Dear Reader,
In case this is not clear - let me say this again.
If there is any truth to any of the results that we're exposing from this simplest of simple circuits - then there is no question that our households can unplug from our grid suppliers. And that really soon. We just need to scale this highly scalable technology and learn to establish the required resonance in the switching circuitry.
Alternatively - it may be possible to run these applications through the grid - provided only that the grid supplier can credit us with all that returning energy. Either way - we're looking at a possible contender to nuclear energy. At it's least it seems that our dependence on this supply source can be lessened. If for no other reason - this technology needs thorough exploration. There is nothing safe or desirable in the short or long term effects of nuclear supply. It is toxic and hazardous and will not contribute to the long term benefits of our species. Not unless we learn how to deal with all that waste which absolutely will poison our planet.
And we are only just uncovering some of this potential. Who knows where it may lead. But there may be a real and vested interest in denying these results. And I'm reasonably satisfied that the over-reaction of Mookie et al - is a reflection of this concern. Why should I be barred from ever approaching UWC? Because I had the temerity to ask them to attend a demonstration? That's a bit odd. More than a little bit disproportionate. We showed what we undertook to demonstrate. It was not wasted time. And I have not asked them for money. I haven't even asked them for recognition. Why the need to say that CPUT required the disclaimer? Why the distortion to the numbers in attendance? Why the reference to 'mere students' and a handful at that? All lies. Why?
I just wanted them to address the same questions - and do their own research. Our own country is looking to increase its nuclear dependence - in the near future. Could this distancing - this need to make me a pariah - be part of that strategy? I certainly hope not. It's unfortunate co-incidence that the expert in question here is also a nuclear physicist.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
92 - for mookie - whoever he is
Well Mookie
If I didn't know better I'd guess that you have an agenda. The statement that you 'stand by what you said' can only carry water if you are also - responsible for writing that email that you allege you received. Else how would you know?
I WAS NEVER REQUIRED TO ADD THE DISCLAIMER. IT WAS FREELY OFFERED AS I DID NOT WANT CPUT'S GOOD NAME TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY POSSIBLE ADVERSE ATTENDANT CONSEQUENCES TO THIS DEMONSTRATION. THAT CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED. IT IS ON RECORD THAT THIS WAS MY OFFER - NEVER WAS IT A PRECONDITION FOR THAT DEMONSTRATION.
The reason it was offered is precisely because those such as you and your 'friend' are well able to denigrade whatever it is that you require. It is an enduring shame that what you claim is simply not based on truth. I am ever more aware of the lack of integrity that is associated with these multiple attacks that this technology is subjected to. And being alerted - I am ever more anxious to work for its recogition.
I suspect that your interest in this is also in your interest in the continued use of nuclear power. I trust that this technology will confront that need.
And may I add. The whole academic community is NOT WRONG. Nor are they right. They did not attend the demonstration. There is absolutely no part of this claim that confronts classical physics. And if I am delusional I share that delusion with those many who attended that demonstration and many others who are intimately associated with these results. Farrah is correct. In every respect. Current is the flow of charge. And that, indeed, is what we find. I suspect, with or without respect, that it is you who are delusional - if you think that we have confronted classical physics at all - anywhere. Had we done so - then outright denial of the evidence may been justified.
Rosemary
If I didn't know better I'd guess that you have an agenda. The statement that you 'stand by what you said' can only carry water if you are also - responsible for writing that email that you allege you received. Else how would you know?
I WAS NEVER REQUIRED TO ADD THE DISCLAIMER. IT WAS FREELY OFFERED AS I DID NOT WANT CPUT'S GOOD NAME TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY POSSIBLE ADVERSE ATTENDANT CONSEQUENCES TO THIS DEMONSTRATION. THAT CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED. IT IS ON RECORD THAT THIS WAS MY OFFER - NEVER WAS IT A PRECONDITION FOR THAT DEMONSTRATION.
The reason it was offered is precisely because those such as you and your 'friend' are well able to denigrade whatever it is that you require. It is an enduring shame that what you claim is simply not based on truth. I am ever more aware of the lack of integrity that is associated with these multiple attacks that this technology is subjected to. And being alerted - I am ever more anxious to work for its recogition.
I suspect that your interest in this is also in your interest in the continued use of nuclear power. I trust that this technology will confront that need.
And may I add. The whole academic community is NOT WRONG. Nor are they right. They did not attend the demonstration. There is absolutely no part of this claim that confronts classical physics. And if I am delusional I share that delusion with those many who attended that demonstration and many others who are intimately associated with these results. Farrah is correct. In every respect. Current is the flow of charge. And that, indeed, is what we find. I suspect, with or without respect, that it is you who are delusional - if you think that we have confronted classical physics at all - anywhere. Had we done so - then outright denial of the evidence may been justified.
