Dear Reader,
For those of you who want to have a full account of the demonstration - we are preparing a video of the proceedings. And I'll prepare a full account of the matters discussed at the demonstration.
It seems that it has been reported that there were no experts or academic staff at the demonstration and that it was only attended by a handful and those all students. This is an utter fabrication that will be born out in the evidence. It is comments like this that satisfy me on the agenda related to recognition of this technology. There were absolutely NO students at the venue whatsoever. And there most certainly WAS faculty representation. And with the exception of 2 of us there was no-one at the meeting who was not accredited.
What the demonstration lacked was the attendance of those experts that were specifically invited. Some with regret - some despite advising that they'd be there - and some who gave advance notice that they would not come. Indeed. There was even one university who denied us the right to invite them at all.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I have just been advised. There was one student. ONLY 1. And he is not a student at CPUT.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
89 - report on the tests for the demo held today
Dear Reader,
This is just to alert you to the fact that the report detailed herein has an incorrect schematic. If I get the time to do so today I'll post the correct one. Else I'll post it tomorrow. Meanwhile - for the record - just check out the paper for the correct schematic.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
REPORT ON TWO TESTS OF A SWITCHING CIRCUIT FOR DEMONSTRATION AT CPUT on 12TH MARCH 2011.
Prepared by Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human.
The following tests were designed to evaluate some aspects of a thesis that predicts a potential for the conservation of potential difference at a supply. This thesis is based on a non-classical magnetic field model and what is demonstrated here is a non-conservative field condition on a circuit, as required by that model. While this may confront Kirchhoff’s Laws, the experimental results are in line with Faraday’s Laws of Induction. This may suggest that Inductive Laws supersede the conservative field requirements. It is proposed, therefore, that the results are in line with classical requirements albeit that they seemingly contradict the results determined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
1 FIRST TEST
1.1 Circuit description
The experimental apparatus comprises a simple switching circuit (see Figure 1). 6 x 12 volt lead acid batteries are in series with both a heating element (RL1) and 5 MOSFET transistors (Q1) in parallel. The transistors are driven by a functions generator. A current sensing resistor (Rshunt) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source.
Fig 1: First test circuit schematic including probe positions.
1.2 Schedule of circuit components
1.2.1 Resistor element RL1 - Incoloy alloy air heating rod element threaded with nichrome resistive wire. Resistance = 11.11Ω, L = 2.23μH. 200 watts. Supplied by Specific Heat
1.2.2 Current sensing resistor Rshunt - 4 ceramic wire wound 1 watt resistors 1Ω each, placed in parallel. Resistance therefore = 0.25Ω. L = 110nH
1.2.3 MOSFET transistor Q1 - 5 x IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
1.2.4 Function generator
1.2.5 6 x 12v batteries - Raylite silver calcium
1.3 Schedule of measuring instruments
1.3.1 Le Croy WaveJet 324 200 MHz Oscilloscope (DSO) - 2GS/s 400 Vpk tolerance. Sample range maximum 500 000 samples
1.3.2 Tektronix MSO 3054 Mixed Signal Oscilloscope (DSO) - 500 MHz 2.5 GS/s. Sample range maximum 1 million samples
1.3.3 FLUKE Digital Multimeter TopTronic T48 True RMS with thermocouple measuring to 400°C (rated at ±1%+4).
1.4 Circuit operation
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 during the OFF period of the duty cycle as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). This reverse current path is enabled by the body diodes in the transistor MOSFETs (Q1). This allows a current flow that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enables the generation of a ‘burst oscillation’ mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a naturally resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning that no current flows during the period when the gate voltage is positive. See Figure 3 for typical gate voltage setting.
1.5 Measurement of wattage dissipated
Measurement of the energy dissipated at the resistor element (RL1) was determined by comparison with results from a control to avoid the complexity of factoring in power factor corrections. A constant voltage was applied from a DC power supply source in series with RL1. The voltage was then steadily increased in increments of 1 volt each from 1 volt through to 22 volts. The wattage was then determined as the squared product of the voltage over the resistance of RL1,
(1)
The temperature of the resistor was then recorded against the applied wattage and the temperature difference above ambient determined the level of wattage as represented in Table 1 and Figure 2.
Table 1: Results of control experiment.
Fig 2: Temperature difference against wattage in control experiment.
1.6 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
Power is calculated as vi. The flow of current (i) is determined by the voltage measured across Rshunt over the resistance of Rshunt.
(2)
Typically the battery supplies a direct current. Therefore, voltage that is measured above zero, is considered to result in a current flow delivered by the battery. And, conversely, voltage that is measured below zero is considered to result in a current flow delivered to the battery. The instantaneous wattage delivered to or by the battery is then determined as the product of the voltage across the batteries and the current.
2. SECOND TEST
2.1 Circuit description
The circuit is configured identically to the diagram in Figure 1 but with a reduction in the number of batteries applied to three, supplying approximately 36v. All other parameters are identical to the First Test.
2.2 Circuit operation
With a reduced supply voltage, the voltage across Rshunt increases, corresponding to the increase from the positive applied voltage signal from the gate during the ON period of the duty cycle and as determined by the offset. This results in an increase in current flow from the battery. This increase is commensurate with an increase in temperature rise that is measured to be dissipated on RL1. The rate of temperature rise depends on the offset adjustment and the applied source battery voltage during this ON time. At its highest setting, this results in an excess of 44 watts being dissipated. It has not been possible to test this to higher temperatures and for extended periods, as the there is a limit to the voltage tolerance of the DSOs.
2.3 Measurement of wattage dissipated at the load
The applied protocol is consistent with that described in 1.5 of Test 1.
2.4 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
The mean average and cycle mean average of the voltages measured across Rshunt now default to positive. Instantaneous wattage analsys is based on para 1.6 above.
3. RESULTS
3.1 First test
The temperature over RL1 indicates that about 6 watts is being dissipated as heat. However, the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that more energy has been returned to the battery than has been supplied resulting in a net zero loss of potential difference from the supply. Of interest is that the mean and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt are consistently negative.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered.
Wattage dissipated at RL1 = 6 watts.
Sustained periodic condition of oscillation enabled for 2.7 minutes to the limit of the intervals allowed by the function generator
3.2 Second test
The mean average and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt indicates that some current has been discharged by the battery to the source rail. However, instantaneous wattage analysis applied to the voltage measured across the battery and Rshunt indicate, here too, that the battery supply source has had more energy returned to recharge it than was first applied to the circuit. When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range. This results in a negative value indicating that more energy is still being returned to the battery than was delivered. This is in line with the math function of the DSOs where it, too, indicates an increase of wattage back to the battery supply over the amount of wattage initially delivered from that supply.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered
Wattage dissipated at RL1= 44 watts
Switching results in the generation of extreme spiking at the transitional phases of the switch.
4. ANOMALIES
4.1 It is understood that during the ON time the applied signal at the gate will enable a current flow from the battery supply. With the application of more than 36 volts from the battery supply, the circuit can be tuned so that there is no measured voltage or consequent flow of current through to the source rail of the supply during this ON period. The precise cause of this restriction has not been identified and requires further research. Nor can this condition be simulated.
4.2 When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.
Fig 3: Waveforms at limit of the OFF time setting at the function generator.
Fig 4: Evidence of ringing for a period of 2.7 minutes. No evident variation in amplitude of oscillation. Channel 1: Rshunt, Channel 2: batteries, Channel 3: gate, Channel D: math trace - product of Channels 1 & 2.
4.3 Also apparent is that the oscillation is required to retain the temperature measured at the resistor at approximately 40°C above ambient. This temperature rise corresponds to a dissipation of approximately 6 watts at RL1 (according to Figure 2). The fact that it retains this heat is not a result of any unique properties to RL1 as the temperature is seen to fall steeply over a 3 minute period, when it is disconnected from the supply.
4.4 At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge. The same oscillation amplitude is evident at all higher frequencies with the same attendant benefits.
4.5 The voltage across the shunt is at 180 degrees in anti phase with the voltage across the battery (Figure 5) and the voltage across the Drain (Figure 6). While this is repeatable in simulations it is not evident that the oscillations can be sustained at the same amplitudes over an extended period.
Fig 5: Waveforms in anti-phase. Channel 1: Rshunt, Channel 2: batteries.
Fig 6: Waveforms in anti-phase. Channel 1: Rshunt, Channel 4: voltage over drain.
4.6 Typically, and as can be seen from the oscilloscope screen shots, it is possible to tune the circuit through adjustments to the offset and the duty cycle, to obtain a negative mean average and cycle mean average voltage measured at Rshunt. This indicates that there is more current being returned to the battery supply than was first delivered. This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets.
4.7 There is evidence of approximately 6 watts of energy dissipated at RL1, and upwards of 40 watts on Test 2, at no measurable cost of energy delivered from the supply. As this heat is not at the cost of energy from the supply it suggests that there is an alternate energy supply source or classical prediction errs in its assumption of equivalence in the transfer of energy.
4.8 Measurement of battery voltage was determined by the mean average voltage on the digital storage oscilloscopes, as well as from the digital multimeters, with probes placed directly on the positive and negative terminals of the battery supply. These battery voltages fluctuate in line with the evident voltage variations of the waveforms displayed. What is shown is that there is a recharge period after the discharge of current from the voltage during the ON period of the duty cycle. It is more clearly evident at the slowest switching speed. This indicates that there is a battery recharge during the period when the switch is in burst oscillation mode that occurs when the gate voltage is negative. Therefore is there evidence that the oscillations resulting from this negative triggering, are indeed recharging the battery.
