Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011

[cHeeseburger]

I would suggest that a simple low-pass filter be applied on both the shunt voltage measurement and the battery voltage measurement in order to find the actual DC equivalent input power.  This will eliminate the false readings associated with the phase shifts and inductive parasitics in the circuitry and reveal quickly the actual DC net power flow either out of or into the battery.

“I would suggest that cHeesburger is determined to deny us the benefit from those circuit components including the wiring.  I'm reasonably satisfied that if we, indeed, eliminated the inductance on the circuit - including the wiring - then we would, also, indeed, lose all that advantage.”

All I am suggesting is that simple techniques that in no way alter the circuit operation, i.e. using a simple RC low-pass filter on the battery voltage and current shunt voltage will give the exact same advantage that using the thermal integratiion method of obtaining equivalent DC power provides in the output measurement.  Even better, there is no need for a "control" or comparison test at the input side as must be done on the output side.

“Here he is, emphatically, wrong.  Any filters applied will most certainly block that required resonance.”

What she and everyone else seems to have blindly overlooked is that the measurement of input power is plagued with the exact same complications of inductance-based phase shifts and power factor complexities that were deemed too difficult to overcome on the output side.  There is no difference!

“'blindly overlooked'.  Strong words here by cHeesburger. Golly. In point of fact these have NEVER been overlooked.  But it intrigues me that he needs to claim this.”

Rosemary, you are right.  The proper and simple and accurate measurement technique has never been overlooked.  I apologize for implying any such shortcoming in your perceptive abilities.

What I should have said is PURPOSELY AND STUBBORNLY AVOIDED AT ALL COST.

Let me try a simple analogy.  Your load resistor has a fairly big mass, thermally speaking.  It obviously takes some time to heat up and cool down.  I’m sure we would all agree that the instantaneous temperature does not follow the frequency of oscillation (1MHz +), heating up and cooling back down a million times per second.

A wideband high speed measurement of the heat signature is therefore not required.  The load’s mass performs a very accurate averaging of the rapidly-oscillating high frequency energy being fed through the load.

You clearly agree with this, because you have always used the method of comparing the output heat to that produced (in the same load) when it is fed a steady and easily known and determined DC power.  This is what is known as determining the DC equivalent power.

You have acknowledged that this is how the output heating power is measured and have indicated that you understand at least one very strong reason for doing it this way, as opposed to trying to use a wideband DSO to measure the voltage across the load and current through it.  It is because the load is inductive and the driving wave is not a sinusoid, which vastly complicates the math due to an inability to use simple real numbers and Ohm’s Law or even simple complex numbers to get the power factor, phase shift and VAR (Volt Amperes Reactive) versus the true Watts of real forward power numbers correct.

Now…please read this carefully and understand me clearly, if you would.
What I am suggesting is that all of those same complications apply equally to the measurement of the real Watts of input power and for the same reasons.

I am not suggesting that you remove or reduce or eliminate any of the circuit inductances or that you add anything that will in any way effect or change the way the circuit operates or behaves or alter the waveforms and scope traces you have so diligently worked to accomplish.  The load will receive/emit exactly what it presently receives/emits and the batteries will also receive/emit exactly what they presently do as well.  No change to the MOSFET operation/oscillation will occur.

What I am proposing by adding a simple filter ONLY TO THE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS AND NOT TO THE CIRCUIT ITSELF yields the exact same EQUIVALENT DC REAL POWER measurement results as you already use to measure the output heating power.  Instead of averaging via thermal mass, you average in an exactly analogous way by using a resistor and capacitor attached to a simple digital voltmeter.

This method, properly applied, has no effect on circuit performance and has no inherent error sources.  If nothing else, Rosemary, it would behoove you to at least try doing this to compare the results versus what you arrive at using your DSO method.  If this simple straightforward technique gives numbers that closely agree with your zero-battery-net-power or shows actual charging of your battery while heating the load, you will have made a gigantic leap forward toward mainstream acceptance and credibility.

cHeeseburger (extra fries, please)

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

I have continued to follow your work and all of your efforts on this project.  I would just like to echo MrMag's comments in saying that I, too, admire your tenacity as you continue with this.

If you are measuring correctly, or not, does not matter to me at this point.  You have involved some learned folks that should know the correct way and, the proof will be in the pudding as they say.  I feel bad for the abuse you have to take by sharing your efforts openly but, I also admire you for doing so.

