Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[cHeeseburger]

- we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label')

  and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations

Very true, Nul-Points.  The gate oxide is very thin and fragile and gate voltage excursions beyond the specified limits on a repetitive basis basis will blast little holes in it, crashing the part's functionality little by little until...poof! 

Even when the drive from the sig-gen is within the specified limits, voltage spikes due to parasitic inductances and gate circuit wire lengths and drain voltage swings coupling through the Drain-Gate (Crss) capacitance can push the gate voltage well beyond the maximum specs.

The standard way of preventing this is to place a pair of series-connected 15V zeners back to back across the gate and source leads very close (right on the leads as they enter the plastic body if possible) of each MOSFET and with very short (use SMT chip zeners if possible) leads on the zeners.  This would probably prevent future breakdowns of the gate oxide without having any noticeable effect on the oscillations Rosemary has based her theories upon.

- 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy

  'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse  - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy

NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out  (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output

one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)

Here is a direct quote from Ms. Chung's original paper:

"True negative resistance in the former sense is not possible due to energy conservation. However, apparent negative resistance in the former sense is reported here. ... Although the negative resistance reported here is apparent rather than true, its mechanism resembles that of true negative resistance (which actually does not occur due to energetics) in that the electrons flow in the unexpected direction relative to the applied current/voltage."

â€" Wang, Chung, Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fiber composites[1]

She nor her co-author ever claimed or suggested, from day one until now, that the device is useable a source of electrical energy from ambient heat.  You have been reading too much Bearden.

NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system

so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR

if the MOSFET data refers to true NR, then this would explain any anomalous electrical energy gained by systems such as Rosemary's

if the MOSFET data refers to NDR, then the parasitic oscillations are likely to be converting electrical energy to heat, as normal, not converting heat to electrical energy

The MOSFET data most certainly refers to the latter...NDR, as you call it.  All that means is that there are regions in the transfer function curves that show a non-ohmic decrease in current as voltage increases...nothing more.

Humbugger

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hi nul-point.  I couldn't get around to answering this yesterday. 

i think there are a couple of things we can learn from those points:

- we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label') and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations (another reason being that such an output would be a 'distortion' of the input - and for most digital or analogue signal applications that would be an undesirable feature of a product!)

I agree.  But we've now replaced those FETs and the problem persists.  The hope now is that the fault is with the Functions Generator.  It was new 'out the box' and it does seem that there's no required variation to the off set.  So.  This will be replaced - hopefully tomorrow.  We simply can't get any energy to the load and the guys have checked ALL connections.  But the fact is that these FETs are not designed to take those high voltage spikes and they'll always be brittle.  Out of interest - I have acrtually spoken to 2 manufacturers and they both insisted that putting them in parallel would 'do the job'.  Clearly it helps.  Not certain that it's an adequate solution.  Ultimately, one expects that some dedicated transistors can be manufactured. 

- 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy - 'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse  - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy - NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out  (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output - one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)

NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system - so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR

Also very interesting.  I also saw some hint at a potential excess energy in links to those parasitic oscillations.  Terms such as Negative Resistance and Negative Differential Resistance just confuse the hell out of me.  What I can just manage to get my head around are terms such as negative and positive voltage - this because they represent two entirely different directions in consequent current flow.  And, in effect, it seems that regardless of the inductance on any one component - it is possible to induce that negative voltage to some considerable improvement in energy efficiencies. 

So.  nul-points.  Not much to do with negative or positive resistance.  Or I can't get there.  Perhaps you can manage a correspondence.  Otherwise I think your summary was impeccable.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Guys, nul-point - whoever reads here - I've taken this as an opportunity to explain this with the caveat that this is simply my own eccentric thinking and you are free to dismiss it as required.  But it's also why we put that circuit together in the first instance.

The proposal is that the atom comprises a nucleus at the centre and electrons that orbit the nucleus.  These are evident.  What is not evident is the proposal that there are the atomic energy levels comprising two dimensional magnet fields.  These trap the atom's electrons in their orbits around the nucleus.  The atom is inviolate.  The valence condition of atoms can be varied.  This predisposes it to molecular bonding which bonding can then partially or completely balance that atomic valence condition.

BUT.  The actual bonding of those atoms is managed by discrete packages of one directional magnetic fields.  These are extraneous to the atom.  These can orbit either in a circle with a fixed direction or justification.  Then one half of any orbit will oppose the other half - thereby having an potential to interact with any two unlike charges, positive or negative.  Or it can orbit in the figure '8' - thereby having the potential to interact with any two 'like' charges, positive to positive and negative to negative.

