Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Harvey]

Poynt, I think perhaps you stand a much better chance at reproducing Rosemary's original results as well as Glen's test #5 results by using the batteries as you have shown. Definitely a step in the right direction. I'm puzzled by the cross section of that resistor though - it looks metallic in the picture - is it? If so, that is a very large inductive core and the side effects of it could be more trouble than its worth. Do you have any ceramics of that diameter it this is the case?

Apart from that, if you have the wherewithal demonstrated by Glen to take the time and dial in the lowest mean on the shunt reading and then let it run for several hours while taking periodic data dumps, I would say you are very much in the running here to help corroborate the original claims.

One of two things is certain from the data we have collected thus far:
1) We have COP > 1
OR
2) We have exposed a flaw in classical current measurement techniques

Either way, the matter deserves a careful and methodical analysis.

Thank you for your time and energy toward this endeavor.

[Harvey]

Hi All,

What I'm reading here in the last couple pages has caused me to reflect on the question of whether I'm going to carry on with any further testing on this circuit.

I think I've already done my part, and anything more, regardless of how exact or convincing, would simply be dismissed as "not good enough".

I'll think about it, and hopefully the answer will come within a day or two.

Cheers,
.99

Poynt, any tests you provide have value even if they simply show us what doesn't work. Take my rig for example, it simply did not produce the desired results. I didn't quit because of it, and I may do some future experiments to try and extract power out instead of heat. But for now, with Glen's success in this area, I have been spending time on that.

Even if you could get the negatives that Glen did in #5 using your power supply, that would be monumental in showing that the battery is not needed. So far, our results indicate that it is though. Perhaps once you get your circuit performing by using the batteries, you could go back to the power supply and give us the comparisons.

Really, there is so much you can add to this research with the tools and skills that you have.

Cheers,

[Hoppy]

Yes. This particular scope has 4 independent A/D converters and the processor is fast enough to collate the registered values such that there is no doubt that these two are in phase with each other. The relationship has been documented on 3 different scopes: Glen's 'green screen', Glen's TDS3054C, And Poynt's scope as well. I haven't confirmed it, but I do believe Aaron has witnessed this on his scope also.

So we see 3 particular events occurring at the same time. (1) Inductive collapse and subsequent Positive Spike on the Load Resistor - MOSFET Drain Junction. (2) Increase in voltage on the B(+) Terminal - Load resistor Junction (3) NEGATIVE voltage appearing across the shunt at the shunt-MOSFET Source junction. All values referenced to B(-). The negative voltage has been logged as bottoming out around -4V at the same instant that the positive spike is peaking at around 520V. According to classical treatment of these events, the load current should be zero at this point and ready to reverse direction and the shunt should be at zero during the entire inductive collapse. The shunt should not be showing a current until after the body diode begins conducting according to classical treatment.

I have arrived at two possible classical explanations and have requested a small test to determine which of the two may be in play here. It would be nice to see others arrive at the same answers without being influenced by my POV directly. Therefore I have kept the specifics between myself and Rosemary for the moment although I have offered clues hoping to get others thinking on the matter.

Simply put, by classical approach, the negative current in the shunt should not precede the negative spike on the drain in time, especially by 180°. This is an unexpected event and begs an answer. -4V / 0.25 ohms is -16A and would be +64W at the shunt during that 100ns period. If I say anymore, I think I would give away what I think it is, and I really would like others to come to the same conclusion without me telling them what it is.

Harvey,

Good answer. Yes it is the same moment in time from the scope's perspective but the switch takes time to fully open, so the waveform 'stands' at points in time to the timing perspective of the scope. This is why Poynt's supply 'bump' moves depending on the position of the scope probes. This is an illusion as far as the scopes 'eyes' are concerned. Of course, I may be and probably am wrong here but I hope that you can show proof that we really do have something special going on here. This is a lot more interesting than the futile task of trying to convince Rosemary that her circuit is not running OU.

Hoppy

[Harvey]

While everyone ponders the timing and 'Reuben's Tube' effect of moving a sensor along a wire, I offer this as a bit of recreation:

Demonstration of OU in an Open System

Cheers,

[poynt99]

Guys,

The bump on the Vsupply line has absolutely nothing to do with standing waves and Rueben's Tube effects.

It's due to the impedance (resistance and inductance) in the connecting wire between the Voltage Supply terminal and the load resistor terminal.

.99