Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

I could not understand your post Hoppy.   Now I know what the problem is.  The term 'you're game' or 'you're not game' means the same thing as 'you're prepared to 'fall in' or not.  In other words - I take it that you're prepared to acknowledge a result if the test is redone.  It's colloquial.  So.  I'm suggesting that - subject to a re-run you'll revise your opinion.  But will the others?  That's all I meant to communicate.  Now I realise that you're not English?  Certainly I don't need to be told that this isn't a game.  On the contrary.  I've never been so serious about anything in my life.

Rosemary,

I misunderstood your "I get it you're game" statement. I would certainly reconsider if the data is collected with the DSO from a neat and properly setup test rig. I'm very much English by the way.

EDIT: Its probably because I'm a Londoner and I don't talk 'proper' English.

Hoppy

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Quotes from MileHigh

We know that the coil is on an unstoppable mission to discharge it's energy when the MOSFET starts switching off.  Hence we see the first big spike when the switch-off occurs.  That's the coil forcing it's energy through the closing door of the MOSFET switch.
With reference to the Gate voltage on Poynt's post 1619 there's evidence of a relatively clean 'cut off'.

This shows the MOSFET being "smacked" by the inductor, something that I have been mentioning all along.
So I would not consider this a 'smack'.  Barely 16% of the input fading to a weakening ringing.

Also, adding the fly-back diode would stop the smacking of the MOSFET and instead the coil-resistor would discharge through the flyback diode and then back into itself.
If this were correct then you would not see the 'spike' on the negative rail across the shunt.

Here is your famous "recirculating current" but with a sober reality:  There is no "resuse" of energy, rather, you start with a certain fixed amount of inductive energy, and it burns off and becomes heat with a time constant of L/R.
This may be correct - but it is not proven by the 'smack' as you claim.  The question as to whether it is a recycled or a regenerated current is still out there.  The 'spike' generated during the 'off' period of the switch may yet generate a current that can travel anti-clockwise through the system - from the inductor, through the battery, through the shunt, through the FET's body diode and back to the load resistor.  Then the result could be repeated in ever smaller increments as the voltage can no longer breach the resistance in the battery.  And with the battery now disconnected during this period there's no 'extra energy' applied. 

However, when it gets into oscillation mode, then each cycle is nearly 'faithfully' replicated as it finds the sweet spot to resonate and then the path could, indeed be repeated - first clockwise and then anticlockwise.

You are starting with a FIXED amount of inductive energy, and that slowly is "burned off" and becomes heat energy.  There is no way to "cheat COP" here and "gain COP" out of thin air.
Possibly - but it's not proven by these waveforms.  It's only your opinion.

I don't think you've proved anything here MileHigh.  All you've done is repeat your argument.  But this time you were grabbing at straws.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary,

I misunderstood your "I get it you're game" statement. I would certainly reconsider if the data is collected with the DSO from a neat and properly setup test rig. I'm very much English by the way.

EDIT: Its probably because I'm a Londoner and I don't talk 'proper' English.

Hoppy

I'm jealous.  I LOVE London.  Of course you talk 'proper'.  You guys invented the language - the most dynamic and brilliant language in the world.  I'm an  anglophile or - strictly - an anglolanguagephile - a holic.  Hooked on the 'spoken and written'. 

[Hoppy]

I'm jealous.  I LOVE London.  Of course you talk 'proper'.  You guys invented the language - the most dynamic and brilliant language in the world.  I'm an  anglophile or - strictly - an anglolanguagephile - a holic.  Hooked on the 'spoken and written'.

You certainly write 'proper' Rosemary. My first ever boss was a South African and he spoke and wrote real proper 'Kings English'.

Hoppy

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

With reference to the Gate voltage on Poynt's post 1619 there's evidence of a relatively clean 'cut off'.

It's the positive spike on the Drain voltage that shows the inductor discharge.  The voltage spike is a manifestation of the current discharge from the inductor, i.e.; the current flow results in the voltage spike.

So I would not consider this a 'smack'.  Barely 16% of the input fading to a weakening ringing.

I am not sure what you mean by that.  The "smack" energy is the integral of the spike at the end of the power waveform across the MOSFET in EF #2560.  .99 doesn't have to crunch it in PSpice though, the formula is 1/2*L*i-squared.

If this were correct then you would not see the 'spike' on the negative rail across the shunt.

Let's not mix up the spikes associated with the main discharge of energy from the inductor and any small insignificant "cheater" spikes due to the very small capacitive effects associated with MOSFETs and diodes and the like.

This may be correct - but it is not proven by the 'smack' as you claim.

Without the fly-back diode you "smack" the MOSFET with the inductor's stored energy and the current flows through the full clockwise loop of the circuit.  With the fly-back diode, the inductor, the 10-ohm resistor, and the fly-back diode form a loop for the current to flow through, and the inductor's stored energy discharges through this loop.

The 'spike' generated during the 'off' period of the switch may yet generate a current that can travel anti-clockwise through the system
- from the inductor, through the battery, through the shunt, through the FET's body diode and back to the load resistor.

From what we have learned so far any anti-clockwise current travel through the circuit is akin to a minuscule "cheater" type of spike as referenced above.

Then the result could be repeated in ever smaller increments as the voltage can no longer breach the resistance in the battery.

The voltage is actually not an issue here.  This one is hard for beginners to understand with respect to coils.  A coil will discharge no matter what the battery voltage is.  A higher battery voltage can reduce the amount of time it takes for a coil to discharge, but it will still discharge all it's stored energy.

You are starting with a FIXED amount of inductive energy, and that slowly is "burned off" and becomes heat energy.  There is no way to "cheat COP" here and "gain COP" out of thin air.
>>> Possibly - but it's not proven by these waveforms.  It's only your opinion.

I don't think that any waveforms have been recently posted with a fly-back diode in place but .99 at least mentioned he ran the simulation like this and commented on the self-discharge.  It's not my opinion, it is fact.

But this time you were grabbing at straws.

I beg to differ, I am as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar.

Indeed, these waveforms are showing stuff that I mentioned a few months back and it's fun to see them in "real life."  lol

Oops!  I should comment on the news of the day.  Yes I suppose that you could use two extra diodes to effectively bypass the body diode in the MOSFET and support better anti-clockwise current flow in the circuit including a very fast diode shut-off time.  The question is why?  What will that give you?  The battery and the no-flyback-version inductor both want the current to flow clockwise.  You are doing nothing more than making a better path for anti-clockwise current flow, which the minuscule "cheater" spike will like very much but that's it!  There will be no "magic", just a happy pee-fart "cheater" spike!  You also reduce your maximum "on" current.

MileHigh