Exploring the Inductive Resistor Heater

[picowatt]

Greg,

You just have to ask yourself, if only nanoampers of current ever flow thru the gate, why on Earth would a gate driver capable of 9 amps of drive current ever be required?  And when all that current from a gate driver does flow into or out of the gate, where exactly does it go?  There are only two additional terminals on the MOSFET thru which to complete the circuit...

Think about it...   

PW

[TinselKoala]

It's pretty clear that Gmeast doesn't have the knowledge of components and how they behave, that one might expect a "free energy" experimenter to have.

Here's a video that I published last July, illustrating in a very simple manner that the gate-drain and gate-source capacitances CAN and DO pass substantial currents, when the mosfet is actually operating in a circuit, or when it's not. This is part of a series of 10 or so videos that severally and individually refute several of the absurd claims that Ainslie makes about mosfets and function generators and circuit behaviour in general, and now I see that they also refute Gmeast's misconceptions about mosfets and how to drive them and what happens when you do.

I think it's completely laughable that he spews his childish insults and lies and misinformation about me, and about PW and others, when he apparently doesn't even understand the basics of circuit performance, circuit measurement, or how a mosfet even works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzUcx3haZbA


ETA: This series of ten or so "MOSFETs... How Do They Work?" videos was made in an effort to educate Rosemary Ainslie about her own circuit's performance and to illustrate that the absurd claims she made are just that: absurd. (Claims that a function generator can't act as a power source or pass current from an external source from its "probe" to its "terminal" to use her terms; claims like Gmeast's that a mosfet can't pass current when it is "off"; claims that a mosfet is strictly a "switch" and can't act in a linear conductance mode being partially on; misconceptions about the nature of the gate charge that turns a mosfet on and off; and etc.) Ainslie promised long ago to review these videos and refute my demonstrations point by point.... and we are still waiting for those refutations. No doubt I overestimated the level of the pitch.... instead of tenth grade level I should have pitched the demos at sixth grade comprehension level, using little cartoons, fuzzy animal toys and words of single syllables. Then perhaps she could have followed along.
Gmeast, of course, will respond, if at all, with more insults, and will still try to deny the obvious refutation of his absurd "nanoamps" claim.

[lanenal]

Greg,

I have reread the above again, and I believe I now understand your method.  It is actually quite brilliant.


However, does this not presuppose that the batteries have the same amp hour rating, and hence draw down characteristics, with a purely resistive load versus a pulsed load? (as per my original concern regarding load profiles versus battery capacity)

As an analogy, suppose you have a flooded lead acid battery on a motorized table that gently rocks the battery so that the electrolyte is being stirred constantly.  A load resistor is applied and the voltage and current is monitored and its draw down from a start and stop voltage is noted over a measured time period.  The same test with the same load is again performed but this time the "stirring table" is turned off.  Would you expect the battery to necessarily measure the same capacity in both tests?

As well, suppose a pulsing desulpator is connected to a lead acid battery driving a resistive load so that sulphate crystals formed during discharge are maintained at a smaller size, and as well, the effects of pulse plating produce a finer grain structure, that is, a greater conductive area, during discharge, so that the battery appears to have a larger amp hour rating than it does when similarly loaded without the desulphator connected.  Would this prove that the desulphator produces overunity or would it only prove that the capacity of a lead acid battery can be increased by pulsing the battery during discharge?

I bring this up because for many years there have been various claims of overunity with pulsed circuits, but for some reason the "overunity" always requires a battery.  And a lead acid battery appears to be, for the most part, the most popular battery chemistry used.

This is why I asked if you had ever attempted to operate your circuit using only a well filtered supply to determine if the circuit itself is truly overunity or if the observed effect is moreso related to the battery having a different capacity under different load profiles.

You say that your circuit will not oscillate when operating from the DC supply.  This could be further investigated by installing a network between the supply and battery that models the measured equivalent series resistance, inductance, and capacitance of your batteries.  If necessary, the supply can be isolated at AC by installing inductors between the supply and network.  Doing so might allow you to operate your circuit from the supply and make your input measurements at DC.  This would assist in determining if the observed OU is due to the operation of the circuit, or moreso, to the increase in battery capacity under a pulsed load profile.


As an aside, you seem to have a certain disdain for modern test equipment regarding the ability of any equipment being able to measure the voltage at SH3 because of its "complex" waveform.  The waveform there is not all that complex nor particularly fast, and direct measurement there, given a very low inductance CSR (due to your use of .05ohms), can be accurately performed.  I believe you stated that you measured the SH3 voltage using both a scope and .99's multimeter approach and had close agreement with both methods.  So why then, do you dismiss that measurement out of hand as inaccurate? 

In any event, as it appears that your input power determined by direct measurement and by use of the drawdown method are in significant disagreement with each other, would you not at least agree that a third method is in order to determine which method of measurement is more accurate?

Thank-you for your patience... us old guy's are slow on the uptake (just wait till you get there!)

PW

Greg has done a great job in his calculations and very honest in his proof.


PW is doubtful and cautious, but he can not show any calculations, so there is no way to assess how significant is the deviation in energy calculation due to the factors listed by him. It could be that the conclusion from Greg's calculation still stands even if those factors are totally ignored.


It seems to me, the "increase in battery capacity under pulsed load" argument is conducing rather than deducing to Greg's calculations, because when a battery is increasing in its capacity while draining in its stored energy, then the voltage drop should be an exaggeration (because there is a bogus voltage drop due to increased capacity without change in stored energy). So under that observation, Greg's calculation of input to the original circuit (a pulsing load) is an exaggeration, and the OU is even more pronounced than what his calculations shows.

[TinselKoala]

(snip)
Gmeast, of course, will respond, if at all, with more insults, and will still try to deny the obvious refutation of his absurd "nanoamps" claim.

So predictable. And so very vile. I think you struck a nerve, there, Picowatt.

[TinselKoala]

@lanenal: You do realize that Gmeast is saying that the most current that can pass through a MOSFET gate to the drain or source is 100 nA, right? And that PW has explained from the circuit theory standpoint, and I have illustrated empirically in the video above, that the 100 nA claim is definitely not true for the kind of signal that is being applied to the gate by the gate driver which is capable of supplying 9 amps (if not restricted by the inline resistor.) Right?
Yet you see how he responds. He is refuted time after time but cannot deal with the refutations; instead he says "Fuck them all dead". That is his argument!

Where is the evidence for his paranoid claim that "circuit experts" were contacted by either myself or PW? There is none. We have referred him to the data sheet where the capacitances are clearly cited and we have shown him, or tried to show him, demonstrations and clear explanations. I personally have contacted no one on this issue.... because it is basic to mosfet design and usage. Watch my video and then see if Gmeast has an explanation that jives with his "100 nA" claim!