Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Sorry.  I posted the wrong download for that conclusion.  Here's the right one.  Just for proof of how long it took to get the temperature stabilised.



Added.

SO.  Say the start was at 21.27 hours - concluded at 22.56 hours - gives a time of about 1.5 hours.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think.  It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles.  And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory.  No noise, surprisingly - that one associates with a kettle at boiling point.  Perhaps that's the lower wattage than our kettles put out. 

Anyway here's that final screen shot.  The battery voltage simply rose to 62 Volts (sorry I wrote degrees) and then stabilised at that value.  I didn't get that final screen shot - but that was the voltage I posted before I went to bed last night.

ADDED
NOTE that at these higher frequencies the level of oscillation across the batteries and the CSR increase.

Also.  I unfortunately did NOT take a screen shot at the conclusion of that test before I increased the frequency.  Because it barely took 10 minutes to raise the temperature of the water from plus/minus 80 degrees C to that 104 degrees C.  And the battery voltage was absolutely stable at 62 something.  I should have made another screen shot.

AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source.  That's got to give pause for thought.  

[poynt99]

AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source.  That's got to give pause for thought.  

[i_ron]

Then Guys - and in conclusion - in the space of a few short minutes - with an increased frequency - it then took the temperature to boiling point - I think.  It wasn't actually boiling but it had small bubbles.  And the temperature recorded at 104 degrees C - or thereby, from memory.  No noise, surprisingly - that one associates with a kettle at boiling point.  Perhaps that's the lower wattage than our kettles put out. 

Anyway here's that final screen shot.  The battery voltage simply rose to 62 Volts (sorry I wrote degrees) and then stabilised at that value.  I didn't get that final screen shot - but that was the voltage I posted before I went to bed last night.

ADDED
NOTE that at these higher frequencies the level of oscillation across the batteries and the CSR increase.

Also.  I unfortunately did NOT take a screen shot at the conclusion of that test before I increased the frequency.  Because it barely took 10 minutes to raise the temperature of the water from plus/minus 80 degrees C to that 104 degrees C.  And the battery voltage was absolutely stable at 62 something.  I should have made another screen shot.

AND MAY I ADD, lest anyone miss the significance here - this may be the first time in recorded history that water was taken to boiling point at an evident ZERO cost of energy from a supply source.  That's got to give pause for thought.  

Good stuff!!!  Rosemary that is food for thought, for sure. I am not clear what you are calling higher frequencies? But no problem for me to wait until  the people away on holiday are back and can draw a representative circuit.

Take care

Ron

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Lol.  Thanks Ron.  Now guys.  About that circuit.  I have no idea how the circuit should be configured.  But these are the points that are critical.  The CSR is positioned in series with the negative terminal - else the measurements there could be contended.  That's why I went this route of experiments.  I need to put paid to any implication that the voltage across the CSR is NOT representative of the current flow to and from the battery. 

Then.  What needs to be shown in any schematic is that confusing arrangement of MOSFETs.  But when you actually physically move the ground of the Signal to the Gate of Q2 - it surely is clearer?  In other words there is an applied negative signal directly to the gate of Q2.  I'm aware that there's a link between the source and gate of both Q1 and Q2.  But in my mind's eye I see them operating independently.  Which is why I, probably erroneously, asked that the rails be entirely separated. 

But having said that - I really need one of you to come up with the actual design.  The Source and Gate of Q2 are transposed in relation to Q1.  And there is no change to the Drain of either of them.  If I get my computer up and running tomorrow I'll try and draw this all as I actually see it.  otherwise, as Ron has mentioned - I'll need to wait for a friend of mine who's away at the moment.  And failing that - that I'll need to ask someone on the team. 

Groundloop - this all means that your schematic needs a minor modification.  Sorry about that guys.  But it's the best I can do.

Then about the voltage across the battery.  Just ask yourselves if this is representative?  If those voltages are simply a figment of the imagination or if they're actually indicative of the voltages measured there?  If they are not then we've done something that is absolutely inexplicable.  We've measured a voltage change - evident on both the source and the drain rail of a circuit supply - that we're being asked to believe has nothing to do with those actual battery voltages.  Patently that's a whole lot of cobblers - or the standard method of measuring battery voltage is just FLAWED.

Then one must ask oneself if the current flow that measured through the shunt is also just a figment of the imagination - or if that is representative.  Again.  Unless we absolutely defy standard protocols for measuring current flow - then that too, is a spurious argument.  It is indeed required to factor in for frequencies that vary the shunt's impedence.  But that's calculable.  But even then - it's hardly significant.  Whether the voltages must be factored higher or lower makes NO DIFFERENCE to the direction of that flow.  And more appears to be returned to the source than to come from the source.  Which puts the sum of that current squarely in negative territory.

And finally one must ask oneself about the correctness in measuring the wattage dissipated at the load as a consequence of this applied voltage and applied current.  As this dissipates some significant and measurable temperatures - then one can assume that at least some wattage is being dissipated.  But no wattage is being measured to have been lost from the supply in generating all that work.

It's all good news guys.  But I grant you.  I need to resolve that MOSFET to make this clearer to you.

I'll get back here tomorrow.

Kindest again,
Rosemary