5. SIMULATION
5.1 The circuit was setup in Simetrix version 5.4 (Figure 7) and simulated in correlation with the above tests (Figure 8).
Fig 7: Circuit diagram as simulated in Simetrix software.
6.DISCUSSION
The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured with what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully measured, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully evaluated by experts.
Therefore the intention of this demonstration is to bring these anomalies to the academic forum so that experts can research these effects more thoroughly. There are many questions here that need answers and it is considered that this is best established across a broad range of research to establish the checks and balances required for the progress of this new technology.
It is an unfortunate fact that publication of these results in academic journals will first require some accreditation. Attempts to publish in reviewed journals were denied, even prior to review of the submitted papers. Although not admitted, the indications are that this outright rejection was because the results of these experiments dramatically oppose mainstream prediction. It is earnestly proposed that open acknowledgement of the listed anomalies by experts, may therefore, be a catalyst to bridge mainstream’s scepticism that publication will be possible. And the further hope is that this demonstration will result in that required and wider acknowledgement of these anomalies. Then the technology can be progressed. This would be a desirable consequence, the more so as there may here exist some potential solutions to the global energy crisis that is growing ever more critical in the face of diminishing or pollutant energy sources coupled with our burgeoning global need for increased supplies.
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts.
Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor. Also to be noted is that there is a small but measurable inductance on the current-sensing resistor. This therefore begs some margin for error in the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.
It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits from the inductances that are measured over the circuit components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the oscillation, in the first instance. All prior circuits based on this simple design, have shown some indications of benefit. But this particular development has taken that earlier advantage to greater levels of energy efficiency than have been previously recorded.
There was no attempt made in these tests to quantify the energy dissipated. This was based on the fact that in both tests and in most variations to the frequency, and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient is seen as being anomalous.
It is also to be noted that the simulation of these waveforms are not possible. As the software for simulations are based on classical protocols then one may assume that classical measurement does not allow for these results. Certainly they confront Kirchhoff’s Laws albeit that they are in line with Faraday’s Inductive Laws.
Finally, the thesis that predicted these results points to the possibility that the hidden energy supply source, not factored into classical analysis, is in the material of the circuit components. This would still be in line with Einstein’s mass/energy equivalence and the thesis proposes that inductive and conductive material are able to induce their own energy as a result of applied potential differences. Effectively there is a potential in induced negative voltages that has not been fully exploited.
WITH THANKS
Our heartfelt gratitude is to the following:
To CPUT staff for the use of their facilities and for the critical input that was so freely available. Special thanks here to Deon Kallis for his patience in all aspects related to teaching and guiding us. This tribute is all the more heartfelt as he has consistently proposed that there is yet some classical explanation that has been overlooked. This may yet be proven.
Also a word of thanks to Markin Mwinga for his assistance during 2010.
To Battery Centre and RayLite batteries for the gift of 9 batteries.
To Coast to Coast for the supply of the LeCroy for such an extended period. Also for the brief use of the Fluke.
To Inala and to Pieter Rousseau for the use of the Tektronix. This was much required to confirm the results from our LeCroy.
To Specific Heat and Ikram Ebrahim for the donation of the element and his support in supplying exotic resistors as required.
To Roy Adams of Tecron who built a copper water cylinder for an earlier experiment and applied the required plumbing.
To Pick-n-Pay and Pick-n-Pay Durbanville, for providing refreshments at the demonstration
DISCLAIMER
Statements and hypotheses in respect of the 'Ainslie Circuit' demonstration and/or referenced documents and correspondence thereof does not constitute or imply endorsement or recommendation by the CPUT or any of its employees.
This is just to alert you to the fact that the report detailed herein has an incorrect schematic. If I get the time to do so today I'll post the correct one. Else I'll post it tomorrow. Meanwhile - for the record - just check out the paper for the correct schematic.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
REPORT ON TWO TESTS OF A SWITCHING CIRCUIT FOR DEMONSTRATION AT CPUT on 12TH MARCH 2011.
Prepared by Rosemary Ainslie, Donovan Martin, Evan Robinson, Mario Human.
The following tests were designed to evaluate some aspects of a thesis that predicts a potential for the conservation of potential difference at a supply. This thesis is based on a non-classical magnetic field model and what is demonstrated here is a non-conservative field condition on a circuit, as required by that model. While this may confront Kirchhoff’s Laws, the experimental results are in line with Faraday’s Laws of Induction. This may suggest that Inductive Laws supersede the conservative field requirements. It is proposed, therefore, that the results are in line with classical requirements albeit that they seemingly contradict the results determined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
1 FIRST TEST
1.1 Circuit description
The experimental apparatus comprises a simple switching circuit (see Figure 1). 6 x 12 volt lead acid batteries are in series with both a heating element (RL1) and 5 MOSFET transistors (Q1) in parallel. The transistors are driven by a functions generator. A current sensing resistor (Rshunt) on the source rail of the supply determines the rate of current flow both to and from the battery supply source.
1.2 Schedule of circuit components
1.2.1 Resistor element RL1 - Incoloy alloy air heating rod element threaded with nichrome resistive wire. Resistance = 11.11Ω, L = 2.23μH. 200 watts. Supplied by Specific Heat
1.2.2 Current sensing resistor Rshunt - 4 ceramic wire wound 1 watt resistors 1Ω each, placed in parallel. Resistance therefore = 0.25Ω. L = 110nH
1.2.3 MOSFET transistor Q1 - 5 x IRFPG50 with Zener body diode
1.2.4 Function generator
1.2.5 6 x 12v batteries - Raylite silver calcium
1.3 Schedule of measuring instruments
1.3.1 Le Croy WaveJet 324 200 MHz Oscilloscope (DSO) - 2GS/s 400 Vpk tolerance. Sample range maximum 500 000 samples
1.3.2 Tektronix MSO 3054 Mixed Signal Oscilloscope (DSO) - 500 MHz 2.5 GS/s. Sample range maximum 1 million samples
1.3.3 FLUKE Digital Multimeter TopTronic T48 True RMS with thermocouple measuring to 400°C (rated at ±1%+4).
1.4 Circuit operation
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 during the OFF period of the duty cycle as a result of counter electromotive force (CEMF). This reverse current path is enabled by the body diodes in the transistor MOSFETs (Q1). This allows a current flow that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enables the generation of a ‘burst oscillation’ mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a naturally resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning that no current flows during the period when the gate voltage is positive. See Figure 3 for typical gate voltage setting.
1.5 Measurement of wattage dissipated
Measurement of the energy dissipated at the resistor element (RL1) was determined by comparison with results from a control to avoid the complexity of factoring in power factor corrections. A constant voltage was applied from a DC power supply source in series with RL1. The voltage was then steadily increased in increments of 1 volt each from 1 volt through to 22 volts. The wattage was then determined as the squared product of the voltage over the resistance of RL1,
The temperature of the resistor was then recorded against the applied wattage and the temperature difference above ambient determined the level of wattage as represented in Table 1 and Figure 2.
Table 1: Results of control experiment.
1.6 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
Power is calculated as vi. The flow of current (i) is determined by the voltage measured across Rshunt over the resistance of Rshunt.
Typically the battery supplies a direct current. Therefore, voltage that is measured above zero, is considered to result in a current flow delivered by the battery. And, conversely, voltage that is measured below zero is considered to result in a current flow delivered to the battery. The instantaneous wattage delivered to or by the battery is then determined as the product of the voltage across the batteries and the current.
2. SECOND TEST
2.1 Circuit description
The circuit is configured identically to the diagram in Figure 1 but with a reduction in the number of batteries applied to three, supplying approximately 36v. All other parameters are identical to the First Test.
2.2 Circuit operation
With a reduced supply voltage, the voltage across Rshunt increases, corresponding to the increase from the positive applied voltage signal from the gate during the ON period of the duty cycle and as determined by the offset. This results in an increase in current flow from the battery. This increase is commensurate with an increase in temperature rise that is measured to be dissipated on RL1. The rate of temperature rise depends on the offset adjustment and the applied source battery voltage during this ON time. At its highest setting, this results in an excess of 44 watts being dissipated. It has not been possible to test this to higher temperatures and for extended periods, as the there is a limit to the voltage tolerance of the DSOs.
2.3 Measurement of wattage dissipated at the load
The applied protocol is consistent with that described in 1.5 of Test 1.
2.4 Measurement of wattage delivered by the battery supply
The mean average and cycle mean average of the voltages measured across Rshunt now default to positive. Instantaneous wattage analsys is based on para 1.6 above.
3. RESULTS
3.1 First test
The temperature over RL1 indicates that about 6 watts is being dissipated as heat. However, the instantaneous wattage analysis indicates that more energy has been returned to the battery than has been supplied resulting in a net zero loss of potential difference from the supply. Of interest is that the mean and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt are consistently negative.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered.
Wattage dissipated at RL1 = 6 watts.
Sustained periodic condition of oscillation enabled for 2.7 minutes to the limit of the intervals allowed by the function generator
3.2 Second test
The mean average and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt indicates that some current has been discharged by the battery to the source rail. However, instantaneous wattage analysis applied to the voltage measured across the battery and Rshunt indicate, here too, that the battery supply source has had more energy returned to recharge it than was first applied to the circuit. When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range. This results in a negative value indicating that more energy is still being returned to the battery than was delivered. This is in line with the math function of the DSOs where it, too, indicates an increase of wattage back to the battery supply over the amount of wattage initially delivered from that supply.
More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered
Wattage dissipated at RL1= 44 watts
Switching results in the generation of extreme spiking at the transitional phases of the switch.
