Self-Powered Generator - Inventor From South Africa

[citfta]

And he clearly posted he is using 4 (FOUR) mosfets in parallel.  So each mosfet is only carrying less than 7 amps.

[SkyWatcher123]

Hi all, thanks for comments, though I'm testing the mechanical version again, not solid state.
Hi erfandl, thanks for the reply, I switched the testing setup to use 2 separate drive core/coils in parallel, of course one of them has the trigger winding.
Reason for this, it seems to replenish charge better to the charge battery, using 8.7 watts input to drive circuit now.
It seems to help when using more coils in parallel, with just the one drive coil, I don't think it will keep the batteries level, at original charge voltage.
It still works fine for this round of tests, because the rpm is higher and still lighting the led bulb the same or a little brighter, even though It only has 2 separate generator coils now.
I think this setup needs another 4 separate coil/cores to really show its potential.
Oh and a battery balancing can help periodically, by placing the two 12 volt tractor batteries in parallel for awhile.

peace love light

[BlueFalcon]

Hey SkyWatcher123

Can you confirm that your design is creating excess power over what the circuit is using?
My circuit does not, but i am using the coil design as recommend in PKs book which was 3 layers on a 140mm ferrite rod and only have 2 wound at the moment so maybe not enough inductance?
Also any idea of the frequency you are running at?

Many Thanks

[Turbo]

Yes but the 26.4 Amper is taken from the data sheet of his MOSFET.   
http://pdf.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheet/fairchild/SSF45N20B.pdf

What are you trying to say ?
The circuit draws 26 amps because it's in the datasheet ?
None of this makes any sense.
No circuit is going to handle 26 or even 7 amps without a heatsink.
It's all just made up some number here some number from the data sheet.
Keep it realistic do you have any idea how much 7 amps actually is ?
That's almost a hundred Watts.
Anybody with a bit of an electronics background knows that you cant switch those numbers with a bare transistor.
i have been here from 2006 up till now thats 12 years and literally nothing has changed.
Even the site administrator is as lazy as he has always been.
The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that we are doomed !

[gyulasun]

Hej Turbo,

If you jump into threads and do not go through all the information that was given already, then you make erroneous comments.

In his reply #60 above, SkyWatcher wrote some relevant info that included 12 V input at .63 A input current for his total circuit.

In his reply #61, he included some data on his switching MOSFET and I was trying to say this to you, with the link to the data sheet to draw your attention. You can see the 25.4 A current value in the first page under the Features column. 

I did not mean or imply that 26.4 A current was flowing through any of the MOSFETs. I KNEW that his input current was 0.63 Amper because he had written it. So the 0.63 A input current was divided among the 4 parallel MOSFETs, rendering roughly 0.63/4 Amper for each MOSFET, so the dissipation could be roughly 12V x 0.16 A = 1.9 W for each MOSFET.
This can be dissipated without a heat sink, right?  Unfortunately, member Citfta also wrongly commented in his reply #66 that each MOSFET was only carrying less than 7 Ampers, he sounded not to consider the input current of  .63 Amper given in the same post where the 4 paralleled MOSFETs were mentioned.  Or he considered it but the use of the less than 7 A was unfortunate.

You wrote:

No circuit is going to handle 26 or even 7 amps without a heatsink.

I agree with this. And by now you know: SkyWatcher did not just make up some numbers from the data sheet and each of his bare (i.e. no heat sinked) transistors can switch the .16 A without being toasted. This should be an average value (DMM measured) becasue I now he uses such.  (And I know of course that the peak currents can be much higher than that.)

You wrote:

i have been here from 2006 up till now thats 12 years and literally nothing has changed.
Even the site administrator is as lazy as he has always been.
The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that we are doomed !

I agree and would add the followings: the technical knowledge is always casual for a forum like this, so were we also doomed 12 years ago too?   Newcomers always appear and the useless chapters start over and over again. 
I know you have tinkered a lot, especially with the TPU project, and I respect this.  I hope you have reached your goals.

Just take it a bit easier. 

Gyula