Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[evolvingape]

thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators

regards
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

Hi np,

In my opinion it is not guaranteed that there is not a danger from this circuit being used with these types of battery.

If the claims to battery recharging are proven to be correct then this charging is also unregulated and could prove dangerous after extended periods of time.

I have personally seen, on more than one occasion, sealed maintenance free batteries that have EXPLODED shedding the casing and electrolyte everywhere. I have seen this because I was the engineer sent to clean up the mess and fix it.

This happened in regulated DC circuits under normal use.

So just be mindfull that these batteries are in no ways considered 100% safe, especially with an unregulated charging circuit operational.

RM

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok guys.  The following two downloads show the two different probe positions.  The one on the battery and the other on the breadboard.  I'll download and then point out which is which - if it's not obvious already.

PLEASE NOTE - both waveforms substantially the same.  Just a variation in volume, so to speak.

Strange little variation of the usual waveform.  I didn't bother to tune it.  I just took the first evidence of that extended oscillation.  So.  It's NOT optimised.  I'll fine tune it all again, when and if my batteries are tested.  Feeling a bit too nervous to use them at the moment because I'm not sure if the plates have been damaged.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Ok - peak to peak on the first is plus/minus 200 volts and the second is plus/minus 100 volts.  That's a pretty large difference.  I'll get back here with the spreadsheet data when I've done this.   

RESULTS on first      - 22.692908 watts (NOT SURE HOW TO SHOW A NEGATIVE WATTAGE)
RESULTS on second  - 14.514204 watts (STILL NOT SURE HOW TO SHOW THAT 'n' WORD.)


Heat dissipated on both tests show plus/minus 7 watts - but there's enough enough heat on the FET's and the heat sinks to possibly add another 7 watts.  So.  NEARLY THERE.

AND FINALLY - AS EVER
A channel 1 - CSR
B channel 2 - VBATT
C channel 3 - GATE
D channel 4 - DRAIN (here used for the math trace.  Math trace is product of CHANNEL 1 AND 2)

[Rosemary Ainslie]

hi Rosemary, glad to hear you didn't get burned

that was just a good-natured 'poke' at Poynt99  - imagining him trying to simulate your battery on fire


thanks for letting us know that the recent problem with the system isn't likely to be a component or equipment hazard for replicators

regards
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

Hi again NP.  I actually thought you were alerting me to an intended replication by Poynty Point.    I'm slow nul-points.  Really slow.  LOL.

Take care.  I've gone through that link again.   Very interesting.  Looking forward to the time when it's seen as the WHOLE of the evidence.  There's absolutely NO evidence of electrons forming current flow - anywhere.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary.

[cHeeseburger]

Okay...two different tests, two radically different input power reports, same output heat in load.  Only difference in the two tests is where the probes were placed.

As a scientist, what does this tell you, Rosemary?  The probe placement is certainly not changing the performance of the actual circuit, is it?  Only changes the measurement.  Which of the two measurements is correct?  Both?  Neither?

You should really think hard about this essential question.  It is extremely key to solving the mystery here.  Far more important than any of the more detailed questions below.

There are three other questions that arise in my mind from looking at the scope pictures and the numbers you present.

1)  How do the wattage numbers you give relate to any of the numbers shown on the scope face?  Can you explain how the numbers are derived.  They don't seem to be related to the scope's reported numbers in any way I can see.

2)  I notice that the VV red multiply trace seems to never go above the zero line, yet the "battery" trace is always above zero and the other argument of the multiply, the shunt trace, goes both above and below zero.  So there are clearly times when both numbers being multiplied are positive, yet the product is always negative.  This doesn't make any sense.

3)  Is there a reason you are using Cycle Mean instead of  Mean on the current shunt trace?  What is that reason?

Humbugger

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

Yes, it is spam and has been reported to Stefan.  It will be taken care of in due course.  I have deleted these posts in the areas that I can.  Stefan has been pretty busy as of late but, he will take care of it.

Bill