4. ANOMALIES
4.1 It is understood that during the ON time the applied signal at the gate will enable a current flow from the battery supply. With the application of more than 36 volts from the battery supply, the circuit can be tuned so that there is no measured voltage or consequent flow of current through to the source rail of the supply during this ON period. The precise cause of this restriction has not been identified and requires further research. Nor can this condition be simulated.
4.2 When the offset of the function generator is adjusted (see Figure 3), the falling edge of the pulse results in a burst oscillation mode. Parasitic inductance is a well-known consequence of MOSFETs placed in parallel. It is undesirable for switching applications and is therefore, traditionally, factored out of the circuitry. On this application we have enabled that oscillation to the limit of the function generator’s slowest switching speed at 2.7 minutes or 6.172mHz. No material or evident variation or decay of that resonance through that entire period, is observed (see Figure 4). This results in a measured increase of recharge at the battery supply as well as sustaining the temperature over the resistor. It would be desirable to extend this period of oscillation to see whether decay in this oscillation, eventually takes place. These results may warrant further research, as the implications are that the current flow may be perpetuated through this self-oscillation.
4.3 Also apparent is that the oscillation is required to retain the temperature measured at the resistor at approximately 40°C above ambient. This temperature rise corresponds to a dissipation of approximately 6 watts at RL1 (according to Figure 2). The fact that it retains this heat is not a result of any unique properties to RL1 as the temperature is seen to fall steeply over a 3 minute period, when it is disconnected from the supply.
4.4 At these slowest switching speeds, at 6.172 mHz, and during that burst oscillation mode period where the frequency is measured at close to 1.5 MHz, the battery supply source is seen to recharge. The same oscillation amplitude is evident at all higher frequencies with the same attendant benefits.
4.5 The voltage across the shunt is at 180 degrees in anti phase with the voltage across the battery (Figure 5) and the voltage across the Drain (Figure 6). While this is repeatable in simulations it is not evident that the oscillations can be sustained at the same amplitudes over an extended period.
4.6 Typically, and as can be seen from the oscilloscope screen shots, it is possible to tune the circuit through adjustments to the offset and the duty cycle, to obtain a negative mean average and cycle mean average voltage measured at Rshunt. This indicates that there is more current being returned to the battery supply than was first delivered. This is confirmed by detailed analysis of data downloads to spreadsheets.
4.7 There is evidence of approximately 6 watts of energy dissipated at RL1, and upwards of 40 watts on Test 2, at no measurable cost of energy delivered from the supply. As this heat is not at the cost of energy from the supply it suggests that there is an alternate energy supply source or classical prediction errs in its assumption of equivalence in the transfer of energy.
4.8 Measurement of battery voltage was determined by the mean average voltage on the digital storage oscilloscopes, as well as from the digital multimeters, with probes placed directly on the positive and negative terminals of the battery supply. These battery voltages fluctuate in line with the evident voltage variations of the waveforms displayed. What is shown is that there is a recharge period after the discharge of current from the voltage during the ON period of the duty cycle. It is more clearly evident at the slowest switching speed. This indicates that there is a battery recharge during the period when the switch is in burst oscillation mode that occurs when the gate voltage is negative. Therefore is there evidence that the oscillations resulting from this negative triggering, are indeed recharging the battery.
5. SIMULATION
5.1 The circuit was setup in Simetrix version 5.4 (Figure 7) and simulated in correlation with the above tests (Figure 8).
Fig 7: Circuit diagram as simulated in Simetrix software.
6.DISCUSSION
The results of this demonstration are consistent with the previous reported test results related to this circuitry. The difference here is that there is an extended period of self-induced oscillation following the falling edge of the gate drive signal. This appears to enhance the circuit performance to what is now measured with what appears to be an infinite co-efficient of performance. This value has been carefully measured, but it is preferred that the circuit and all its effects be carefully evaluated by experts.
Therefore the intention of this demonstration is to bring these anomalies to the academic forum so that experts can research these effects more thoroughly. There are many questions here that need answers and it is considered that this is best established across a broad range of research to establish the checks and balances required for the progress of this new technology.
It is an unfortunate fact that publication of these results in academic journals will first require some accreditation. Attempts to publish in reviewed journals were denied, even prior to review of the submitted papers. Although not admitted, the indications are that this outright rejection was because the results of these experiments dramatically oppose mainstream prediction. It is earnestly proposed that open acknowledgement of the listed anomalies by experts, may therefore, be a catalyst to bridge mainstream’s scepticism that publication will be possible. And the further hope is that this demonstration will result in that required and wider acknowledgement of these anomalies. Then the technology can be progressed. This would be a desirable consequence, the more so as there may here exist some potential solutions to the global energy crisis that is growing ever more critical in the face of diminishing or pollutant energy sources coupled with our burgeoning global need for increased supplies.
Some mention must be made of those aspects of the tests that have not been thoroughly explored. The first relates to the battery recharge. It is a truth that the batteries used in these experiments have been used on a regular basis for over 5 months. During that time they have been continually subjected to both light and heavy use and they have never shown any evidence of loss of voltage. Nor have they been recharged by a conventional battery recharger. However there has not been a close analysis of the electrolytic condition of the batteries, before, during or even after their use. This will require a fuller study by our chemistry experts.
Results therefore were confined to classical measurement protocols with the distinction that the energy dissipated at the resistor element was established empirically and as it related to the heat dissipated on that resistor. Also to be noted is that there is a small but measurable inductance on the current-sensing resistor. This therefore begs some margin for error in the measurements. However, the measure of efficiency in the transfer of energy here is that extreme that a wide margin can be applied without materially altering these beneficial results.
It is, in any event, clearly evident that the circuit benefits from the inductances that are measured over the circuit components, including the wiring. As this is both inexpensive and easy to incorporate into circuit designs then the indications are that this aspect of the technology is easily established. What is needed is fuller research into the critical amounts to enable the burst oscillation mode and, indeed, into the requirements that enable this negative triggering of the oscillation, in the first instance. All prior circuits based on this simple design, have shown some indications of benefit. But this particular development has taken that earlier advantage to greater levels of energy efficiency than have been previously recorded.
There was no attempt made in these tests to quantify the energy dissipated. This was based on the fact that in both tests and in most variations to the frequency, and offset adjustments, the results show a zero discharge of energy from the battery supply. Therefore, any measured rise in temperature over ambient is seen as being anomalous.
It is also to be noted that the simulation of these waveforms are not possible. As the software for simulations are based on classical protocols then one may assume that classical measurement does not allow for these results. Certainly they confront Kirchhoff’s Laws albeit that they are in line with Faraday’s Inductive Laws.
Finally, the thesis that predicted these results points to the possibility that the hidden energy supply source, not factored into classical analysis, is in the material of the circuit components. This would still be in line with Einstein’s mass/energy equivalence and the thesis proposes that inductive and conductive material are able to induce their own energy as a result of applied potential differences. Effectively there is a potential in induced negative voltages that has not been fully exploited.
WITH THANKS
Our heartfelt gratitude is to the following:
To CPUT staff for the use of their facilities and for the critical input that was so freely available. Special thanks here to Deon Kallis for his patience in all aspects related to teaching and guiding us. This tribute is all the more heartfelt as he has consistently proposed that there is yet some classical explanation that has been overlooked. This may yet be proven.
Also a word of thanks to Markin Mwinga for his assistance during 2010.
To Battery Centre and RayLite batteries for the gift of 9 batteries.
To Coast to Coast for the supply of the LeCroy for such an extended period. Also for the brief use of the Fluke.
To Inala and to Pieter Rousseau for the use of the Tektronix. This was much required to confirm the results from our LeCroy.
To Specific Heat and Ikram Ebrahim for the donation of the element and his support in supplying exotic resistors as required.
To Roy Adams of Tecron who built a copper water cylinder for an earlier experiment and applied the required plumbing.
To Pick-n-Pay and Pick-n-Pay Durbanville, for providing refreshments at the demonstration
DISCLAIMER
Statements and hypotheses in respect of the 'Ainslie Circuit' demonstration and/or referenced documents and correspondence thereof does not constitute or imply endorsement or recommendation by the CPUT or any of its employees.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
88 - nearly there
Dear Reader,
Just a short note to let you know that the report is nearly finalised. Hopefully we can get this ready and printed for tomorrow. I need to send a couple of copies out for preview to a few people and then - hopefully by Saturday - we'll have the finished product.
I wont be writing here until after the demo. Then I'll give full details and, hopefully, some youtube videos of the experiment and of the demo itself. I will then also publish the report here on the blog. I feel a bit guilty about keeping this under covers. But I've been bitten by some dogs in the past. Not that anxious to expose this to the same risks again.
Meanwhile - for those that harbour good wishes - thank you. And for those who wish us ill - I trust you'll be disappointed. Certainly there's meat in the results that should merit further research. And if we can get some earnest reseach onto a wide academic forum - then I know that enough checks and balances will come into play that this contentious technology may yet get the attention it both needs and deserves.
And I've paid full tribute to the hard efforts of our forum members by stressing the Open Source efforts that have supported this - albeit still not noisy enough to attract a big enough following. So. Again. For anyone who can spread the news - please do so. There is much to follow. Dr Stiffler, the Joule Thief circuit variants, David Lambright's efforts, Lasersaber - are a few that spring to mind. There are many. And there is this robust reach into exploring energy efficiencies that must, eventually, make a breakthrough. Hopefully our own contribution here may also assist.
Every little bit helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Just a short note to let you know that the report is nearly finalised. Hopefully we can get this ready and printed for tomorrow. I need to send a couple of copies out for preview to a few people and then - hopefully by Saturday - we'll have the finished product.
