Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Harvey]

I've measured the MOSFET power; not sure if anyone else has.

Here's something to ponder:

What does it mean to have a negative power dissipation in the MOSFET, while the shunt, load resistor, and supply are all positive values?

.99

It probably means you've inverted your voltage inadvertently. A negative voltage times a negative current is a positive power dissipation

[Hoppy]

Hi Hoppy and Hoptoad

To answer Hoppy first.  All science is based on measurement.  Regardless of the effectiveness of the spike to recharge - the evidence is that energy is being returned.  Assume an AC supply - the theoretical evidence is that the energy can still be returned.  Then it's benefit would be unquestionable. 

Hi Rosemary,

With respect you appear to be missing my point which is; that taking battery voltage measurements and using them in any way for an attempt to validate your OU claim for your circuit or its variations, is futile for the reasons I gave.

Hoppy

[poynt99]

It probably means you've inverted your voltage inadvertently. A negative voltage times a negative current is a positive power dissipation

Nope.....do it.

Glen's data dump "2_40us_520V-01_10_08_09.xlr" from a while back yields -87.43W in the MOSFET, if I have done the calculation correctly.

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hoppy - with respect - I get it.  Your decision to ignore the battery recharge is possibly valid.  I said as much.  My counter argument is this.  How would you refute returning energy if it was not returned to a battery but to a utility supply source?  Assume an ac supply source - and then accommodate the 'spike' being returned.  Your watt meter would factor it in.  Now?  What does mainstream say?  That they 'dont like the shape of the waveform?'  That's correctible.  What is unarguable is the theoretical potential to return energy. 

And, like I say, ignore the recharge potential of the spike at your peril.  It appears to give a draw down rate that is more efficient than a control run concurrently and run until the control is flat.  And the control battery is depleted long before the experimental battery.  So.  As the Americans say - 'go figger'.

[poynt99]

By the same token from Glen's same data, the power in the load yields a result of +95.9W. Power from the battery 9.38W.

Overunity or not, that much real power in that resistor would yield a much higher temperature than the reported 140ºF or so, so the two numbers are not believable imo.

Both numbers, i.e. the -87.43W (MOSFET) and the +95.6W (load resistor) can not be true indicators of the real power in the circuit.

Some may already see this leading to something: indeed, if the load, MOSFET and shunt powers are added together, the result yields precisely the power from the supply.

My results are similar, although using a much higher sample rate in my results has yielded more realistic values.

.99