As you have said so many times, if folks think you are doing it wrong, there is nothing standing in their way to do it the "right" way.  Yet, no one does.  Easier to cast stones I suppose.

In the end, we will know.  Please continue with your work, and continue to share the results, whatever they may be.

Bill

[cHeeseburger]

Rosemary,

I have got to give you a lot of credit. You are a very patient person. Most would of stopped posting by now. I haven't followed your posts or blogs but I do pop in once in a while to see whats going on. It seems like you are always being asked the same questions. In the other forum by hambugger and over here by cheeseburger and others. You must be doing a lot of cut and paste.

Keep up the good work and I wish you success in your circuit.

There is only one question I've ever asked.  What is the input power and output power?  Rosemary has not answered the question.  She has produced no numbers.  Her reports regarding input power suggest that it is either always exactly zero ("perfect cancellation" or "perfect symmetry") or, at other times suggest that it is always less than zero, constituting a net charge to the battery while delivering real heating power to the load.  Earlier, the input power was given as a positive number being 1/17 of the heating power measured at the load.  Never the same answer twice and never any numbers. 

I see this as a huge problem with her "science" and I also see why it is virtually impossible to arrive at solid numbers using the approach she has taken to measuring the input power, which is not workable nor capable of furnishing accurate results.

cHeeseburger  (extra tomatos, please)

P.S.  Why my kindly and helpful and very constructive suggestions and my clear statements of the reasoning behind them are viewed as negative, abusive, pesky, rude, intolerable and bothersome by Rosemary and apparently others here is a true mystery to me.   Is it my breath?  Hold the onions!

[cHeeseburger]

Rose:

I have continued to follow your work and all of your efforts on this project.  I would just like to echo MrMag's comments in saying that I, too, admire your tenacity as you continue with this.

If you are measuring correctly, or not, does not matter to me at this point.   You have involved some learned folks that should know the correct way and, the proof will be in the pudding as they say.  I feel bad for the abuse you have to take by sharing your efforts openly but, I also admire you for doing so.

As you have said so many times, if folks think you are doing it wrong, there is nothing standing in their way to do it the "right" way.  Yet, no one does.  Easier to cast stones I suppose.

In the end, we will know.  Please continue with your work, and continue to share the results, whatever they may be.

Bill

So it doesn't  matter if measurements are done correctly or not.  Now that is some really great science, pardner!  Why build anything if no decent measure of it's actual performance will be made?  Is it just art for art's sake?  A medium for chatroom conversation and "team spirit building"?  A popularity contest?  A debate club?

No...Rosemary is pretentious enough to suggest that she has found  the answer to the global energy crisis.  Good measurements with repeatable publishable quantified results should preceed any such suggestion.

cHeeseburger (make that a double, to go)

[Rosemary Ainslie]

MrMag and Pirate

Thanks for the support.  I really wouldn't have bothered to answer CB in such depth except that I hoped it would finally silence him.  The problem is that egos and testosterone get in the way of science and - suddenly - it only matters that someone sound clever - not that they are.  And now - to boot - it seems that we must improve our measuring instruments.  What a load of doggy doo.  In any event - it seems that the test object - the significance of the resonance - the whole catastrophe - is just way over his head.  More's the pity.

But regarding the measurements.  There has been no effort to factor in for the inductance.  This may yet change the picture.  But - preliminary overview shows that it makes no material difference - this because the resonance is so perfectly in antiphase.  The battery and the heat on the load are always the beneficiaries.  The aspect of the test that interests me is that the battery can discharge during the off period of the duty cycle.  There's clearly an open path.  And this simple fact is precisely the point where I am hoping that those little dipoles will be considered as the material of current flow.  Certainly classicists will have a hard time of it arguing electron flow.   And then the comforting fact that we can apply just about any heat - not by increasing the voltage as would normally be required -  but by adjustments to the offset and to the frequency.  That's good news - as our previous was somewhat restricted to dissipating values somewhat less than the full potential from the supply.  It sort of closes the argument that this system is now more efficient rather than less.

But we've a way to go.  All I was hoping to achieve is to get this to the academic forum.  And with a little more effort it may yet get there.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

And btw Neptune.  So nice to see your sustained interest.  I'm sorry you won't be testing.  But hopefully, soon, there will be no need for this.  Certainly if it can get properly researched then we can all relax.  We have an unfortunate but necessary reliance to get a proper academic over view and that also requires hands on involvement.  The challenge is to lift this from esoteric fringe science to something that may be plausibly studied.  Clearly I'm ever the optimist.