I wont be writing here until after the demo. Then I'll give full details and, hopefully, some youtube videos of the experiment and of the demo itself. I will then also publish the report here on the blog. I feel a bit guilty about keeping this under covers. But I've been bitten by some dogs in the past. Not that anxious to expose this to the same risks again.
Meanwhile - for those that harbour good wishes - thank you. And for those who wish us ill - I trust you'll be disappointed. Certainly there's meat in the results that should merit further research. And if we can get some earnest reseach onto a wide academic forum - then I know that enough checks and balances will come into play that this contentious technology may yet get the attention it both needs and deserves.
And I've paid full tribute to the hard efforts of our forum members by stressing the Open Source efforts that have supported this - albeit still not noisy enough to attract a big enough following. So. Again. For anyone who can spread the news - please do so. There is much to follow. Dr Stiffler, the Joule Thief circuit variants, David Lambright's efforts, Lasersaber - are a few that spring to mind. There are many. And there is this robust reach into exploring energy efficiencies that must, eventually, make a breakthrough. Hopefully our own contribution here may also assist.
Every little bit helps.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
87 - its astounding - time is fleeting - madness takes control
Dear Reader,
The title is a small tribute to RiffRaff and some measure of the continuing panic that I feel. This is written in haste. I am only one third into the report and it's already Tuesday. I've spent far too long on trying to write a paper. I realise now that a full blown dissertation may bore the socks off, of our invited. Better to stick to the point and keep it brief. The paper can follow.
I see a huge spike in readership. For those who have just found this blog and are not aware of what gives here. We've written to all the EE department heads of all the major universities in South Africa to attend a demonstration that shows higher than unity results. In fact we intend showing something that looks uncomfortably like infinite COP and perpetual motion both. But it's for our learned and revered to comment. We are only pointing at some numbers that are not strictly allowable in terms of mainstream thinking. That demo is due for this Saturday. Just 4 days away. Please spread the word. The outcome to that demo will include the publication of the report here on this blog. And the hope is that the meeting may result in some kind of acknowledgement that there are one or two anomalous effects that may require further research.
This is all the culmination of a dozen odd years where I've been trying to bring these results to mainstream. No mean effort. It's cost me many hours of wrangling and grappling with both my logic, the evidence, and mainstream denial of both. Two universities and one research institution have refused the invite prior to sending it. Not bad considering there was once a blanket refusal to engage - from every single university in the country. Paradigms are shifting. Which is a good thing.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
The title is a small tribute to RiffRaff and some measure of the continuing panic that I feel. This is written in haste. I am only one third into the report and it's already Tuesday. I've spent far too long on trying to write a paper. I realise now that a full blown dissertation may bore the socks off, of our invited. Better to stick to the point and keep it brief. The paper can follow.
I see a huge spike in readership. For those who have just found this blog and are not aware of what gives here. We've written to all the EE department heads of all the major universities in South Africa to attend a demonstration that shows higher than unity results. In fact we intend showing something that looks uncomfortably like infinite COP and perpetual motion both. But it's for our learned and revered to comment. We are only pointing at some numbers that are not strictly allowable in terms of mainstream thinking. That demo is due for this Saturday. Just 4 days away. Please spread the word. The outcome to that demo will include the publication of the report here on this blog. And the hope is that the meeting may result in some kind of acknowledgement that there are one or two anomalous effects that may require further research.
This is all the culmination of a dozen odd years where I've been trying to bring these results to mainstream. No mean effort. It's cost me many hours of wrangling and grappling with both my logic, the evidence, and mainstream denial of both. Two universities and one research institution have refused the invite prior to sending it. Not bad considering there was once a blanket refusal to engage - from every single university in the country. Paradigms are shifting. Which is a good thing.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Sunday, March 6, 2011
86 - non-conservative fields
Dear Reader,
Only 5 working days left and I have a mountain of chores. Right now I feel like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
I just need to make comment on Professor Lewin's Non-Conservative Fields. I am not sure that his lectures, related to this, are still available on youtube. If they are I'll ask my friend to upload the link. If they've been withdrawn it's because there was an error in the configuration of his circuit. Unless it was deliberately included - simply to highlight a potential. I don't know. In effect, he had two resistors in parallel on a closed loop. And he had two oscilloscope probes placed that they shared a common ground rail - one on either side of those resistors. Effectively the oscilloscopes were in antiphase to each other. Then he applied an induced voltage to that circuit. And the voltage readings across both resistors were - predictably - shown, the one as a negative and the other as a positive. Then he claimed that this was evidence of a breach in Kirchhoff's Laws. Clearly they were not. But. What he actually highlighted was this simple fact. If and when you get two currents in antiphase to each other on two separate rails of a single circuit - then you would, inevitably breach Kirchoff's assumption of conservation.
So. Again. When and if you have this configuration - if a single simple circuit has two distinct and opposing currents - then you are definitely in breach of that conservation number. But - as he also pointed out - one would not be in breach of Faraday's Laws. That, dear Reader, is what our circuit shows. We have something that clearly shows that Faraday's Laws hold - even when Kirchhoff's don't. Therefore are our results still allowable within Classical reference. And Kirchhoff's Laws - hopefully, will be relagated to a 'rule' rather than a Law. And Kirchhoff's argument conforms to a required co-efficient of performance that is limited to 1. Faraday never imposed any such restriction. His Law simply defines the Laws of Induction. And our experiment shows us that Faraday's Law exceeds Kirchhoff's rule.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Only 5 working days left and I have a mountain of chores. Right now I feel like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
I just need to make comment on Professor Lewin's Non-Conservative Fields. I am not sure that his lectures, related to this, are still available on youtube. If they are I'll ask my friend to upload the link. If they've been withdrawn it's because there was an error in the configuration of his circuit. Unless it was deliberately included - simply to highlight a potential. I don't know. In effect, he had two resistors in parallel on a closed loop. And he had two oscilloscope probes placed that they shared a common ground rail - one on either side of those resistors. Effectively the oscilloscopes were in antiphase to each other. Then he applied an induced voltage to that circuit. And the voltage readings across both resistors were - predictably - shown, the one as a negative and the other as a positive. Then he claimed that this was evidence of a breach in Kirchhoff's Laws. Clearly they were not. But. What he actually highlighted was this simple fact. If and when you get two currents in antiphase to each other on two separate rails of a single circuit - then you would, inevitably breach Kirchoff's assumption of conservation.
So. Again. When and if you have this configuration - if a single simple circuit has two distinct and opposing currents - then you are definitely in breach of that conservation number. But - as he also pointed out - one would not be in breach of Faraday's Laws. That, dear Reader, is what our circuit shows. We have something that clearly shows that Faraday's Laws hold - even when Kirchhoff's don't. Therefore are our results still allowable within Classical reference. And Kirchhoff's Laws - hopefully, will be relagated to a 'rule' rather than a Law. And Kirchhoff's argument conforms to a required co-efficient of performance that is limited to 1. Faraday never imposed any such restriction. His Law simply defines the Laws of Induction. And our experiment shows us that Faraday's Law exceeds Kirchhoff's rule.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, March 3, 2011
85 - This is another post for Poynty.
Dear Poynty,
There is a puzzle. The measurements and the waveform show absolutely NO energy being delivered by the battery when the gate voltage is positive. Something is blocking that current flow. As you've pointed out it's probably due to the offset. Remember that we have 6 x 12 volt batteries being applied during the 'on' time. That's a pretty hefty kick and there's a clean voltage waveform across the gate.
The thing is that when it then goes into 'burst oscillation mode' as you put it - then there is absolutely NO restriction to the flow of energy from the battery. That is also evident in the waveforms and in the voltages measured. But if the battery is then delivering current from an induced voltage it is also getting it back. Then again. Nota bene Pointy. If we disconnect the power for a period of 3 minutes - there is a dramatic drop in the heat measured at the element. But that 'oscillation burst', conversely, is sustaining that temperature and even increasing it. Nor does it decay. Not even by a fraction. The only time that there is clearly some distortion to that waveform is when we apply a switching frequency in the Megahertz range. Otherwsie it remains - as steady as a rock - evidently doing some useful work. And it is NOT NOISE. You can see it for yourself.
Also. It then appears to return more energy from the circuit than was applied. To my way of thinking that means that there is more potential difference induced in all those circuit components than was delivered as current flow from the battery source. For some reason - which I simply cannot understand - you require us to reduce the amount of wiring. Why? If this is all adding to that inductance? The wires used are only as long as is required to reach the circuit apparatus and its sundry components. And there is no question that there's inductance over the heat sinks and the resistor itself. (Still to be measured by the way. Hopefully tomorrow.) There's potential for inductance all over the place. But nothing out of the ordinary has been added. It's not 'smoke and mirrors' as Humbugger claims.
Another point. The battery voltage is CERTAINLY showing those changing values. Not as quick as the scope shows us - but the DMM used cannot operate at the same frequencies. But it moves up and down - just as one sees when one's recharging a battery through a standard recharger. And at some settings that variation can be extreme. And the DMM IS precisely at the positive and negative of the supply.
So. Here's my question. If the circuit requires a certain level of inductance in the element - or even a certain size heat sink at the transistor - or even long wires, which in any event is an inevitable requirement on any application - and if all this is adding some critical value to that 'negative' potential - then how does eliminating them disprove their value? Unlike usual applications - this particular example is intended to exploit that 'burst oscillation'. It clearly depends on induced voltages in circuit material. And hopefully, we'll find a way to test this with even longer periods between each switch. I think what's needed is some way of initiating the first trigger to get it to oscillate. And then just sit tight and let it do it's thing? It probably sounds preposterous. But the indications are that it will just keep on keeping on. We need to find out how long it can manage this.
