another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

The scope shot FIG3 for "Test1" indicates that during the portion of the cycle when the function generator is positive, a voltage of +12.5 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  From the IRFPG50 data sheet, with Vds of 70 volts, and at a temp of 25C, Q1 should be equivalent to a 3 ohm resistor (a bit higher resistance if hotter).

With Rload = 11.1 ohms, total load resistance across the 72 volt battery would be ca 13.3 ohms (the sum of Rload plus Q1's RDSon plus Rshunt) which means that ca. 5.4 amps should be flowing.  5.4 amps across the 3 ohms of Q1 would mean that there would be 16.2 volts across Q1.  16.2 volts times 5.4 amps is just over 87 watts.  That is a lot of heat.

However, in the FIG. 3, no current flow is indicated which indicates that Q1 is defective or not connected.

In FIG. 5 for "Test 2", all is as it should be.  Q1 has +5.5 volts applied to the gate, in good agreement with the IRFPG50 data sheet, ca. 2 amps should flow and is indeed indicated in the FIG. 5 scope shot.

Increasing the positive voltage on the gate of Q1 beyond +5.5 volts should cause additional current to flow as Q1 is turned on further. 

In "Test 1", little if any current flow is indicated by FIG 3 even though the gate voltage in Q1 is indicated as being more positive than the level indicated in "Test 2".

PW
. 

[picowatt]

Rosemary,

You're replying faster than I can type!

The fact that the other tests, in particular, Test 2, do perform as one would expect and Test 1 does not, indicates an error issue during that test. 

You are preaching to the choir regarding how a function generator works, and I do agree that if the FG output was zero volts or a negative voltage, Q1 would not turn on, but the scope shot FIG 3 for Test 1 indicates a gate voltage of +12.5 volts is being applied to Q1 during the positive portion of the FG's output.  This should turn Q1 on even moreso than is done in Test 2.

PW

[MileHigh]

Rosie and All:

I was given to understand that the offset of the function generator comprises a potentiometer that can be applied to resist the current flow from the battery supply.

That's typical mysterious Rosie prose, dear Rosie.  It would appear that you/she believes that somehow the battery current that flows straight through function generator also has to flow though the offset potentiometer.  Such that if you play with the offset potentiometer you reduce the battery current.  She has hinted at this before with typical Rose pseudo "elektro-prose."  You guys can try to figure that one out.

It sounds like Rosie is back into trying to understand this "simple circuit" that she she said she completely understands.

The real message here is that if you put scope captures in a report you must understand every single aspect of the each waveform in each scope capture.   That's something that the RATs clearly did not do.

Anyway, back to my little pet project.  I confirmed that the circuit is miswired as per Poynt's original reverse-engineered diagram.

So, stay tuned, the "Pegboard of Doom" will be posted soon.

MileHigh

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

The scope shot FIG3 for "Test1" indicates that during the portion of the cycle when the function generator is positive, a voltage of +12.5 volts is being applied to the gate of Q1.  From the IRFPG50 data sheet, with Vds of 70 volts, and at a temp of 25C, Q1 should be equivalent to a 3 ohm resistor (a bit higher resistance if hotter).

With Rload = 11.1 ohms, total load resistance across the 72 volt battery would be ca 13.3 ohms (the sum of Rload plus Q1's RDSon plus Rshunt) which means that ca. 5.4 amps should be flowing.  5.4 amps across the 3 ohms of Q1 would mean that there would be 16.2 volts across Q1.  16.2 volts times 5.4 amps is just over 87 watts.  That is a lot of heat.

However, in the FIG. 3, no current flow is indicated which indicates that Q1 is defective or not connected.

I assure you that Q1 is most certainly connected.  The offset button is applied to restrict the flow of current.  Picowatt.  I can only assure you that this additional function in a function generator is also available on TK's function generator.  They all have this function. It is able to determine the rate at which current is applied.  I do not know what comes into play.  I was given to understand that it is acted as a potentiometer and assumed that it could superimpose a degree of corresponding or opposing charge to restrict the flow from the battery supply.  I would have thought that you guys would have known the explanation for this.  Certainly it has been seen and applied by some highly proficient engineers.  And before you it has never even been referenced.  However.  What I KNOW and how we apply this - is to RESTRICT the flow of current during the 'on' period of that duty cycle.

In FIG. 5 for "Test 2", all is as it should be.  Q1 has +5.5 volts applied to the gate, in good agreement with the IRFPG50 data sheet, ca. 2 amps should flow and is indeed indicated in the FIG. 5 scope shot.

Agreed.  Yet if you look at the math trace you'll see that the product of the battery and shunt voltages are negative.  And this, in turn, corresponds to our own analyses from those data dumps where we compute a negative wattage.

Increasing the positive voltage on the gate of Q1 beyond +5.5 volts should cause additional current to flow as Q1 is turned on further. 

In "Test 1", little if any current flow is indicated by FIG 3 even though the gate voltage in Q1 is indicated as being more positive than the level indicated in "Test 2".

I think you should take a look at the results of our 'water to boil' test - which is test 3.  We adjusted the offset that during the on period that it was barely above zero.  Which means that there is no real correspondence between the measured input and the actual heat dissipated.

Regards,
Rosemary

ADDED

And MileHigh - I have NEVER presumed to comment on the functions generator.  Only on our circuit.

[fuzzytomcat]

Hey guys,

Your talking about Figure3 and Figure5 here in the paper called Experimental Evidence of a Breach of Unity on Switched Circuit Apparatus    ( ROSSI-JOP-1-PDF.pdf )

Fig #3    dated 03/02/11    50s    73.8v    (6 battery)
Fig #5    dated 02/09/11    500us    49.5v    (4 battery)


Please see Rosemary's posting "SHOWING" a image of the device under test "A ONE MOSFET VERSION" on March 18, 2011 days after the scope shots in reference Fig #3 and Fig #5

http://www.overunity.com/10407/rosemary-ainslie-circuit-demonstration-on-saturday-march-12th-2011/msg278271/#msg278271    Reply #124 on: March 18, 2011, 10:56:29 AM


How can a five mosfet device version be referenced here ANYONE ??

FTC