another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[TinselKoala]

Tinsel Koala,

Your circuit board layout with the parallel
connected MOSFETs (widely spaced with
long parallel leads) is known to be highly
susceptible to "spurious oscillation" or
"parasitic oscillation."  This is especially
true when the MOSFETs are pulse driven
with rapid rise and fall times.

If you were to clean up the layout and take
the standard recommended precautions to
minimize those potential problems it is very likely
that circuit stability and your waveforms would be
somewhat different.

Forgive me, please, for ROFLing all over the floor.

Please note this post of mine from earlier in the thread:

@AbbaRue: you speak of scope probe leads picking up noise and showing that instead of circuit behavior. You must then explain why my circuit doesn't oscillate when I change to the mosfets that require more gate charge to switch, and you really should look at the photos of Rosemary's circuit as tested that made those scope shots of hers. Stray oscillations due to rat's nest wiring? Any circuit designer will warn you about that in a mosfet amplifier..... especially with casually parallelled mosfets.

I suggest you do a little reading up on the issue that is being discussed in this thread. Start with Post # 666, if you like, there's no need to go all the way back to the beginning -- which would be three or ten years ago, depending on how deeply you want to delve.


Compare my layout with that shown in the Ainslie demonstration pictures that FuzzyTomCat has posted just a few pages ago, also.

The poor layout IN MY CASE is DELIBERATE, the oscillations are deliberately sought after.... and yes, I COMPLETELY AGREE with your main points, and yes, I know better. Thank you....

It will be interesting to see what you think after you've gotten up to speed on this topic.

(ETA: I believe that the reversed mosfet shown in the present circuit was originally intended BY ROSEMARY and her builder to be in simple parallel with the other 4, and that they only discovered that one was installed  backwards AFTER the experiment that we are discussing and the demonstration was done. This, I think, is the point of FuzzyTomCat's posting of the two diagrams. The first one with the single mosfet is supposed to represent 5 in parallel. The second one was drawn and presented after someone with sharp eyes carefully examined the photos of the experimental apparatus and saw that one mosfet was installed backwards. At least... that's what I _think_ happened. It seems to be the only way to explain the sequence of events and the timing of the release of each of those diagrams, as FTC has pointed out.)

[TinselKoala]

@.99:

How does one adjust the RAT circuit to produce a desired temperature at the load resistance?

Would it not be easier to adjust the CONTROL circuit to give the same temperature that the RAT device is giving?

I've looked and looked and I can't see any controls for adjustment in the RAT circuit. Do you vary the FG's output? Is that completely kosher? And since when did the mere "temperature" of a resistive element (meaured in one or three or ten locations) become an indicator of energy flow? What is the specific heat of your resistor? Are you quite sure that two resistive elements, packaged without care for the issues here, have the exact same specific heat?

I think that it is necessary to use the load to heat up a known quantity of a liquid with known specific heat, in a container with known thermal leak rate, for a specific amount of time, in order to know how much energy has been delivered to the load.

However, as a simple "go-nogo" kind of test I think your idea is fine. Too bad we won't be seeing anything like what you describe from Rosemary. You might, though, from me, along with some other tests as well.

Maybe I can get SeaMonkey to help me with my poor circuit layout.





Some terms FOR ROSEMARY to research: Temperature coefficient of resistance, Temperature vs HEAT CONTENT of a material, specific heat

[TinselKoala]

...... indeed I dare threaten you.  It will be the most entertaining experience yet - where I will be able to kill two birds with one stone and do so publicly.   The one bird

Here she said, before editing, simply "The one bird is you"... meaning me.

is your interventions and the second bird is our unity barriers.  Both have outlived their value.

Kindest as ever
Rosie Posie

Preserved for posterity.... and evidence.

[evolvingape]

Rosemary,

There is one important caveat that must be met for the above to be valid, and that is that the resistor element temperature profile over time for the experimental apparatus must match or exceed the Control's temp profile up to the point where the Control batteries reach their 10.5V level.

The reason for this is to account for the possibility that the RAT circuit may reduce its output power to the load at any point in the test. Obviously the Control temperature will fall over time, producing its own temperature profile. It would not be fair to declare the RAT circuit a winner if it turned out it did not at least keep up with the Control's temperature profile for that duration it lasted to 10.5V.

Fair enough, agreed?

That is the reason both the temperatures and voltages must be periodically recorded so that the profiles can be plotted for comparison.