Then. Regarding the measurements. You must appreciate by now, surely, that our measurements are about as precise as can be managed. Our DSO's are top of the range and - fully calibrated - they carry the manufacturers' ratings. So. When it shows a voltage reading - I think one can pretty well bank it. Otherwise one must give up on measurements altogether. I have no idea what's happening at the battery. I simply cannot tell you if it's discharging or recharging or even sustaining a charge. But I can certainly advise you and all classicists that - on the face of it - there's evidence of a very real potential - thus far overlooked. I've said this before. We just need to take an average AC supply - channel the positive to one application - the negative to another - and then send all that extra energy back to the plug and to the grid supply. Not that this is realistic. Just that this is the logical consequence of where this result is pointing.
In any event. This is CERTAINLY one of the 'effects' that we hope to demonstrate. I'd be much more encouraged to actually see the question answered after the required research. All we can do is show it experimentally. And I must add this. There is evidently some very real and exploitable energy in all that negative potential.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
There is a puzzle. The measurements and the waveform show absolutely NO energy being delivered by the battery when the gate voltage is positive. Something is blocking that current flow. As you've pointed out it's probably due to the offset. Remember that we have 6 x 12 volt batteries being applied during the 'on' time. That's a pretty hefty kick and there's a clean voltage waveform across the gate.
The thing is that when it then goes into 'burst oscillation mode' as you put it - then there is absolutely NO restriction to the flow of energy from the battery. That is also evident in the waveforms and in the voltages measured. But if the battery is then delivering current from an induced voltage it is also getting it back. Then again. Nota bene Pointy. If we disconnect the power for a period of 3 minutes - there is a dramatic drop in the heat measured at the element. But that 'oscillation burst', conversely, is sustaining that temperature and even increasing it. Nor does it decay. Not even by a fraction. The only time that there is clearly some distortion to that waveform is when we apply a switching frequency in the Megahertz range. Otherwsie it remains - as steady as a rock - evidently doing some useful work. And it is NOT NOISE. You can see it for yourself.
Also. It then appears to return more energy from the circuit than was applied. To my way of thinking that means that there is more potential difference induced in all those circuit components than was delivered as current flow from the battery source. For some reason - which I simply cannot understand - you require us to reduce the amount of wiring. Why? If this is all adding to that inductance? The wires used are only as long as is required to reach the circuit apparatus and its sundry components. And there is no question that there's inductance over the heat sinks and the resistor itself. (Still to be measured by the way. Hopefully tomorrow.) There's potential for inductance all over the place. But nothing out of the ordinary has been added. It's not 'smoke and mirrors' as Humbugger claims.
Another point. The battery voltage is CERTAINLY showing those changing values. Not as quick as the scope shows us - but the DMM used cannot operate at the same frequencies. But it moves up and down - just as one sees when one's recharging a battery through a standard recharger. And at some settings that variation can be extreme. And the DMM IS precisely at the positive and negative of the supply.
So. Here's my question. If the circuit requires a certain level of inductance in the element - or even a certain size heat sink at the transistor - or even long wires, which in any event is an inevitable requirement on any application - and if all this is adding some critical value to that 'negative' potential - then how does eliminating them disprove their value? Unlike usual applications - this particular example is intended to exploit that 'burst oscillation'. It clearly depends on induced voltages in circuit material. And hopefully, we'll find a way to test this with even longer periods between each switch. I think what's needed is some way of initiating the first trigger to get it to oscillate. And then just sit tight and let it do it's thing? It probably sounds preposterous. But the indications are that it will just keep on keeping on. We need to find out how long it can manage this.
Then. Regarding the measurements. You must appreciate by now, surely, that our measurements are about as precise as can be managed. Our DSO's are top of the range and - fully calibrated - they carry the manufacturers' ratings. So. When it shows a voltage reading - I think one can pretty well bank it. Otherwise one must give up on measurements altogether. I have no idea what's happening at the battery. I simply cannot tell you if it's discharging or recharging or even sustaining a charge. But I can certainly advise you and all classicists that - on the face of it - there's evidence of a very real potential - thus far overlooked. I've said this before. We just need to take an average AC supply - channel the positive to one application - the negative to another - and then send all that extra energy back to the plug and to the grid supply. Not that this is realistic. Just that this is the logical consequence of where this result is pointing.
In any event. This is CERTAINLY one of the 'effects' that we hope to demonstrate. I'd be much more encouraged to actually see the question answered after the required research. All we can do is show it experimentally. And I must add this. There is evidently some very real and exploitable energy in all that negative potential.
Kindest regards,
Rosie
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
84 - 10 days to go - and yet more surprises
Dear Reader,
I have made a gross error on our previous calculations. It seems that we can sustain that resonance for a period of nearly three minutes which is the the limit that the function's generator can give us for an 'off' time. I've heard that current flow can be perpetuated if it runs in really cold conditions. This does not require cold. But nor do I yet know when, if ever, that resonance will decay. It show very little signs of doing so.
What is intriguing is that the heat from the resistor does not decay during that long 'off' time. If one disconnects the supply then the heat drops dramatically. So it's not the result of any unique properties to the element that it sustains this heat. It can only be due to that resonance. In other words - it's doing work. Also intriguing is that the steadiest heat and voltage levels are still at the faster frequencies - notwithstanding. I'm not sure yet why.
In any event. There's something going on that not even I predicted. I could still buy into the zero loss of energy from the supply. That's in line with the thesis. But I never predicted a condition that these oscillations could be perpetuated over such an extended period. This is good news indeed. But will probably just add to the controversy.
And for Poynty et al. There is no question that - on this new setting - there is absolutely NO energy being passed from the battery to the source rail during the 'on' period of the duty cycle. I am reasonably satisfied that it's due to the resistance offered at the FET and to that variation that we have on this circuit. Just remember that all such self-resonance has been factored out of circuitry as being unwanted. Not required. Here we have a condition where the full value of that resonance is being entirely enabled. Clearly it's deserving of some interest.
I'll try and post a screen shot.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS Pointy - please check your emails
I have made a gross error on our previous calculations. It seems that we can sustain that resonance for a period of nearly three minutes which is the the limit that the function's generator can give us for an 'off' time. I've heard that current flow can be perpetuated if it runs in really cold conditions. This does not require cold. But nor do I yet know when, if ever, that resonance will decay. It show very little signs of doing so.
What is intriguing is that the heat from the resistor does not decay during that long 'off' time. If one disconnects the supply then the heat drops dramatically. So it's not the result of any unique properties to the element that it sustains this heat. It can only be due to that resonance. In other words - it's doing work. Also intriguing is that the steadiest heat and voltage levels are still at the faster frequencies - notwithstanding. I'm not sure yet why.
In any event. There's something going on that not even I predicted. I could still buy into the zero loss of energy from the supply. That's in line with the thesis. But I never predicted a condition that these oscillations could be perpetuated over such an extended period. This is good news indeed. But will probably just add to the controversy.
And for Poynty et al. There is no question that - on this new setting - there is absolutely NO energy being passed from the battery to the source rail during the 'on' period of the duty cycle. I am reasonably satisfied that it's due to the resistance offered at the FET and to that variation that we have on this circuit. Just remember that all such self-resonance has been factored out of circuitry as being unwanted. Not required. Here we have a condition where the full value of that resonance is being entirely enabled. Clearly it's deserving of some interest.
I'll try and post a screen shot.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS Pointy - please check your emails
83 - 11 days - still counting
Dear Reader,
I spoke to all the recipients of those invitations. Surprisingly amenable to the idea of a demonstration - all round. Some expressed concerns related to the expense of flying down for such a brief visit. I countered that the results may be that significant to warrant this. The more so as it points to some possible solutions to our energy crisis. Not sure if my argument carried weight. I've offered everyone an option of coming to view the test after that official demo, if required, and if they are unable to come down on the 12th for whatever reason. The invite only stressed the need for this phenomenon - or effect - to be thoroughly evaluated. I also stressed, where needed, that there are NO patent restrictions.
Now we need to concentrate on preparing that report and preparing what needs showing at that demo. It is a fact that this resonance is elusive. There are a couple of settings where it shows itself readily. There are others where it will come and then it just disappears again. And nothing we do seems to coax it back. It seems to find its own good time and we're yet to establish what's needed to hold it. This is especially true of those higher wattages where the 'on' time kicks in and then pumps so much energy so quickly - that I panic about the voltage tolerances of the DSO's and turn it off - quick. I have captured a few of these shots. The previous refers. There is only once that I've managed to bring that voltage back down to an acceptable level. Then the resistor just cooked - and the battery voltage just climbed. But it climbed from an earlier dramatic one volt drop.
I am entirely satisfied that our conventional use of DC, or indeed any current, has been grossly inefficient. The only reference I find in Wiki - relates to the 'problems' associated with unwanted 'heat' or corruptions to sundry signals - that result from 'self inductance' as its termed. My own argument is based on the idea that we're dealing with two entirely different sources of voltage and current - and that these are neither able to settle nor fully discharge. That's what generates that resonance. And that resonating condition holds the supply charge at that required high level. I am not sure that it actually adds to it. But. Where it can be induced to 'spike' - which is also a result of the frequency setting - then it most certainly adds to the net charge of the initial supply. And that resonance - that current flow - certainly moves through the entire circuit - first in one direction - and then in the reverse direction. First clockwise then anti clockwise. And while this current moves through the battery in both directions - it does not result in any depreciation of charge from that supply.
