Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[Harvey]

OK,

After a lengthy chat about friendly disagreements and such, I see we had a misunderstanding as to what I was asking for regarding the "metric" being used by Rose to obtain a "gains" rating on each of Glen's (and possibly my own) test results.

Here is what was done to obtain the "gains" rating on Glen's #5 results:

With reference to the following tabulated POS results from Glen's #5 test run:
Rose took the TRAA value from Glen's thermal profile table and found the corresponding PIL, which is 4.5W. Then she took the worst-case value in the above table of 1.5W and computed a COP = 3.

I have no problems with Glen's profile data, but I strongly disagree that picking any value from this table of POS results is valid.

It is my opinion that all of these values are erroneous and can not be relied upon for use in any calculations. There is no consistency, there is a large swing, and there are both positive and negative values.

I also believe that most if not all academics (and non-academics alike) would agree with me here. Rose has stated that no less than 4 academics have seen this table and condone its use, although they would prefer the average value be used. Rose has also advised that she has nothing in writing from any one of these academics stating as such.

I have a very difficult time with this and would very much like to either talk directly to any one of them or have them post something here to defend their opinion. It is my opinion that Rose possibly mis-interpreted what they said, but of course I could be wrong, it is just my opinion. At any rate, it is abundantly clear to me at least that using the 1.5W value from that table is about as reliable as choosing a value from a random number generator. Again it is my opinion that there is no correlation between any of those values and the true POS in the circuit. To me this table is clearly an indication of gross measurement error, and only serves to indicate that some improvements need to be made in order to obtain correct measurements. I have suggested several.

Rose has asked me to go on record with this.

.99

Hi Poynt,

We have to start somewhere using a scientific method if we ever expect to obtain credibility in our data gathering. Glens efforts have been above bar in this respect and no institution can fault his due diligence in this matter. That being said, we all realize that the required data is incomplete. It is hoped that this matter will be resolved soon.

The above table is perfectly valid for the use in which is intended. At a specific time each hour (as can be noted by the documented time stamp on the written record) several data dumps were provided - each being of a different time base thereby increasing the accuracy of the samples. This gives us 10,000 individual samples for each screen of data (3 ea) for each hour of the continuous test. For us, the continuous test is extremely important because it helps diagnose the impact that battery charge has on the desired mode of operation. It is noteworthy that this sometimes did not fully develop until 2 hours into the runs. This data alludes to the concept that a fully charged battery is resistant to the desired effect. If this proves to be the case, then it is doubtful that you will ever produce these effects using your power supply unless you can tune its charge/impedance characteristics to accurately mimic that of the partially discharged battery. Therefore, MH's claims regarding the lack of need for extended runs is grossly misplaced here.

There should be absolutely no doubt that the data retrieved from the equipment is up to industry and academic standards. The quantity and quality of the samples far exceeds those often used for mainstream scientific studies. If you don't believe that, just have a look at any prescription pills you may have in your medicine cabinet and compare the records of their sample numbers to ours.

You have made a serious error in your power calculations which I have tried to tactfully bring to everyone's attention. You cannot determine with any accuracy what power dissipation is occurring in your circuit components unless you understand accurately the precise phasing between the voltage and current. This is the reason that you cannot resolve enormous calculations presented by the data and is the reason that I have not computed them in my latter tables. If we were to believe the instantaneous values as dictated by KCL, we would have power of 21KW present across the load at certain instances. We know this is not the case because current lags voltage in inductors. We also know that we cannot accurately determine the resistance of the load because of its triple impedance characteristics during these rapidly changing frequencies present and observable by the secondary and tertiary images presented in the 'Digital Phosphor' technology of this superb testing instrument provided by Tektronix. The inductive reactance and capacitive reactance inherent in the load resistor, drastically alter the actual current present in the device at specific times in the cycles. It cannot be calculated and the current tests do not provide a means to measure it. Without it, you cannot even begin to reach for reasonable values of power dissipation in the FET or Load. Therefore, we must use the thermal profile as the indicator of the power dissipated and we must use the shunt current as the indicator of battery power delivered as the basis for our results.