The RAT circuit can only be declared a "winner" if it continues to run for ever, outperforming the control is not the issue as a switched circuit is more efficient than a continuous DC signal. The control will simply give a base time line at which the load will drain the available energy on pure DC. If the RAT circuit performs for 50% longer than the control, with an equal load at the resistor, then the conclusion is just that, a circuit that outperformed a control by 50%. You cannot stop the test at this point because it will prove nothing regarding the claim, which is overunity and COP = infinity.

For example, if the control drops to 10.5V in 1 hour, and the RAT circuit is still running after 100 hours with no loss of voltage and the load resistor data is consistent with control load resistor data, then you can say that the RAT circuit has outperformed the control by a factor of 100 at this point in time. But you cannot stop the RAT circuit at any point, unless it stops itself. If the RAT circuit runs down at some point to 10.5V then you can recharge and swap the batteries and perform the same test to confirm stable results.

With equal load profiles in both test circuits the eventual data time components of RAT Runtime / Control Runtime = Efficiency Ratio

In order for COP = infinity to be proven you can never perform the above calculation in finality because the RAT Runtime is forever increasing toward infinity by definition, but you can take a measurement using a clock without interfering with the test and say "at this point" efficiency ratio is =

RM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation

Pulse-width modulation (PWM), or pulse-duration modulation (PDM), is a commonly used technique for controlling power to inertial electrical devices, made practical by modern electronic power switches.
The average value of voltage (and current) fed to the load is controlled by turning the switch between supply and load on and off at a fast pace. The longer the switch is on compared to the off periods, the higher the power supplied to the load is.
The PWM switching frequency has to be much faster than what would affect the load, which is to say the device that uses the power. Typically switchings have to be done several times a minute in an electric stove, 120 Hz in a lamp dimmer, from few kilohertz (kHz) to tens of kHz for a motor drive and well into the tens or hundreds of kHz in audio amplifiers and computer power supplies.
The term duty cycle describes the proportion of 'on' time to the regular interval or 'period' of time; a low duty cycle corresponds to low power, because the power is off for most of the time. Duty cycle is expressed in percent, 100% being fully on.
The main advantage of PWM is that power loss in the switching devices is very low. When a switch is off there is practically no current, and when it is on, there is almost no voltage drop across the switch. Power loss, being the product of voltage and current, is thus in both cases close to zero. PWM also works well with digital controls, which, because of their on/off nature, can easily set the needed duty cycle.

Power Delivery

PWM can be used to control the amount of power delivered to a load without incurring the losses that would result from linear power delivery by resistive means. Potential drawbacks to this technique are the pulsations defined by the duty cycle, switching frequency and properties of the load. With a sufficiently high switching frequency and, when necessary, using additional passive electronic filters, the pulse train can be smoothed and average analog waveform recovered. High frequency PWM power control systems are easily realisable with semiconductor switches. As explained above, almost no power is dissipated by the switch in either on or off state. However, during the transitions between on and off states, both voltage and current are non-zero and thus power is dissipated in the switches. By quickly changing the state between fully on and fully off (typically less than 100 nanoseconds), the power dissipation in the switches can be quite low compared to the power being delivered to the load.
Modern semiconductor switches such as MOSFETs or Insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) are well suited components for high efficiency controllers. Frequency converters used to control AC motors may have efficiencies exceeding 98 %. Switching power supplies have lower efficiency due to low output voltage levels (often even less than 2 V for microprocessors are needed) but still more than 70-80 % efficiency can be achieved.

[poynt99]

@.99:

How does one adjust the RAT circuit to produce a desired temperature at the load resistance?

Apparently Rosemary can do this. Yes, it most likely involves tweaking the FG settings, including offset.

Would it not be easier to adjust the CONTROL circuit to give the same temperature that the RAT device is giving?

No. Not easier, nor better. For starters, how can you adjust the Control temperature with a fixed number of batteries, and a fixed load resistor? We want RL1 and RL2 to be the same part number.

And since when did the mere "temperature" of a resistive element (meaured in one or three or ten locations) become an indicator of energy flow?

If the resistance and inductance of each resistor is within 5% or 10% of each other, then we should have a pretty good idea which circuit provides more capacity, simply by monitoring the average temperature of each element over time, and comparing temp profiles later.

What is the specific heat of your resistor? Are you quite sure that two resistive elements, packaged without care for the issues here, have the exact same specific heat?

We have to assume they will be quite close. But as I stated, loads RL1 and RL2 will be swapped for the second run, which will hopefully weed out any vagaries should the contest be "close". And if it IS close, then the RAT circuit does not win. So basically it comes down to this: if the RAT circuit wins by a landslide in BOTH runs, then it is pretty conclusive imho.

.99