Also. Just as an aside. It seems that this resonance - at the slowest frequency setting on the Functions Generator - can induce a resonance that lasts for up to 3 minutes. I would like to know what would happen if one could extend the time between the on and off even more. I personally think we're looking at something that - dare I say it - smacks of perpetual motion. And it's not noise - guys. It sustains those really high voltages. And the evidence is that the temperature at the load just keeps climbing. Slowly - but in excess of 40 degrees centigrade over ambient in the half hour that this ran. Nor is the energy coming from the functions generator.
It's all very intriguing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS I CHANGED 3 SECONDS TO 3 MINUTES. Apologies for that first error.
I spoke to all the recipients of those invitations. Surprisingly amenable to the idea of a demonstration - all round. Some expressed concerns related to the expense of flying down for such a brief visit. I countered that the results may be that significant to warrant this. The more so as it points to some possible solutions to our energy crisis. Not sure if my argument carried weight. I've offered everyone an option of coming to view the test after that official demo, if required, and if they are unable to come down on the 12th for whatever reason. The invite only stressed the need for this phenomenon - or effect - to be thoroughly evaluated. I also stressed, where needed, that there are NO patent restrictions.
Now we need to concentrate on preparing that report and preparing what needs showing at that demo. It is a fact that this resonance is elusive. There are a couple of settings where it shows itself readily. There are others where it will come and then it just disappears again. And nothing we do seems to coax it back. It seems to find its own good time and we're yet to establish what's needed to hold it. This is especially true of those higher wattages where the 'on' time kicks in and then pumps so much energy so quickly - that I panic about the voltage tolerances of the DSO's and turn it off - quick. I have captured a few of these shots. The previous refers. There is only once that I've managed to bring that voltage back down to an acceptable level. Then the resistor just cooked - and the battery voltage just climbed. But it climbed from an earlier dramatic one volt drop.
I am entirely satisfied that our conventional use of DC, or indeed any current, has been grossly inefficient. The only reference I find in Wiki - relates to the 'problems' associated with unwanted 'heat' or corruptions to sundry signals - that result from 'self inductance' as its termed. My own argument is based on the idea that we're dealing with two entirely different sources of voltage and current - and that these are neither able to settle nor fully discharge. That's what generates that resonance. And that resonating condition holds the supply charge at that required high level. I am not sure that it actually adds to it. But. Where it can be induced to 'spike' - which is also a result of the frequency setting - then it most certainly adds to the net charge of the initial supply. And that resonance - that current flow - certainly moves through the entire circuit - first in one direction - and then in the reverse direction. First clockwise then anti clockwise. And while this current moves through the battery in both directions - it does not result in any depreciation of charge from that supply.
Also. Just as an aside. It seems that this resonance - at the slowest frequency setting on the Functions Generator - can induce a resonance that lasts for up to 3 minutes. I would like to know what would happen if one could extend the time between the on and off even more. I personally think we're looking at something that - dare I say it - smacks of perpetual motion. And it's not noise - guys. It sustains those really high voltages. And the evidence is that the temperature at the load just keeps climbing. Slowly - but in excess of 40 degrees centigrade over ambient in the half hour that this ran. Nor is the energy coming from the functions generator.
It's all very intriguing.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
PS I CHANGED 3 SECONDS TO 3 MINUTES. Apologies for that first error.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
82 - 12 days to 'd' day and counting
Dear Reader,
I've been finding more and more and more about this circuit. I've done some searches through Wiki and am reasonably sure that these 'effects' have not been seen or certainly not fully reported - so am confident that the demo will be 'unfolding' some new and, hopefully, interesting facts - admittedly about old, and well known phenomena.
But the full implications of a resonating circuit have not - I think - been fully explored. Aside from this and from the anomalous resulting energy efficiencies - will be a some attempt to give a 'standard' or classical explanation. I'm on the hop. But, as it's said - 'nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging at dawn'.
We're 12 days away from that demonstration. And still so much to do. I'll try and keep a daily update - notwithstanding. Today our invitations go out and I'll precede that with a phone call to the recipients - if possible.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Just out of interest - that quote. I thought was by that beloved rogue, Sir John Falstaff from Shakespeare's Henry 1V. For some reason Wiki attributes this to Samuel Johnson. Then it's referred to as 'nothing focuses the mind...'. I think it may be erroneous. And I don't have a copy of the play so can't confirm things one way or another. In any event. It may have been incorrectly paraphrased. Either way - it PRECISELY describes how I feel. Something between a convicted criminal and a sacrifical lamb. The hope is that the conviction will be upturned and that there will be no need for that sacrifice.
I've been finding more and more and more about this circuit. I've done some searches through Wiki and am reasonably sure that these 'effects' have not been seen or certainly not fully reported - so am confident that the demo will be 'unfolding' some new and, hopefully, interesting facts - admittedly about old, and well known phenomena.
But the full implications of a resonating circuit have not - I think - been fully explored. Aside from this and from the anomalous resulting energy efficiencies - will be a some attempt to give a 'standard' or classical explanation. I'm on the hop. But, as it's said - 'nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging at dawn'.
We're 12 days away from that demonstration. And still so much to do. I'll try and keep a daily update - notwithstanding. Today our invitations go out and I'll precede that with a phone call to the recipients - if possible.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Just out of interest - that quote. I thought was by that beloved rogue, Sir John Falstaff from Shakespeare's Henry 1V. For some reason Wiki attributes this to Samuel Johnson. Then it's referred to as 'nothing focuses the mind...'. I think it may be erroneous. And I don't have a copy of the play so can't confirm things one way or another. In any event. It may have been incorrectly paraphrased. Either way - it PRECISELY describes how I feel. Something between a convicted criminal and a sacrifical lamb. The hope is that the conviction will be upturned and that there will be no need for that sacrifice.
Monday, February 28, 2011
81 - here's that test sample example
Dear Reader,
Here's an example of that earlier reference where the math trace product and the mean averages differ so widely that the the one can be positive where the other is negative.
Note also, in this example, the level of that spike over the shunt. It's huge.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW at this level we're dissipating in the region of 40 watts or thereby at the load. It is, nonetheless, not the waveform that will be disclosed at the demonstration. It will only be shown as one example of many more that need to be fully evaluated and fully researched. What we need, most urgently, is academic evaluation of all these anomalies - if such they are.
Here's an example of that earlier reference where the math trace product and the mean averages differ so widely that the the one can be positive where the other is negative.
Note also, in this example, the level of that spike over the shunt. It's huge.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW at this level we're dissipating in the region of 40 watts or thereby at the load. It is, nonetheless, not the waveform that will be disclosed at the demonstration. It will only be shown as one example of many more that need to be fully evaluated and fully researched. What we need, most urgently, is academic evaluation of all these anomalies - if such they are.
80 - the offset to the mosfet
Dear Reader
Another point for our Poynty. You ask if we change the offset. Yes - is the short answer. That's needed to explore the variations in the resonance. Each change will give a new result.
On a personal and entirely irrelevant matter - I suffer from insomnia. And I cannot tell you how often those sleepless nights have been filled by trawling through the internet to find supporting evidence of our own rather exotic 'over unity' claims. Then - like a tongue to a sore tooth - I read of the counter claims. Those tedious arguments against the evidence - argued from the use of protocols that are hard to understand - couched as they are with jargon and acronyms that are presented as scientific. And - precisely because they are not explicit - they are also so much less than what is required. It may yet surprise the Ions and the Humbuggers of this world that their own descriptions of circuit peformance is sub-standard. Loose jargon is NOT scientific. It's what it is. Jargon. To his credit MileHigh does not indulge in this. He's explicit. Tedious - but explicit. Always a pleasure to read your posts MileHigh. Not their substance. Just their clarity.
But - be that as it may. I had long come to the conclusion that there was some kind of agenda to Poynty's forum. And that agenda was to deny the evidence - come what may. It is therefore - with considerable pleasure that I read that Poynty not only defined his protocols but that he came up with a number that exceeds what was previously denied. It may be a fleeting moment. It may be denied or even yet proved wrong. But right now I actually don't even care. I'm over the moon to see that he is that intellectually honest that he openly acknowledges this new result.
So. For me this is momentous news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Another point for our Poynty. You ask if we change the offset. Yes - is the short answer. That's needed to explore the variations in the resonance. Each change will give a new result.
On a personal and entirely irrelevant matter - I suffer from insomnia. And I cannot tell you how often those sleepless nights have been filled by trawling through the internet to find supporting evidence of our own rather exotic 'over unity' claims. Then - like a tongue to a sore tooth - I read of the counter claims. Those tedious arguments against the evidence - argued from the use of protocols that are hard to understand - couched as they are with jargon and acronyms that are presented as scientific. And - precisely because they are not explicit - they are also so much less than what is required. It may yet surprise the Ions and the Humbuggers of this world that their own descriptions of circuit peformance is sub-standard. Loose jargon is NOT scientific. It's what it is. Jargon. To his credit MileHigh does not indulge in this. He's explicit. Tedious - but explicit. Always a pleasure to read your posts MileHigh. Not their substance. Just their clarity.
But - be that as it may. I had long come to the conclusion that there was some kind of agenda to Poynty's forum. And that agenda was to deny the evidence - come what may. It is therefore - with considerable pleasure that I read that Poynty not only defined his protocols but that he came up with a number that exceeds what was previously denied. It may be a fleeting moment. It may be denied or even yet proved wrong. But right now I actually don't even care. I'm over the moon to see that he is that intellectually honest that he openly acknowledges this new result.
So. For me this is momentous news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
79 - CONGRATULATIONS POYNTY POINT
Dear Reader,
AT LAST it seems that Poynty is exploring some values on the LT Joule Thief circuit variant - that ACTUALLY challenge those classical restraints required for the transfer of electromagnetic energy. I'll ask my friend to post a link for me later on today.
