Available: http://assets.fluke.com/manuals/87______umeng0800.pdf
[6]    Fluke 62 Mini Infrared Thermometer Information Site, [online] Available: http://us.fluke.com/usen/products/Fluke+62.htm
[7]    Velleman HQ PS3003 Users Manual, [online] Available: http://www.designnotes.com/downloads/PS3003U_Manual.pdf
[8]    Edward J. Ross, Professional Electrical/Electronic Engineer’s License Study Guide, 1st ed. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab Books, 1977, page 329
[9]    James Stewart, Calculus Early Transcendentals, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole, pp. 522 - 524
[10]  The Linear Control Circuits Data Book for Design Engineers, Texas Instruments Incorporated, 2nd ed., 1980, pp. 282-283.
[11]  International Rectifier, HEXFET Power MOSFET Designer’s Manual, 2nd ed. vol. 3, El Segundo, CA: 1995, page 1116
[12]  Edward J. Ross, Professional Electrical/Electronic Engineer’s License Study Guide, 1st ed. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab Books, 1977, pp. 332-333








Fig. 1.  MOSFET Heater Circuit – R7 and R4 is for duty cycle adjustment. R1 is for adjusting to preferred mode of oscillation

Fig. 2.  Wiring Diagram showing probe locations and wire sizes

Fig. 3.  The four scope traces show the relative phase differences when all four probes are connected to the same square wave signal source.

Fig. 4.  Test13 Data: Load = R3, MOSFET = Q1, Shunt = R2, TEK columns = filenames of CSV files and PNG files respectively
Last Page

Fig. 5.  Arrows in left margin mark zero volts for each channel. Note the compound frequency present in all waveforms.


Fig. 6.  The Digital Phosphor technology helps to see the subharmonic modulation.


Fig. 7.  Approximately 350ns after the high to low transition on CH3 (U1-Pin 3) the CEMF increase on CH2 (Q1-Drain) is observed. Note the residual charge present on CH3 after this partial transition and the slight increase in positive current on CH1 (R2) just prior to the CEMF increase.