Quote from: picowatt on July 05, 2012, 01:17:03 AM
TK,

So, what do you think about using an efficient PWM servo to force an identical load to follow the temp profile of the DUT load?

I am considering this as a defintive means to measure efficiency.  PWM freq could be set similar to the DUT period, sans the osc.  Loads would have fairly high thermal leak to keep them both at 100C or less so that precision temp sense IC's can be used for temp inputs.

The bulk of the work would be in confirming that the loads are identical, the temp sensors track accurately, and that the servo response is sufficient to follow various complex load profiles applied to the DUT load.


PW

It sounds basically like a good idea, if a lot of trouble.  I'd do something like that as a second or perhaps third stage investigation, before I got ready to stick the whole thing into the Mother Of All Calorimeters, which is occasionally available. I like the idea of tracking variations and correcting automagically, but it would be more programming than I'm willing to do, even though I know a thirty-dollar Arduino could easily do it, with its own onboard PWM driving an amp stage.

To first order though, I'd just use the actual same load in the same leaky container and run straight DC against the NERD circuit with filtered average input power being equated and the NERD mosfets fan-cooled for stability, in a randomized sequence of runs, say 5 in each condition in random order, and I'd look at the time-temperature to equilibrium as data. You'll then get a family of curves that look like those I've already shown for the COP>17 circuit and the decision should be easy. If this result is ambiguous and can't be fixed or if the NERD circuit looks more efficient at heating the load, then more serious (and strenuous and rigorous) investigation should be undertaken. However, in a case with as little face validity as this one, there is much reason to doubt the whole story and so the first calorimetry might as well be coarse and easy, yet good enough for a "go-nogo" decision on further work to be made.

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2012, 01:12:27 AM
Apparently.

DELETED to increase fear factor!!



 

Quote from: TinselKoala on July 05, 2012, 01:33:25 AM
It sounds basically like a good idea, if a lot of trouble.  I'd do something like that as a second or perhaps third stage investigation, before I got ready to stick the whole thing into the Mother Of All Calorimeters, which is occasionally available. I like the idea of tracking variations and correcting automagically, but it would be more programming than I'm willing to do, even though I know a thirty-dollar Arduino could easily do it, with its own onboard PWM driving an amp stage.

To first order though, I'd just use the actual same load in the same leaky container and run straight DC against the NERD circuit with filtered average input power being equated and the NERD mosfets fan-cooled for stability, in a randomized sequence of runs, say 5 in each condition in random order, and I'd look at the time-temperature to equalibrium as data. You'll then get a family of curves that look like those I've already shown for the COP>17 circuit and the decision should be easy. If this result is ambiguous and can't be fixed or if the NERD circuit looks more efficient at heating the load, then more serious (and strenuous and rigorous) investigation should be undertaken. However, in a case with as little face validity as this one, there is much reason to doubt the whole story and so the first calorimetry might as well be coarse and easy, yet good enough for a "go-nogo" decision on further work to be made.

TK,

Programming?  I am an analog guy.  Analog servo, just need to get the loop response reasonable.  Let the loads do a bit of thermal integration to slow needed response time and allow minimal servo overshoot/best damping.  Probably could easily track within +/- 1C, possibly half that.  Swap loads and verify loads are matched and your off and running.

PW

Greg said,

QuoteI am approaching this with an open mind without any forgone conclusions on my part.  I intend to demonstrate the simple "Power In" vs. "Power Out" aspect of things but I will do so without ANY assumptions being made about ANYTHING, ANYWHERE. 

I believe an untapped source of energy exists with this, which is why my associates and I have just spent several hundred dollars for an experimental setup to prove it is so ... not to disprove it.

Facepalm.

LOL picowatt

Quote from: picowatt on July 05, 2012, 01:39:04 AM
DELETED to increase fear factor!!

Are you referring to this?  That 'thing' that you thought you missed?  That you then found and printed?  And then deleted again? Under the spurious excuse of it increasing the 'fear factor'? 

Quote from: Rosie on July 05, 2012, 12:11:53 AM
Ever onward...

What intrigues me is the level of protest that accompanies my posts - elsewhere on the internet.  I'm hounded by some dedicated players that - on the face of it - spend their every waking moment in attempting to DEFEAT the evidence that we show of COP infinity.  I've mentioned this before.  It's somewhat excessive.  If indeed, our thinking is wrong - then this will be disproved, in short order.  But the fact is that the evidence only ever continues to SUPPORT the claim.  Thus far the trick has been to DIMINISH that evidence and confuse our poor public - with a welter of utterly irrelevant comment.  But their best efforts are entirely discounted when one applies nothing more complicated that simple logic.  All that ponderous - obscure - ridiculously pretentious 'science' that they bandy around - is poor substitute for clarity of argument and basic simple good sense.  In any event, what IS as clear as daylight is their anxious refusal to discuss the 'thesis' which is measured as marginally MORE frantic in not being spoken - as their tedious technical discussions - which ARE spoken.  Now.  Here's an account of a really interesting telephonic discussion that I had with one of my collaborators.  They're given in their correct order - but they're not the full conversation.

I heard a series of of 'clicks' and could no longer hear my collaborator.  Then I heard a replay of an earlier statement of mine which somehow came back 'out of the blue' so to speak.  Someone was not only listening but had actually taped the conversation.

Me > I think we're being listened to
C   > ... (something indiscernible)..heard the word 'bugged'
Me > Yes I think there's someone listening in
C   >  Did you hear they've found the Higgs Boson?
Me >  Yes.  I think it's our zippon - out of its field condition
C    > ... (something indiscernible)
Me >  I'll get back to you.  We're being overheard
C   > ...(still couldn't hear him)
Me > *** I'll get back to you.
Which was when I ended that phone call.

At the time I was logged onto TK's thread.  I refreshed and saw that picowatt had posted stating 'now she's claiming that she found the Higg's Boson in advance of CERN.'  I copied and commented and posted on our thread.  I copied the link to TK's thread. Then picowatt edited out the 'Higgs Boson' reference.  Then Glen Lettenmaier (FTC) applied his rather ponderous intellectual machinations and assumed I'd invented that comment.  And THEN - surprisingly - picowatt admitted he'd written it.

And here's my question.  Outside of that single comment to my friend - I had NEVER written nor mentioned this.  True I'd always assumed it.  It is a miracle of somewhat improbable co-incidence - that picowatt could EVER have seen the argument related to Higgs Boson IF he did not know the thesis BACKWARDS or ELSE he had been listening to our conversation.  I'm not prepared to speculate.  I'll leave it to our own police to see if they can uncover anything at all.  The good news is that I KNOW who picowatt is.  If they need to investigate they'll possibly get to the appropriate source.  But I believe on the whole - that phone tapping is just as illegal as is the public disclosure of information that HAS NOT BEEN PUT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. (TK I trust you and Sean are reading here.)  And the only reason that I'm mentioning all this is to show you all that my delusions of paranoia are heavily supported by the an almost freakish consistency in co-incidence and evidence that somehow leaks out - all over the place.  And it's a paranoia that is also supported by the evidence of some serious efforts at destroying my good name.  And my point is this.  There is an almost frantic need to keep silent on the theoretical aspects of this technology.  I'm well aware of the reason for this.  I'm not so sure that you, dear readers - are quite so aware of these reasons.  And that's why I've decided to start this thread.  Let the chips fall where they may. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Rosie Pose