Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And Poynty - I actually do not care WHAT the inductance is on that shunt.  I only care that there is an antiphase condition that is born out in that those oscillations can be sustained.  Clearly they are re-inforcing each other that they continue certainly for as long as 3 minutes and, possibly, indefinitely.  You can factor in whatever value you like.  When it comes to an analysis of power then that ANTIPHASE CONDITION OF THOSE WAVEFORMS RESULTS IN A GAIN.  They clearly persist. And yet there is a sustained temperature measured at the load. 

In short - if one can allow that reversing current flow - WITHOUT blocking their paths - that they can move through the circuit in both directions - then they simply do not appear to 'ring' down to zero as is conventionally expected.  It really does not matter what values precede this event.  At that moment - in burst oscillation mode - you will be left with a net gain to the battery.  And at higher wattages, and as has been pointed out by Neptune - the theoretical implications are that we should simply apply more MOSFETs.

Rosemary   

[cHeeseburger]

I trust that my previous post has now addressed this Humbugger.  It is the result of the phase shifts that the advantage goes to the charge condition of the battery.  Just bear in mind that the negative product of the voltages done by the math trace on both the LeCroy and the Tektronix is born out in the spreadsheet analysis.  AGAIN.  We have asked for EXPERT opinion on this as we are applying conventional power measurement protocols - based as they are - on wattage analysis.

Rosemary

Since you are directly addressing me, Rosemary, I'll do you the honor of a direct reply.  The anti-phase relationship between the drain voltage and drain current is a normal expected fact of life in all MOSFET circuits that have the load between the drain and the power supply.  As the current rises, the drain voltage falls and vice-versa.  It explains and indicates and proves absolutely nothing and need not be analyzed by experts at all.  It's how all MOSFETs work.  It's just inherent.  Junction transistors and tubes do the same thing.  It's basic basic.

I pointed out and Stefan and others seem to agree with me that the higher-power setup indeed shows a draw of net 50W (50V x 1A) out of the battery while producing 40-some Watts of heat.  The negative reported number of the math trace is obviously in error, as one cannot obtain a negative result by multiplying two positive numbers.  It's that simple.  Stefan even gave one plausible theory as to how the error occurred.

You must also be aware, I hope, that the VV math trace and resulting number it generates is not the power in Watts.  The scope is not a sentient being and is unaware that one of the traces represents the current, so it cannot know that it is calculating power.  That's why it is labelled VV, or VxV and not Watts.  Also, the scope does not know the value of the shunt resistance, so it could not possibly give a result in Watts. 

So the claim that the higher power second test shows a net charge into the battery is just not true, based on the +243mV mean current shunt measurement your scope clearly shows.  The negative scope math number (-5.43 VV) is unfortunately wrong and an error, as pointed out clearly by myself and acknowledged also by Stefan and others.


Kindest Regards,

Bryan

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Rosemary . Could you please clarify two points from the video . Is the heating element in the canister immersed in water , or just air . Also , the 5 mosfets are mounted on separate heatsinks . Are these heatsinks electrically isolated /insulated from each other? From the experimenters point of view , does the higher efficiency of the present element justify its additional complexity and expense when compared to a simple wire wound element on a ceramic core?

Apologies Neptune.  I missed this.  The canister is just air.  The FETs are all insulated from their heatsinks.  There is a DEFINITE improvement in using this resistor element.  I think it's the added resistance and material from the casing - is my take.  But I'm absolutely NOT certain what's required Neptune.  This is where we need research.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi Magluvin

thank's very much for your reply 208 and included schematic

i did a small test of your idea and hope this is not too much off topic here

perhaps you should open a specific thread for this specific idea  ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w

And of course my BRAVO to Rosemary and her team for sharing 

good luck at all

laurent

Laurent - glad you like the video.  May I return the compliment.  That's a REALLY interesting result on your video.  It seems that there's way, way more energy available than from the supply.  Indeed that's where our own results point. 

Many thanks for highlighting this.  I hope you'll keep these results here if you do continue experimenting on this.  Or at least post over your results.  I think it's very much on topic as it seems to indicate that we've been ignoring the potential energy from the mass of circuit material.  That's been a big complaint of mine for some time.  LOL.

Very well done and another very clear video.  And Mags seems to be on the right road here - so, well done Mags.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

So you agree that he second test shows 44W of heat costing 50W of battery drain, right?  And thank you for clearing my post.  It is an honor to be allowed to post here once in a while.  I'll not abuse the privilege,

I'm intrigued with this comment.  WHERE did Harti say that 44W of heat costs 50 Watts of battery drain?  I missed this entirely.  Or are you SPINNING here Cheesebreath?  I recall Harti mentioning that there MAY be a loss here - nothing definitive.  And that there is NO LOSS is born out in the instantaneous wattage analysis as indicated by the math trace.  Really Humbugger, Cheesburger, Cheesebreath, whoever it is that I'm addressing, you spin with great aplomb.  But it would be pleasant change if you could simply stick to the facts.

Regarding the first test, then, we all agree that it would have been nice if Rosemary had given us a shot or two showing the actual waveform of the oscillation, rather than exclusively showing low-sweep-speed shots of the 100Hz duty cycle where no one can see the cycle by cycle shape of the actual oscillations.

The scope - unfortunately - can only show each cycle as they actually occur.  Between each cycle is a resonating or oscillating condition that the circuit generates.  There is NO OTHER WAY THAT THESE OR ANY OSCILLOSCOPES CAN SHOW THIS.  Are you entirely missing the point here Humbugger?  If you look at Poynty's CORRECT simulation - you'll see he has the same problem.  We are showing the waveform EXACTLY as it is.  Good heavens.  And you claim some kind of expertise to comment?  Then you'll need to get your head around this as clearly you have no idea what we're referring to.

SInce we know that the actual power into or out of the battery depends on the areas under the curves above and below zero and not on the peak voltage excursions there, and we acknowledge never having been showed those areas at any time, how can we conclude anything realistic about the first test based on only those peak excursions and the math trace which we agree was faulty and in error on the second test?

Which makes these comments equally spurious. 

What if the cyclic oscillation waveform looks like this picture?

Cheesebreath

It would only be relevant if it did.  It doesn't.  You really need to learn to read our scope values Cheesebreath.  We can only show what the scope shows.  That's a given. 

Golly.

Rosemary