Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[PaulLowrance]

Why would you say it's off topic. How odd of you.

We can end this by summing it up:

1. Fact is you used two large 10000 uF capacitors that if you did enter in correct transmission line effects you would see that the caps will absorb an appreciable amount of that energy.

2. I said from the start that you can model transmissions lines in spice, but it is complex. If you've done it, and you think it's simple, then test it because you're wrong, as one needs to cover a lot of ground to properly enter to obtain real life results. You might be in for a surprise.

Paul

[poynt99]

I'm not saying it's totally off topic, but it is out of scope for the moment at least.

I mentioned delays and transmission lines many pages ago, and I was the first and only one, and it was before you came along.

I'm not making much sense of your 1st point. The energy DOES go back into the caps already, and without modeling using TL's.

The modeling of TL's is not complex if you use the models provided.

.99

[PaulLowrance]

What were we arguing about anyway? This started as only a suggestion to not use the caps because according to conventional physics there are ways for the caps to absorb energy. Why not leave the theory to the person who's pushing it, Ainslie. If she wants batteries and no large caps, or whatever, then that's her theory. That's all I wanted to say, really.

Paul

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello MileHigh.

You're right.  Poynt really wants to generate valid data.  We'd all like this.  In fact I'd settle for more unedited data and less commentary.  Which is not to say that the commentary isn't errudite.  It's just not that appropriate.

I know of no-one who's excited about 100 watts of power measured across the load resistor.  Harvey has already pointed out that this is the result of inductive reactance and that's a complicated sum.  We're waiting on confirmed inductance measurements on Fuzzy's load resistor and, when this is to hand we'd all appreciate your considerable skills at resolving that large discrepancy MH.  Are you up for it?  Or maybe Poynt can do this?  But just to put you straight.  Fuzzy's heat profile points to an overunity gain which is puzzling - but repeatable which means that those heat signatures need to be resolved.  No need to add to the sum by including MOSFETS and sundry.  We're not looking at marginal values over the load resistor.

Regarding energy returned to the battery - that voltage spike of 100 billionth's of a pulse width?  It seems to add to the sum of returning energy and this seems to also recharge a flat battery when it's directed there through a flyback diode.  And that recharge is quick and effective and unequivocal and in keeping with the measured plus/minus 16 amps measured across the shunt at the source during this brief period of each cycle.  Strangely effective.  Yet you think we should ignore this?  Is this so that we can subtract from our evidence and add to your argument here?  And, if the battery indeed  gets hot - it also indeed recharges.  I'd sooner measure it's increased voltage than go through some complicated means of determining a raise in temperature over such a massive component. 

But I get it that the increased voltage may very well endorse the measurement across the source shunt resistor.  Which adds to your argument that we need to ignore this.  But that argument remains one sided.  LOL

Regarding the substitution of a supply source for a battery - I'm inclined to agree with you.  But we first need to establish that the supply can be the recipient of that returned energy - directly - to also establish the same test parameters.  Since we're trying to hone in on anomalies - we're also following Harvey's good advices to limit the number of variables in each test.

Regarding your post script - this is confusing.  We have done the required thermal profile and discovered anomalous heat signatures.  If we include the MOSFET we also add to the anomaly.  Not sure if this is what you intend.

The 'mystery of the missing heat pies'?  I'm more anxious to solve the mystery of that heat profile in the absense of energy expended from the source.  But we all have our preferred mysteries.   

[poynt99]

Fuzzy's heat profile points to an overunity gain which is puzzling - but repeatable which means that those heat signatures need to be resolved.  No need to add to the sum by including MOSFETS and sundry.  We're not looking at marginal values over the load resistor.

Rose, are you referring to Glen's test #5 and the 1.5W (DUT) and 4.5W (CONTROL) figures used to get COP=3?

.99