Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[cHeeseburger]

Well Poynty.  I hope this is still on the same page that we can still reference that RED ELIPSE.  You forgot to add those BIG SPIKES AT THE TRANSITIONAL PHASES OF THE SWITCH.  Roughly 10 volts above zero and 30 volts below zero.  During THAT moment we have 10/0.25 = 40 amps from the battery and 30/0.25 = 120 volts being returned to the battery.  AS WE ALL KNOW the one spike never manifests at the same time as another.  THEREFORE over time 40 amps * vbatt was deliverd and THEN 120 amps * vbatt was returned.  Factor that in together with the amount of time that the current was flowing during the 'ON' time of the switch or we'd be inclined to think that you're only looking at one side of your argument.

Now.  Assume that the battery average is applied during those spikes.  P = vi dt - therefore during those two moments we have 40 amps * 73.3 volts = a staggering 2 932.00 WATTS discharged and 120 amps * 73.3 volts returned = an even more staggering 8 798 WATTS returned to the battery.  And that's not all.  We then also have another problem.  The actual voltage during the flow of that 40 amps FROM THE BATTERY trends to less than 73.3 volts.  And the actual voltage during the flow of 120 amps BACK TO THE BATTERY trends to more than 73.3 volts. 

Rosemary

The answer to all these completely unbelievable numbers and where they come from is, once again, already explained thoroughly.

1) Your shunt is not 0.25Ohms and it is not primarily a resistor,  It is more like 1.5 Ohms and primarily an inductor (at 1.5MHz)

2)  The spikes you see at the transitions of the gate drive signal contain even higher frequency energy than the 1.5MHz waves,  Therefore, the shunt impedance, being primarily inductive, is far higher yet to these spikes, probably around 10 or more Ohms.  As I hope you know, the voltage spike on an inductance does not relate to the value of the current but only to how fast the current is changing (di dt).  This is why even low inductances in a shunt for high frequency work ESPECIALLY WHEN SAMPLING AND MULTIPLYING are being used to derive instantaneous POWER points is STRICTLY TABOO.

3)  Those current spikes, on the order of an Ampere or two peak in reality, are contained entirely in the current loop that is constrained to the gate-source, signal generator and shunt loop and do not even appear at the battery

This has all been explained very clearly several times before,

Kindest Regards


Humbugger

[Magluvin]

Hey Rose  =]

Was wondering.  How did you get involved in this project?  What were the the beginnings that got you started in this pursuit? 

Mags

[cHeeseburger]

Now.  Regarding that equation.  P never, to the best of my knowledge - is represented in any of those equations that you've put forward.  Power is ALWAYS vi dt.  Or Volts x amps x time.  THAT's it.  You can try and argue this till the cows come home Poynty.  This is the fundamental requirement for wattage analysis and this over time = POWER.  NOTHING ELSE.

Rosemary,

I have frequently noticed your Power Equation P = vi dt and refrained from commenting.  Now that you have asserted that so ferociously and implied that Poynt is ignorant when he says P=V*I simply (which is correct), I feel I must comment.

The term "dt" in electronics, statistics and math in general means RATE and refers, of course, to time.  .  dv/dt is the rate of change of a voltage and is given in Volts per second.  di/dt is the rate of change of current, given in Amperes per second.

Power is the rate of energy usage per unit time.  Power is also simply Voltage times current and is an instantaneous quantity apart from time.  It is measured in Watts.  Pwatts = Vvolts x Iamperes.   There is no "dt" involved in calculations of power except where energy consumed or supplied (i.e. rate of change or transfer) per unit time is known and one wishes to find the power:  p = dw/dt where w is energy in Joules, p is power in Watts and t is seconds.  Saying p = vi dt makes no sense given that p = vi, plain and simple.

Energy is Power times Time, pt.  One Watt that is available for one second is one Joule or one Watt-second.  Ten Watts that is available for 10 seconds is 100 Joules or 100 Watt-seconds.

If you have 1 billion Watts for 1 nanosecond, you have one Joule of energy.

But I know you already know this...I've seen you use these relationships correctly many times.

Neither p (instantaneous power) nor P (average Power over time) is correctly expressed as vi dt.  The equation for average power in a repeating non-sinusoidal waveform is far more complex and involves a DC component and the amplitude and phase relationships of all the AC sinewave voltage and current components as derived from a Fourier Series. 

This is essentially what your scopes are doing in a somewhat different way AND THE AMPLITUES AND PHASE ANGLES BETWEEN THE VOLTAGE AND CURRENT AT ALL PRESENT FREQUENCIES MUST BE ACCURATELY FED INTO THE SCOPE OR IT JUST DOESN'T WORK OUT THE RIGHT ANSWER.

Cheers,

Humbugger

[Poit]

@ Rosemary:

Thank you for your response.

Please forgive my stupid questions, but heres another

Could you please explain in a short paragraph what exactly you have? (i.e demonstrating). I understand it is some sort of heating device. I've tried reading the posts surrounding this demonstration, but get quickly bamboozled by all the tech talk. I would consider my self a novice inventor and have a keen interest in OU, not a great understanding of electronics (but enough to get by - i.e basics, what the components do and why etc etc).

If this question has anoyyed you, please disregard, as I would understand if you declined to answer (due to the ignorance on my half) - sorry

Poit (Peter)

P.S If this is something that is unpatenable and something that you feel members here have missed, would it be feasible for a step by step guide to build this invention? again sorry for the ignorant questions Thank you

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hey Rose  =]

Was wondering.  How did you get involved in this project?  What were the the beginnings that got you started in this pursuit? 

Mags

Hello Mags.  SO NICE TO SEE YOU AROUND.  You don't want to know.  It's a long story.  I was trying to prove a magnetic field model.  It needed the electromagnetic force to be controlled by - or based on - a one dimensional magnetic field.  The strong nuclear force needed to be based on a 2 dimensional field.  And gravity on a three dimensional field.  I could only PROVE it on the electromagnetic force.  Which is why I put that circuit together.  So.  The argument is that ALL is magnetic.  In other words it's a FUNDAMENTAL force and it has its own particles.  It's just that - in a field - they move at faster than light speed.  So.  Light can't find it.  It's invisible.  And since our astrophysicists are LOOKING FOR precisely this 'invisible' particle or 'dark energy' in a 'dark force' - then I'm inclined to think that it's right here.  In the magnetic field.  It's way too prosaic and too obvious to appeal to our learneds.  And, unfortunately, it's apparently too complex to appeal to the general public.  So.  I've fallen between two chairs. 

But that's a really long argument.  To me it was as clear as daylight.  So far there are precisely 6 people that I know understand it and possibly another dozen or so who are not owning up to understanding it.  So.  To my surprise - it's actually not that clear at all. 

But I would absolutely not recommend you get embroiled in it.  It's not for the faint hearted and it's not relevant to what this proof shows.  What's needed here are APPLICATIONS.  IF, that is, we can convince anyone at all.  Neptune suggests we stop trying to convince the academics and just concentrate on the possible uses.  And it's probably a good suggestion.