The tribute is to the intellectual honesty required in applying classical measurement protocols and then reporting on that result - that elusive efficiency number that is doing all that it really should NOT do. It is an enormous comfort to see that he is looking into this with the required rigour.
I confess that I had come to the opinion that any result would be deliberately skewed to deny the evidence. I am DELIGHTED to be proved wrong. He and Professor are breaking new ground here and, in the process, are making history.
Now dare I ask? What price Kirchhoff's rules now? I think that Mr Faraday will yet win this argument. It also seems that this value results from precisely the same protocols that we apply to our own tests.
You're opening doors here Poynty. What a pleasure.
The very kindest and the very best of my regards to you
Rosemary
AT LAST it seems that Poynty is exploring some values on the LT Joule Thief circuit variant - that ACTUALLY challenge those classical restraints required for the transfer of electromagnetic energy. I'll ask my friend to post a link for me later on today.
The tribute is to the intellectual honesty required in applying classical measurement protocols and then reporting on that result - that elusive efficiency number that is doing all that it really should NOT do. It is an enormous comfort to see that he is looking into this with the required rigour.
I confess that I had come to the opinion that any result would be deliberately skewed to deny the evidence. I am DELIGHTED to be proved wrong. He and Professor are breaking new ground here and, in the process, are making history.
Now dare I ask? What price Kirchhoff's rules now? I think that Mr Faraday will yet win this argument. It also seems that this value results from precisely the same protocols that we apply to our own tests.
You're opening doors here Poynty. What a pleasure.
The very kindest and the very best of my regards to you
Rosemary
Sunday, February 27, 2011
78 - what spurious oscillations?
Dear Reader,
If the correct method to compute wattage is in the instantaneous analysis of the shunt and the battery voltage then school classical has a big problem. I want to be very clear what I'm referring to here. I take the first one sample of the voltage across the shunt and then the first one sample of the voltage across the battery. Then I multiply those two values together and divide that product with the Ohm's value of the shunt. Then. I copy that equation to each of those 500 000 plus samples. Then I take the sum of those samples and divide it by that sample number. That's what I do, and that, I believe, is in line with what the math function does and what it shows in the math trace.
Then we have ALWAYS have a negative value - indicating that nothing is being discharged at the battery. Then too, the battery voltage first drops - dramatically - and then it consistently climbs back to a steady high voltage. So MileHigh. If this is the correct analysis then - again - school classical has a problem.
Regarding that 'short' positive spike at the drain. There is no question that this is not breaching the resistance at the MOSFET where, I presume, it would be blocked. It's the fact that it still generates those really high oscillations at all - after the discharge of this small spike - that is of interest. Surely? Because what is also self-evident is that the voltages at the battery and the voltages at the resistor - ramp up to a higher and higher value until the point that it 'levels out'. How does that energy influence the battery voltage? It clearly goes through the battery and through the load as it's also evident at the drain. And the voltage at the drain shows a waveform that is consistent with the battery voltage.
And again. The kicker. One can adjust the offset or the duty cycle - or both - and one can then get the clean 'on time' that you're all looking for. At which stage - depending on the level it's tuned to - one sees the voltage rise, correspondingly, across the shunt. I've shown this but will post this again - later today. Then here's what happens. The mean average and the cycle mean average MAY SOMETIMES default to a positive value. But the product shown by the math trace ALWAYS STAYS NEGATIVE. And this is born out in the close analysis of the instantaneous wattage that you all have determined is the CORRECT analysis. And it certainly does not result in any evident loss of charge to the battery supply source.
THEN. We have the negative oscillation persisting - during the off time. No matter what. There has been prior evidence of a negative triggering - evidenced by Aaron Murakami. If it is the result of stray capacitance then so what? I understand that stray capacitance is seen as a kind of residual charge. On my side, I see it as an induced voltage over circuit material. But stray or spurious oscillations are not expected to be that strong that they can be returned to both the supply source and then back to the load - repeatedly. And every return ADDS to the charge conservation from that supply - a little more with each osciallation.
That it has not been evident before is due to a variation of the circuit. What is enabled is that there is sufficient path made available to the circuit to ensure that the full benefit of the current induced by that negative spike is able to flow. I suspect that all prior circuit configurations blocked this courtesy some resistance in that Zener diode. Access the full range of it's value and it most certainly returns a net energy gain to the system.
This is what we intend showing. However. It is absolutely NOT the only way to 'skin this cat'. One can achieve precisely the same thing as has been shown on previous test replications. But the net return is then more modest. That negative spike invariably rang 'down' not up. COP >1 rather than COP infinity.
And for those who have read it - the explanation is only in line with known Inductive Laws. I keep saying this. What is evident is almost prosaic in it's essence. All that aether energy - and all it turns out to be is the full and proper use of the negative potentials in induced voltages. Which does not minimise this application. The implications are mind bending. It points to the possibility that there is far more potential locked in inductive/conductive material - than has, heretofore, been fully exploited. And that points to the 'thinking' that initiated this circuit design in the first place.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
If the correct method to compute wattage is in the instantaneous analysis of the shunt and the battery voltage then school classical has a big problem. I want to be very clear what I'm referring to here. I take the first one sample of the voltage across the shunt and then the first one sample of the voltage across the battery. Then I multiply those two values together and divide that product with the Ohm's value of the shunt. Then. I copy that equation to each of those 500 000 plus samples. Then I take the sum of those samples and divide it by that sample number. That's what I do, and that, I believe, is in line with what the math function does and what it shows in the math trace.
Then we have ALWAYS have a negative value - indicating that nothing is being discharged at the battery. Then too, the battery voltage first drops - dramatically - and then it consistently climbs back to a steady high voltage. So MileHigh. If this is the correct analysis then - again - school classical has a problem.
Regarding that 'short' positive spike at the drain. There is no question that this is not breaching the resistance at the MOSFET where, I presume, it would be blocked. It's the fact that it still generates those really high oscillations at all - after the discharge of this small spike - that is of interest. Surely? Because what is also self-evident is that the voltages at the battery and the voltages at the resistor - ramp up to a higher and higher value until the point that it 'levels out'. How does that energy influence the battery voltage? It clearly goes through the battery and through the load as it's also evident at the drain. And the voltage at the drain shows a waveform that is consistent with the battery voltage.
And again. The kicker. One can adjust the offset or the duty cycle - or both - and one can then get the clean 'on time' that you're all looking for. At which stage - depending on the level it's tuned to - one sees the voltage rise, correspondingly, across the shunt. I've shown this but will post this again - later today. Then here's what happens. The mean average and the cycle mean average MAY SOMETIMES default to a positive value. But the product shown by the math trace ALWAYS STAYS NEGATIVE. And this is born out in the close analysis of the instantaneous wattage that you all have determined is the CORRECT analysis. And it certainly does not result in any evident loss of charge to the battery supply source.
THEN. We have the negative oscillation persisting - during the off time. No matter what. There has been prior evidence of a negative triggering - evidenced by Aaron Murakami. If it is the result of stray capacitance then so what? I understand that stray capacitance is seen as a kind of residual charge. On my side, I see it as an induced voltage over circuit material. But stray or spurious oscillations are not expected to be that strong that they can be returned to both the supply source and then back to the load - repeatedly. And every return ADDS to the charge conservation from that supply - a little more with each osciallation.
That it has not been evident before is due to a variation of the circuit. What is enabled is that there is sufficient path made available to the circuit to ensure that the full benefit of the current induced by that negative spike is able to flow. I suspect that all prior circuit configurations blocked this courtesy some resistance in that Zener diode. Access the full range of it's value and it most certainly returns a net energy gain to the system.
This is what we intend showing. However. It is absolutely NOT the only way to 'skin this cat'. One can achieve precisely the same thing as has been shown on previous test replications. But the net return is then more modest. That negative spike invariably rang 'down' not up. COP >1 rather than COP infinity.
And for those who have read it - the explanation is only in line with known Inductive Laws. I keep saying this. What is evident is almost prosaic in it's essence. All that aether energy - and all it turns out to be is the full and proper use of the negative potentials in induced voltages. Which does not minimise this application. The implications are mind bending. It points to the possibility that there is far more potential locked in inductive/conductive material - than has, heretofore, been fully exploited. And that points to the 'thinking' that initiated this circuit design in the first place.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Saturday, February 26, 2011
77 - which value is right?
Dear Reader,
I have a problem which I'm hoping will be addressed. It's this. Energy measurement is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time. And energy is measured in Joules which, in turn, is based on wattage which, as mentioned, is vi*dt.
Now. We've been the happy recipient of the use of some really zut DSO's. The one gives us data dumps in the half million and the other in the million sample range. Hugely detailed. Each sample range under observation is really thoroughly accounted. And the dumps are right out of the moment that the sample was captured. How the different DSO's measure their mean averages, or anything else, depends on that initial sample capture. It's that dump that represents an actual record. And we can access that record of samples - right out of the DSO.
Typically on the multiple channels that these instruments provide - it's possible to measure the different points on each circuit. So it is that the battery voltage and the shunt voltage are shown simultaneously. Therefore is it possible to measure them both - to estabish vi - in real time. As they occurred. So. One can take a record of that sample range and then transpose it to the spreadsheet for analysis and do a moment by moment computation of those measurements. For example, one can take the voltage across the shunt, divide it by the resistive value of the shunt and get the instantaneous current measurement. Then one can multiply that current by the measured voltage and that will give the actual measure of that instantaneous sample as it happens, so to speak. And one can do that sum for each of those 500 000, or 1 million samples - as required.