Rosemary
91 - yet again
Dear Reader,
I am reminded, again and again, of the sad but predominant need to decry and deny any good news related to this technology of ours. My only comfort is that truth cannot - forever - be suppressed.
All I would like to draw your attention to - which is the sole reason that we held that demonstration - is that what is known of in the trade as 'parasitic oscillation' is a very exploitable event. This is very easily verified. You need to put those MOSFETS in parallel - then let the system do its thing. If nothing else comes from this - then at least, to those who experiment at all - just test this for yourselves. We have, traditionally, been throwing away a potential in back electromotive force - that actually needs to be encouraged. Parasitic oscillation is - self-evidently - the need for all that energy to manifest as current flow. And for this you need to 'widen the throat' - so to speak - the 'path' to allow it to flow. For those who've grasped the implications. The circuit now acts as a booster converter - without the attendant energy expense.
We have tested this to 30 amps. I have every reason to believe that with more FETs we could have accommodated even more current. And then, the theoretical implication is that this should obviate those extremes spikes at the transitional phases - when we go into heavy duty mode. And then too it should just comfortably osciallate. This is what requires advancement, research. Let's just look at all that potential. It will, most certainly, put paid to all those equivalence requirements applied to electromagnetic energy transfer - that has dogged our theoreticians for way too long. They're nonsense. Certainly NOT applicable to electric energy.
And. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere? Just look again at the crisis of nuclear energy. Just look at the catastrophes that result from using such dangerous technology. Look at the political crises escalating around the globe as result of abuses related to energy rights. The crisis of pollution. The crisis and risks to the continuation of our species.
At the risk of referencing something where I'm ill equipped to comment - while God may have given us supremacy over all things - I wonder if he would not prefer it that we were a little less prodigal and a little less self-serving - in our use of all that abundance. And I wonder then - that with the small inclusion of some transistors to some of our circuitry then the indications are that - at its least - we can do away with some of those toxic energy supplies. Not a bad thing at all.
I wonder at the malice that keeps dogging my best efforts. I am only trying to do my best in the interests of clean green. I'm increasingly aware of the need to silence me and to discredit the technology. It is a fact that the latest reach - that lastest entire distortion of the events at the demonstration - was by a nuclear physicist. Let him go public with his name as he is, so publicly yet so vicariously, able to distort the facts.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I am reminded, again and again, of the sad but predominant need to decry and deny any good news related to this technology of ours. My only comfort is that truth cannot - forever - be suppressed.
All I would like to draw your attention to - which is the sole reason that we held that demonstration - is that what is known of in the trade as 'parasitic oscillation' is a very exploitable event. This is very easily verified. You need to put those MOSFETS in parallel - then let the system do its thing. If nothing else comes from this - then at least, to those who experiment at all - just test this for yourselves. We have, traditionally, been throwing away a potential in back electromotive force - that actually needs to be encouraged. Parasitic oscillation is - self-evidently - the need for all that energy to manifest as current flow. And for this you need to 'widen the throat' - so to speak - the 'path' to allow it to flow. For those who've grasped the implications. The circuit now acts as a booster converter - without the attendant energy expense.
We have tested this to 30 amps. I have every reason to believe that with more FETs we could have accommodated even more current. And then, the theoretical implication is that this should obviate those extremes spikes at the transitional phases - when we go into heavy duty mode. And then too it should just comfortably osciallate. This is what requires advancement, research. Let's just look at all that potential. It will, most certainly, put paid to all those equivalence requirements applied to electromagnetic energy transfer - that has dogged our theoreticians for way too long. They're nonsense. Certainly NOT applicable to electric energy.
And. Dear God. What harm to test this? And what harm to view that test? What harm? Anywhere? Just look again at the crisis of nuclear energy. Just look at the catastrophes that result from using such dangerous technology. Look at the political crises escalating around the globe as result of abuses related to energy rights. The crisis of pollution. The crisis and risks to the continuation of our species.
At the risk of referencing something where I'm ill equipped to comment - while God may have given us supremacy over all things - I wonder if he would not prefer it that we were a little less prodigal and a little less self-serving - in our use of all that abundance. And I wonder then - that with the small inclusion of some transistors to some of our circuitry then the indications are that - at its least - we can do away with some of those toxic energy supplies. Not a bad thing at all.
I wonder at the malice that keeps dogging my best efforts. I am only trying to do my best in the interests of clean green. I'm increasingly aware of the need to silence me and to discredit the technology. It is a fact that the latest reach - that lastest entire distortion of the events at the demonstration - was by a nuclear physicist. Let him go public with his name as he is, so publicly yet so vicariously, able to distort the facts.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
90 - what's new?
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)