Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[poynt99]

I believe that a clear understanding (by all concerned) of the circuit's operation is an important goal that we should strive to achieve.

Hopefully the key bits and pieces being put forward here are getting us closer to that goal.

Rose, are you commenting on the circuit's theory of operation?, and if so, is it from the perspective of your theses or from conventional electronics, or from some other?

I of course have been trying to provide insights into the circuit's theory of operation from the perspective of conventional circuit theory. I am hopeful (and hence the appeal for questions) that those interested, are gaining an understanding as to what the configuration is, why the measurements indicate what they do, and why the circuit oscillates the way it does.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

I believe that a clear understanding (by all concerned) of the circuit's operation is an important goal that we should strive to achieve.

Hopefully the key bits and pieces being put forward here are getting us closer to that goal.

Rose, are you commenting on the circuit's theory of operation?, and if so, is it from the perspective of your theses or from conventional electronics, or from some other?

No Poynty.  It's not an adequate explanation from either aspect.  I know that.  What I was intending was to distill the essence of this and make it clear.  I would be sorry if this significance gets drowned out in technical references.  It's just a reminder.

I of course have been trying to provide insights into the circuit's theory of operation from the perspective of conventional circuit theory. I am hopeful (and hence the appeal for questions) that those interested, are gaining an understanding as to what the configuration is, why the measurements indicate what they do, and why the circuit oscillates the way it does.

What you have not yet done Poynty Point is tell us if you think there is any advantage to this application.  Nor have you dealt with its significance.  I think, with respect, that we are all looking at that hooded cobra showing off its hat - it's head gear.  The most of us are waiting to see which way you'll strike.  I would be much more comfortable if I could gauge which side of the fence you're sitting on.  And I certainly need to know if you give due cognisance to that 'negative' wattage value that you've pointed to.  It's back to that question of trust Poynty Point. 

My early preamble was actually intended to challenge you into a denial or an endorsement.  Because my conclusion was a reminder that this points to a hitherto unkown energy supply.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[poynt99]

Whether there is an advantage to this circuit (and by "advantage", I assume you refer to some factor of COP>1), is solely dependent on one's perspective, and what assumptions one may be making about the circuit and its operation.

The information being provided is intended to aid in the understanding of the circuit. Once all are "on the same page" in terms of how the circuit works and what functions certain components fulfill, then those so inclined will be sufficiently-equipped to answer the questions you've raised, for themselves.

The assumption I am making in offering all these posts, is that most here are interested in understanding the circuit well enough to decide for themselves if there is a benefit to the apparatus in terms of OU considerations.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Whether there is an advantage to this circuit (and by "advantage", I assume you refer to some factor of COP>1), is solely dependent on one's perspective, and what assumptions one may be making about the circuit and its operation.

The information being provided is intended to aid in the understanding of the circuit. Once all are "on the same page" in terms of how the circuit works and what functions certain components fulfill, then those so inclined will be sufficiently-equipped to answer the questions you've raised, for themselves.

The assumption I am making in offering all these posts, is that most here are interested in understanding the circuit well enough to decide for themselves if there is a benefit to the apparatus in terms of OU considerations.

.99

Golly.  That's an interesting take.  So.  Let's start again.  You showed a negative wattage as a product of vi dt - which essentially means that more energy is returned to the supply then first delivered from that supply.  That result was unambiguous.  You found it on your simulator.  We find it REPEATEDLY on our own apparatus. 

Yet.  Notwithstanding - are you proposing that we may or may not accept this as a fact?  Does experimental and simulated evidence matter so little?  Is science to be determined by preference - or by evidence?  Help us out here  Poynty.

Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Thanks!
The positive peak excursion across the CSR resistor, is a result of the sharply cut off Drain voltage of Q2 when it turns ON. Prior to this when Q2 is OFF, the CSR's inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage (via the 'Q1' and Q2 capacitance), and so this sudden cut-off causes the CSR's inductance to reverse it's voltage across itself (Lenz's law), and this positive peak voltage is then "limited" by the forward-biased diode, which is why the positive peaks appear "squashed" and widened.

For instance - this is a rather strange 'take'.  You state that 'the CSR' or shunt - its 'inductance is energized by the up-swinging Drain voltage (via the 'Q1 and Q2 capacitance),...  What you fail to refer to is how come there's quite this much 'upswing'. 

ALSO.  You state that the 'CSR's inductance to reverse it's voltage across itself'  is due to '(Lenz's law) when I'm rather satisfied that it's due to Faraday's Law.

And then you state that '... this positive peak voltage is then "limited" by the forward-biased diode, which is why the positive peaks appear "squashed" and "widened".'  Our evidence is that the  positive 'excursions' as you refer to it - are neither 'SQUASHED' nor 'WIDENED'.  Effectively there does not appear to be any restrictions to that postive 'excursion'.  On the contrary.  It's enabled - FULLY - as evidenced when we apply a full offset at the gate. 

So.  Moving on. 

This latter part happens when Q2 is ON, so the diode is forward-biased into a 0-volt potential, which is why it can limit the positive peak, even though it may only be a couple volts in amplitude.

There is no 'limit' to that 'positive peak'.  You really need to try your simulator at higher values.  The positive 'peak' is well able to exceed the battery voltage.  And the signal that allows either the 'positive' or the 'negative' peak - depending on which charge is presented and where - at the gate - has nothing whatsoever to do with the the bias of the body diode.  That NEVER CHANGES.  Not on either setting.  It never exceeds the reasonable tolerance of the transistor which limits it to about 6 volts max.  Hardly consistent with the voltage that it's allowed at either side of that circuit.

The sim results show no significant difference between the two circuit configurations in efficiency for power transferred to and dissipated in the load resistor.

And what is omitted here is something that SHOULD by rights be emphasised.  Here it is.  The resistor on that first setting dissipates plus/minus 6 watts - depending on the 'level' or the 'excursion' of that peak voltage.  Yet neither you nor I can find any evidence of this costing the battery anything at all. 

So.  Poynty Point.  If NP asked some appropriate questions - then can you explain how your answers are appropriate?  Are you trying to diminish the significance of this circuit effect with the excessive use of 'innuendo'?  Surely not.  We were all so ready to trust your analysis.

Regards as ever -  and in the rather reckless hope  that you'll prove me wrong - YET AGAIN.

Rosemary

edited for emphasis.
and again.  also for emphasis.