Alternatively, one can take the sum of all those voltages over that entire sample range and divide it by the number of samples to get a mean average of the current flow and a mean average of the applied source voltage and one will then get the average of the amount of energy applied over that time period related to the sample range.
Here's the kicker. The sum of the instantaneous wattage computed against each sample is never the same as the mean average. Those numbers never relate to each other.
I do have an answer - but I'm not sure if it's classical. Poynty, - if you're reading here - or anyone. I'd be glad of some kind of explanation. Which of those two systems is right? Certainly they're NEVER in agreement with each other.
Why this is relevant is because the math trace is the instantaneous product of both the shunt and the battery voltage. At higher wattage outputs the mean average of the shunt voltage defaults to positive but not that instantaneous product - not that math's trace. This remains negative. Interestingly - possibly because of the higher voltages, the battery voltage first dips by a half a volt or thereby and then steadily climbs back to its previous value.
It's puzzling.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I have a problem which I'm hoping will be addressed. It's this. Energy measurement is based on the product of voltage and amperage over time. And energy is measured in Joules which, in turn, is based on wattage which, as mentioned, is vi*dt.
Now. We've been the happy recipient of the use of some really zut DSO's. The one gives us data dumps in the half million and the other in the million sample range. Hugely detailed. Each sample range under observation is really thoroughly accounted. And the dumps are right out of the moment that the sample was captured. How the different DSO's measure their mean averages, or anything else, depends on that initial sample capture. It's that dump that represents an actual record. And we can access that record of samples - right out of the DSO.
Typically on the multiple channels that these instruments provide - it's possible to measure the different points on each circuit. So it is that the battery voltage and the shunt voltage are shown simultaneously. Therefore is it possible to measure them both - to estabish vi - in real time. As they occurred. So. One can take a record of that sample range and then transpose it to the spreadsheet for analysis and do a moment by moment computation of those measurements. For example, one can take the voltage across the shunt, divide it by the resistive value of the shunt and get the instantaneous current measurement. Then one can multiply that current by the measured voltage and that will give the actual measure of that instantaneous sample as it happens, so to speak. And one can do that sum for each of those 500 000, or 1 million samples - as required.
Alternatively, one can take the sum of all those voltages over that entire sample range and divide it by the number of samples to get a mean average of the current flow and a mean average of the applied source voltage and one will then get the average of the amount of energy applied over that time period related to the sample range.
Here's the kicker. The sum of the instantaneous wattage computed against each sample is never the same as the mean average. Those numbers never relate to each other.
I do have an answer - but I'm not sure if it's classical. Poynty, - if you're reading here - or anyone. I'd be glad of some kind of explanation. Which of those two systems is right? Certainly they're NEVER in agreement with each other.
Why this is relevant is because the math trace is the instantaneous product of both the shunt and the battery voltage. At higher wattage outputs the mean average of the shunt voltage defaults to positive but not that instantaneous product - not that math's trace. This remains negative. Interestingly - possibly because of the higher voltages, the battery voltage first dips by a half a volt or thereby and then steadily climbs back to its previous value.
It's puzzling.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
76 - on negative triggering and its implications
Dear Reader,
This is a very generalised description of the negative triggering and it's results on the waveform that is proposed to be demonstrated.
It is established that current moves through conductive and inductive material. Above zero voltage induces a clockwise directional flow and below zero, conversely, induces an anti-clockwise flow. The direction of current flow then induces a voltage across circuit material that is established in counterphase to that applied voltage.
From a detailed analysis of the data taken from our two digital storage oscilloscopes it is evident that the amount of voltage applied to the element/resistor - from the battery and during that brief 'on' period - is consistent with the amount of wattage that is measured to be dissipated as heat at the resistor.
But it is also evident that the current resulting from that applied voltage did not flow to the negative terminal of the battery as there would be some corresponding evidence of an applied above zero voltage at the shunt resistor. It is proposed that because the gate signal immediately defaults to zero the passage of this current flow is interrupted that it cannot flow through the circuit path to reach the negative terminal of the supply. Again. The time during which the circuit is closed, to enable this flow, is brief. And the resistance from the circuit is sufficient to prevent a 'through flow' of that current.
The voltage applied to the resistor, albeit small, is now in antiphase to the source voltage. And it is consistent with the amount of voltage applied during that brief 'on' period enabled by the duty cycle. The voltage across the element then discharges that small negative voltage through the closed circuit path, through the battery, then through the Zener body diode of the MOSFET and back to the source of that negative voltage being the element/resistor. This results in a discharge of that voltage at the resistor. It is also consistent with a small negative voltage spike measured at the shunt.
But in moving through the circuit that anti-clockwise current flow has increased the battery voltage and it has simultaneously established an opposite positive voltage in the conductive/inductive properties of the circuit material. This postive voltage now has no restriction to enable a current flow path from the circuit as the signal at the gate is now negative. And negative charge signal at the gate of the MOSFET will not repel a postive charge. The source battery voltage is now marginally higher as a result of that brief anti-clockwise current flow. And it is then able to discharge a marginally greater current flow. This combines with the discharge of positive voltage from the circuit material all of it moving as current flow in a clockwise direction. And this, in turn, establishes a marginally greater current flow and a marginally greater negative voltage is again establshed on the circuit components. This then discharges that voltage as current flow in an anti-clockwise. This then again increases the level of voltage in the battery. And so it goes, ramping up to higher and higher voltages in a resonating condition. Until the level of voltage in that resonating condition exactly equals the limit to the amount of voltage induced in those circuit components. At that point it reaches the limit in the level of it's resonance. Then the switch defaults to present an brief closed condition to the supply. And so the cycle is repeated.
In effect, the osciallations that result from the negative triggering are the result of - and limited to - the sum of the voltages induced from the circuit material and not from the source. In the discharge of that voltage there is a resulting conservation of charge at the initial supply source.
What may be proved by this is that potential difference can be transferred to passive circuit components that they, in turn, can become an energy supply source. Certainly the fact that the battery voltage is in antiphase to the voltage measured across the shunt - is indicative of this. As the only way that this antiphase voltage condition across the shunt and the supply, can otherwise be generated is with the application of an alternative energy supply source to the circuit.
There are subtleties in that resonating condition that need fuller explanation. But I think it is outside the scope of this explanation. There are also certain questions that relate to closed circuit conditions that are not here fully explored. These will be partially covered in that report that will result from that demonstration.
Hope that helped.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
This is a very generalised description of the negative triggering and it's results on the waveform that is proposed to be demonstrated.
It is established that current moves through conductive and inductive material. Above zero voltage induces a clockwise directional flow and below zero, conversely, induces an anti-clockwise flow. The direction of current flow then induces a voltage across circuit material that is established in counterphase to that applied voltage.
From a detailed analysis of the data taken from our two digital storage oscilloscopes it is evident that the amount of voltage applied to the element/resistor - from the battery and during that brief 'on' period - is consistent with the amount of wattage that is measured to be dissipated as heat at the resistor.
But it is also evident that the current resulting from that applied voltage did not flow to the negative terminal of the battery as there would be some corresponding evidence of an applied above zero voltage at the shunt resistor. It is proposed that because the gate signal immediately defaults to zero the passage of this current flow is interrupted that it cannot flow through the circuit path to reach the negative terminal of the supply. Again. The time during which the circuit is closed, to enable this flow, is brief. And the resistance from the circuit is sufficient to prevent a 'through flow' of that current.
The voltage applied to the resistor, albeit small, is now in antiphase to the source voltage. And it is consistent with the amount of voltage applied during that brief 'on' period enabled by the duty cycle. The voltage across the element then discharges that small negative voltage through the closed circuit path, through the battery, then through the Zener body diode of the MOSFET and back to the source of that negative voltage being the element/resistor. This results in a discharge of that voltage at the resistor. It is also consistent with a small negative voltage spike measured at the shunt.
But in moving through the circuit that anti-clockwise current flow has increased the battery voltage and it has simultaneously established an opposite positive voltage in the conductive/inductive properties of the circuit material. This postive voltage now has no restriction to enable a current flow path from the circuit as the signal at the gate is now negative. And negative charge signal at the gate of the MOSFET will not repel a postive charge. The source battery voltage is now marginally higher as a result of that brief anti-clockwise current flow. And it is then able to discharge a marginally greater current flow. This combines with the discharge of positive voltage from the circuit material all of it moving as current flow in a clockwise direction. And this, in turn, establishes a marginally greater current flow and a marginally greater negative voltage is again establshed on the circuit components. This then discharges that voltage as current flow in an anti-clockwise. This then again increases the level of voltage in the battery. And so it goes, ramping up to higher and higher voltages in a resonating condition. Until the level of voltage in that resonating condition exactly equals the limit to the amount of voltage induced in those circuit components. At that point it reaches the limit in the level of it's resonance. Then the switch defaults to present an brief closed condition to the supply. And so the cycle is repeated.
In effect, the osciallations that result from the negative triggering are the result of - and limited to - the sum of the voltages induced from the circuit material and not from the source. In the discharge of that voltage there is a resulting conservation of charge at the initial supply source.
What may be proved by this is that potential difference can be transferred to passive circuit components that they, in turn, can become an energy supply source. Certainly the fact that the battery voltage is in antiphase to the voltage measured across the shunt - is indicative of this. As the only way that this antiphase voltage condition across the shunt and the supply, can otherwise be generated is with the application of an alternative energy supply source to the circuit.
There are subtleties in that resonating condition that need fuller explanation. But I think it is outside the scope of this explanation. There are also certain questions that relate to closed circuit conditions that are not here fully explored. These will be partially covered in that report that will result from that demonstration.
Hope that helped.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)