Negative discharge effect

[ayeaye]

There is no action that generates additional power.
Is there?

The only such action can be induction in the coil.

I just thought about what TheComet said. There is still one way how some of the energy from the mosfet's gate can go to the capacitor. First there is a voltage on the gate, this fills the input capacitance. It is charged in the opposite direction to the capacitor, so it causes a current which discharges the capacitor. This is the same direction as the current which causes the voltage spike. But this voltage is there only for a very short time, as the mosfet opens very quickly, and when it opens, it short circuits the input capacitance. That is, the gate to source and gate to drain capacitancies in series.

Thus it is not about the charge in the input capacitance going directly to the capacitor, but helping to cause the voltage spike, which then causes current in the opposite direction, that charges the capacitor. Nevertheless, some of the input energy such way goes to the capacitor. But it should be very small, because there is such voltage on the mosfet only for a very short time. Measuring the current with the oscilloscope should show how great that current actually is and how long it lasts.

The imput capacitances are between the gate and source, and gate and drain. For the circuit they are in series, and the gate and drain capacitance is not between the input and ground. So as i think the voltage on the gate-source can be greater, and this influences the circuit.

You are bombing me, TheComet. So by now, i just ignore your emulation results. Emulators also don't explain, and may also not correspond to the reality. I prefer to understand what happens, not to trust emulators. Your explanation is vague, you just say "mosfet's parasitic capacitances", while i take every effort to understand what capacitances and how. Mosfet has three electrodes and thus three capacitances, between every pair of electrodes. Gate is insulated from the semiconductor with a dielectric. No current goes through the mosfet, except the current between source and gate, when the mosfet is open.

PS Mosfet is tricky, but the only way is to understand it. Mosfet sounds strange actually, i would prefer to call it a mos transistor. The transistors in the integrated circuits are mostly mos transistors. Metal oxide semiconductor, yes. Semiconductors i also like to call rather n-conductors and p-conductors, this prefix "semi" there gives a very wrong idea, they are special types of conductors.

[ayeaye]

Is it overunity? No, it is not.

Didn't i tell you that saying that something is in a certain way beyond doubt, is offensive? Saying that there is overunity is offensive, saying that there is no overunity is offensive. Because it does not allow people a possibility of doubt. Think about it.

In ancient Greece the teachers said, i'm teaching you a certain doctrine, you must learn, but you can doubt in it. Today the teachers say, i'm teaching you how the things are.

[TheComet]

Didn't i tell you that saying that something is in a certain way beyond doubt, is offensive? Saying that there is overunity is offensive, saying that there is no overunity is offensive. Because it does not allow people a possibility of doubt. Think about it.

Sure, but there is no doubt here. The energy is with one hundred percent certainty coming from the micro controller. Unless you can find a flaw in the measurements I provided, there is no way to dispute that fact.

If I put two apples in front of you, would it be an offence to say there are two apples there? Would you doubt something like that? If so, why?

[ayeaye]

If I put two apples in front of you, would it be an offence to say there are two apples there? Would you doubt something like that? If so, why?

Yes right. This is a good analogy of saying that something is the way it was said, beyond doubt. Like when we say that there is the Eiffel Tower and describe how it looks like, then indeed one can go and see the Eiffel Tower, it is indeed there and looks like the way it was said. In fact, i have climbed to the highest floor of the Eiffel Tower, and can confirm that it is really there. It is not so clear with other things though, what you cannot go and see by yourself. Like when did they last time show the Higgs boson to the people in the Madison Square Garden?

First you did not simulate the later version of my circuit on the first drawing below, which was the version of the circuit also replicated by TinselKoala. I used a more complex circuit when i found the effect, true, but then i simplified it to remove unnecessary complexities and to make things more clear. So the circuit of that experiment should be the circuit on the first drawing below. Also now i call the effect the asymmetric current induction effect, as the first name of the experiment was only based on my first impressions.

You said that my circuit works like a boost converter. Look at the drawing of my circuit (first below) and the drawing of the boost converter circuit (second below). You may notice that these circuits are different. The current in the boost converter is not asymmetric, when the switch is closed, while in my circuit the current is always asymmetric. Because of that, the boost converter completely wastes the first voltage spike in the coil. The boost converter uses the second negative voltage spike to generate output. My circuit uses only the first positive voltage spike, and not the second negative voltage spike, it cannot use it, because as the positive voltage spike is utilized, there almost is no negative voltage spike. So because of that, the circuit of the boost converter is likely more inefficient.

I currently have no time to do any circuit simulations, and check the accuracy of your simulation, but i concentrated on some of the information you provided about the results of your simulation, to concentrate on the most important. On your figure which shows the voltage over inductor, you wrote "Spikes are caused when the MOSFET switches off". Now the oscilloscope in the TinselKoala's replication of my experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUMb6e6QQIA clearly shows that the voltage spikes start when the mosfet switches **on** , 9:15 in that video. So what did you simulate, a boost converter?

[TheComet]

Yes right. This is a good analogy of saying that something is the way it was said, beyond doubt. Like when we say that there is the Eiffel Tower and describe how it looks like, then indeed one can go and see the Eiffel Tower, it is indeed there and looks like the way it was said. In fact, i have climbed to the highest floor of the Eiffel Tower, and can confirm that it is really there. It is not so clear with other things though, what you cannot go and see by yourself. Like when did they last time show the Higgs boson to the people in the Madison Square Garden?

No, it isn't clear to YOU because you haven't taken the time to study everything required to understand the proof behind the Higgs Boson. Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't mean said something is wrong. Do you really have to know how everything works before you believe it does? If everyone had to know everything we wouldn't progress as a human race. We'd get stuck at a certain point because one human can only learn so much.

Here's my problem, ok. There's no point in explaining this circuit because:
1) It's senseless. You may as well throw random parts together and you'd still somehow be able to make outrageous claims about it because you have a lack of understanding.
2) There's no explanation on how the circuit is supposed to work and what existing physical laws support said working. What's the point of even discussing it when it's obviously garbage?
3) You're not doing real science. If you were actually disproving an existing physical law through experimentation I'd be highly intrigued and would be all ears. But you're not. This circuit is meaningless. It's bits of wire hanging in a non-sense manner in mid air, and it just so happens some of the components are arranged in such a way as to allow reception of some electromagnetic waves.

What claims are you trying to make? I watched the video and he explains perfectly where the voltage is coming from: EMI from the mains in the house and power from the signal generator. Case closed.

It's the equivalent of duct taping a fork to the ceiling and measuring its temperature and getting excited when the fork slowly starts getting warmer because surprise: Hot air rises, making the top of your room slightly warmer. But that's obviously not what's happening, the fork must be getting warmer because of <insert reason with no grounds>, therefore we can't exclude the possibility of overunity even though no existing physical law permits it.

If you want to test this circuit correctly you'll have to:
1) Perform the measurements in a room with no electromagnetic waves (e.g. Faraday cage).
2) Show that the energy is NOT coming from the signal generator and/or micro controller.
3) Show that the energy is NOT coming from the multimeter.
4) Show that the energy is NOT coming from chemical based effects inside the capacitor itself.
5) Show the capacitor slowly charging.

Then we can start talking.