It is hoped, that in the future we can get a more accurate method of determining the true current in the circuit as a reference of battery delivery. This is especially true when we consider that the conventional expectation with regards to where in time, what polarity and what value the shunt was to produce, has in fact failed to occur. We all find ourselves looking for a reason as to why 8A of current is indicated in a shunt that is isolated from the power side of the circuit by a high impedance switch while at that exact moment the other side of that switch is indicating an inverse polarity entirely prohibitive of any body diode conduction ... or any conduction through the FET for that matter. This occurrence is clearly not conventional and I am looking forward to having it explained to us by any accredited persons reading this post able to do so. I am sorry to say that MH's attempt just did not come even close to explaining it.

The only problem I see with the chart above, is that it represents 21 independent samples over a 7 hour period for a total sample period of less than 1 second. If you were correct in your earlier comments, that Glen's waveforms were periodic, then this would be rock solid data as 40µs of data at any time during the 7 hour run should be exactly the same as any other 40µs data dump. And, even though the law of averages are on our side here, showing the predominant numbers (19 out of 21) to be favorable to our cause, we cannot ignore the 2 out of 21. This begs for a continuous unbroken data dump for which we currently do not have the means to provide. However, we can narrow the sample times so as to determine conclusively the amount of deviation present. I have suggested 2µs samples be taken every 6 minutes during an hour of stable operation.

Glen has outlined his technique for getting his circuit into a favorable stable operation. I use the term 'stable' rather loosely here as it is a mode where deviations seem to be at a minimum. He determines this by setting the shunt probe to readout the 'mean' for that channel and then adjusting the gate pot so as to produce the lowest mean which is usually between 50mV and 80mV. If you can get it in the negative, then all the better. I really doubt that you can achieve this with your power supply driven circuit, but it is certainly worth a try and if you succeed in producing the same negative average results then we will have confirmed MH's claim that the power supply and battery can be used interchangeably. From years of experience with this, I can state conclusively that power supplies always inject noise into a circuit that batteries simply do not. Whether or not that plays any valid role here is yet to be determined.

I for one am looking forward to, and value, your future presentation of tests performed. Please help us here by including the pristine data dumps for evaluation along with the time stamps and any other pertinent variables such as ambient temp, resistor temp, etc.

Best Regards,

[poynt99]

OK,

The new Power Lineup 

The two 6V will be in series to supply the 555 PCB, and the two 12V wet AGM (absorbent glass mat) batteries in series for about 26VDC to the load resistor.

The oscilloscope will be isolated through the Sencore PR570, so as to appease those that feel it is required.

The resistor is 30mm in diameter.

If this is all not close enough then please let me know ahead of time, as I'd rather not waste my time changing the setup.

.99

[Hoppy]

Harvey,

You say:  "We all find ourselves looking for a reason as to why 8A of current is indicated in a shunt that is isolated from the power side of the circuit by a high impedance switch while at that exact moment the other side of that switch is indicating an inverse polarity entirely prohibitive of any body diode conduction ... or any conduction through the FET for that matter."

Is it at the exact moment?? Think very carefully about this.

Hoppy

[poynt99]

Folks,

See this link for a possible explanation for the coincident spikes observed in the Drain and Source. It seems to support the notion I put forward regarding inductance in the Source as the cause.

Sadly, the SPICE model for the IRFPG50 does not include the parasitic pin inductance, nor voltage dependent capacitance, and probably explains why this effect is not seen in the simulation.

Pay particular attention to "Effects of parasitic components" beginning at the end of page 9.

A very good article in general for explaining various concerns for driving MOSFETs properly. Seems to address a number of issues, some of which may also be plaguing us.

http://focus.ti.com/lit/ml/slup169/slup169.pdf

.99

[Rosemary Ainslie]

OK,

The new Power Lineup 

The two 6V will be in series to supply the 555 PCB, and the two 12V wet AGM (absorbent glass mat) batteries in series for about 26VDC to the load resistor.

The oscilloscope will be isolated through the Sencore PR570, so as to appease those that feel it is required.

The resistor is 30mm in diameter.

If this is all not close enough then please let me know ahead of time, as I'd rather not waste my time changing the setup.

.99

Not close enough Poynt.  The problem is with the resistor.  You will notice that Fuzzy's tests indicate the need for a wider diameter to the core.  BUT - if you are simply trying for an '8 meter bench mark' the apparatus is fine.