The atom's outer energy levels determine the valence condition of the atom.  With these three potentials then these discrete fields are then able to interact with the outer energy levels of ALL atoms.  The proposal is that they interact with the atom's energy levels very much as does a small gear interacting with a larger gear, the smaller - those discrete binding fields - operating at a velocity that exceeds light speed.  This renders them invisible. 

Then.  The current flow from the source voltage 'breaks' those orbits.  Here's why.  The quantum value of all those discrete binding orbits will be some combination of positive and negative - regardless of the bound atomic valence condition.  Current flow has a single direction - therefore a single charge.  It will, therefore, repel precisely one half of all the charge from those discrete binding fields - that it comes into contact with.  The source voltage is, by definition greater than the resistance in that bound material.  It therefore repels those same charges.  In doing so, the repelled charge is forced outside the body of the material.  It 'lurks'.  It congregates as a field and circles that component material and is measured as voltage imbalance or potential difference.  This voltage has a single direction or justification.  But it is 'open ended' or 'imbalanced'.

The remaining circle - that half that was not 'expelled' by that current flow - has nothing to orbit and nothing to attach to.  It loses it's orbital velocity and becomes as 'hot and as slow and as big' as it was 'cold and fast and small' - in its previous 'field condition'.  This then is measured as heat.  It results in the immediate compromise of the bound condition of material that it was - previously - binding.  It also results in the partial expansion of that material - BOTH conditions depending on the degree or number of these orbital symmetries that were broken by the force of the current flow.  Nothing is changed in the atomic state.  Only the bound condition is now varied.

When the source voltage is interrupted - then those extruded fields, that voltage imbalance - can now generate a current flow.  But it moves in an opposite direction to the initial flow of current.  It moves, not unlike a 'spring' releasing.  And it moves around the circuit components to return to its source.  If it can get back to the source then it will again separate into discrete packages and re-unite with those 'broken fields' - that hot unhappy 'other half' that remains in the material.  Given enough time then it will regroup and then it will  again be able to continue binding that material in their field condition as 'fast, cold, small' fields.  In effect it will simply reconstitute their previously binding field condition.

That parasitic oscillation is then, according to this analysis - the result of a perpetuating an imbalance where the satisfied potential difference of the battery supply induces potential difference in the circuit material.  And, in turn, which, induces a second cycle where the satisfied potential difference in the circuit material then enduces a potential difference in the supply.  That 'equivalence' is determined by the circuit itself and it's a potential in all electric circuits.  This, because the electromagnetic interaction is enabled by inductive conductive material. 

And traditionally this has not been exposed because the required path for both current cycles has not been provided as this relates to returning or negative current cycle.  Put a whole lot of FET's together and the road is then wide - the path is big enough and there's nothing to stop that negative current flowing from all that induced negative voltage.  And proof that this may be correct is in the fact that the heat over the resistor element is retained through that entire cycle of oscillation.

Which is just my explanation guys.  Do with it what you can, or want.  It does seem to have some kind of correspondence to what we're seeing.  But it also depends on the fundamental principle that a magnetic field comprises particles or tachyons which would, here, need to be magnetic dipoles. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[neptune]

Hi all .It is interesting that Ismael Aviso with his self charging electric car claims to use custom made transistors . These are not specifically referred to as Mosfets , but it does make you wonder .We have established that there are two types of negative resistance . The commonest is differential negative resistance . My understanding of this is as follows . Normally , if you increase the voltage across a resistor , the current flow increases .Pure ohms law .However in a negative type resistor , an increase in voltage can be accompanied by a fall in current .This is not , however , the type of negative resistance we are seeing here
     Regarding mosfet failures . If it is the zener diode that carries the battery chargeing current , why not have just two mosfets , and many external zener diodes connected externally . Zeners are cheaper than mosfets .

[nul-points]

hi Rosemary

glad you've been able to replace the MOSFETS

i seem to remember that you mentioned recently that you'd measured around 5W getting returned to the SigGen?

if this is correct, then it is certainly possible that you also have a problem with that equipment now - the SG output stage may not be designed to cope with power getting returned in opposition to its usual current flow!


Hi Neptune

extra external reversed diodes across the MOSFETs are always a possibility - but i have a feeling that those links we all looked at were saying that the parasitic oscillation should be avoided because it caused excessive feedback from the output to the gate (hence the possible energy return to the SigGen too)

i'm not sure if adding external diodes across Source & Drain will diminish the gate overdirve, if it does then its likely to be because its also stopped the parasitic oscillation!

it might be necessary to find a compromise with the gate series input impedance - ie. try & find a value which is high enough still to just causes oscillation at a negative drive level, but low enough to limit the gate overdrive voltage which can develop due to the oscillation

could get interesting 
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com