@Conrad: No, I don't think you did anything wrong, it's an excellent test. Time must be measured very carefully... I wonder if there is a way to run "sidebyside" simultaneous comparisons so that precise timing is less of a problem.

It seems that your test indicates that the overall amount of energy in the system is the same, whether you use the diode and "recycle" connection or not. So either there isn't any benefit from the inductive ringing/discharge/spike, or whatever benefit there may be is getting lost in the system somehow and not being used. Perhaps it's radiating away as RF, or heating something you aren't measuring.

But how about this: Instead of putting the recycle output back to the run battery/capacitor, put it into an external battery or capacitor.

So you would be comparing the run time of the "control" system with no charge transfer, to the run time of the experimental system that put some charge on the external cap. The experimental system should be expected to run for a shorter time. Then you could run again, but powered from the external cap only, and time that run time.

So now you have the control system, compared against the (experimental system on main cap + experimental system on external cap) total run time.

This way, if there was any benefit from the energy in the inductive ringdown spike, it would be collected in the external cap rather than disappearing into the circuit to be squandered, radiated or dissipated. There will be losses in the cap system of course but these should be easy to understand and quantify.

Quote from: TinselKoala on September 11, 2013, 01:05:14 PM

But how about this: Instead of putting the recycle output back to the run battery/capacitor, put it into an external battery or capacitor.

So you would be comparing the run time of the "control" system with no charge transfer, to the run time of the experimental system that put some charge on the external cap. The experimental system should be expected to run for a shorter time. Then you could run again, but powered from the external cap only, and time that run time.

So now you have the control system, compared against the (experimental system on main cap + experimental system on external cap) total run time.

This way, if there was any benefit from the energy in the inductive ringdown spike, it would be collected in the external cap rather than disappearing into the circuit to be squandered, radiated or dissipated. There will be losses in the cap system of course but these should be easy to understand and quantify.

I did the following:

There is an L3 and it drives a LED lamp.

The energy consumed by the circuit is higher if the LED lamp shines and it is lower if L3 is not connected to anything.

Sorry, no precise numbers just a rough quantification. But it was very easily visible, 20% to 50% more energy consumed.


Another observation with very low power pulse motors (a few mW down to 100 µW):

When the back EMF of the drive coil was "used in any way" (e.g. putting a LED there or feedback to battery via a Shottky diode), the power consumption rose a little (up to 10%). Could have been the forward current of the LED or diode, but I do not think so.

------------

Your measurement idea is interesting, I will think about it.

Greetings, Conrad

Hi Conrad,
I was just wondering what your circuit had to do with Rosemary's? 

Oscar

Quote from: OscarMeyer on September 12, 2013, 09:11:01 PM
Hi Conrad,
I was just wondering what your circuit had to do with Rosemary's? 

Oscar

Just which "Circuit of Rosemary's" are you referring to?

The one published in the Quantum magazine, but never actually used?

The one determined by S.Weir to exist in the recently found box, that could not have been in there in 2002 since it has a chip with a 2007 date code, a P-channel mosfet in addition to an IRGP450--- which she never reported using --- and only a single potentiometer hooked up?

The one gestured to by Donovan Martin in the 2011 demo, showing a single mosfet and no Black FG hookup?

The one he claimed in the same demo, with 5 mosfets in parallel?

The Actual one used by them, discovered by .99?

The two different ones in the retracted papers, neither of which show the Black FG lead in the place actually used?

The "FTC" schematic that Glen used for the IET and IEEE submissions?

Or the Unclamped Inductive Test circuit that is in the back of just about every power mosfet data sheet?


Just which is "the" circuit of Rosemary's that you are talking about? And just what concern is it of yours anyway? Do you have some work of your own you would like to talk about? Please feel free to do so.

Meanwhile, maybe you can explain this bit of word salad:

QuoteGuys, very simplistically - here's logic behind superluminal velocity.  Forgive the elementary explanations - but it's the best I can manage.  Just for purposes of this argument - assume a wheel diameter at say 1 meter.  4 wheels to the car.  Therefore for every complete turn the wheel covers a distance of 1 meter.  And it makes that complete turn every second.  Therefore, for each minute it is able to cover 1 meter per turn, per second x 60 seconds - being 60 meters per minute.  Now we take the second car that has a wheel diameter of precisely 2 meters.  4 wheels to the car.  So.  For every complete turn the wheel covers a distance of 2 meters.  And IT makes the complete turn every 2 seconds.  Therefore, for each complete turn it is able to cover precisely twice the distance albeit that it too is traveling at 60 meters per minute.  The difference?  It's simply in the number of complete turns.  Now.  Let's draw this distinction.  The frequency at which the 2 meter diameter wheel makes each turn - is half the frequency of the 1 meter diameter wheel.  And this is PRECISELY equivalent to the size of those wheels.  That's UNARGUABLE.

Quote from: TinselKoala on September 13, 2013, 12:28:35 AM


Meanwhile, maybe you can explain this bit of word salad:

"Guys, very simplistically - here's logic behind superluminal velocity.  Forgive the elementary explanations - but it's the best I can manage.  Just for purposes of this argument - assume a wheel diameter at say 1 meter.  4 wheels to the car.  Therefore for every complete turn the wheel covers a distance of 1 meter.  And it makes that complete turn every second.  Therefore, for each minute it is able to cover 1 meter per turn, per second x 60 seconds - being 60 meters per minute.  Now we take the second car that has a wheel diameter of precisely 2 meters.  4 wheels to the car.  So.  For every complete turn the wheel covers a distance of 2 meters.  And IT makes the complete turn every 2 seconds.  Therefore, for each complete turn it is able to cover precisely twice the distance albeit that it too is traveling at 60 meters per minute.  The difference?  It's simply in the number of complete turns.  Now.  Let's draw this distinction.  The frequency at which the 2 meter diameter wheel makes each turn - is half the frequency of the 1 meter diameter wheel.  And this is PRECISELY equivalent to the size of those wheels.  That's UNARGUABLE."

What happened to Pi x Diameter?  A 1 meter diameter wheel will not travel 1 meter per rev.  UNARGUABLE?  Oh well.

Bill