Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


Exploring the Inductive Resistor Heater

Started by gmeast, April 25, 2013, 11:43:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

gmeast

Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2013, 07:28:04 PM
Greg,

Not trying to disuade you at all.  Just saying, a battery under different load profiles will net a different amp hour rating and hence, a different discharge curve or rate.

From my read of your test methods, you utilize the differences in battery discharge rates with different load profiles, i.e., a pulsed load of a given duty cycle versus a fixed load of a given resistance to determine efficiency.  So yes, duty cycles, or more specifically, load profiles,  are indeed involved in your tests in that one of your loads is your pulsed circuit at less than 100% duty cycle and your other reference load is a 100% duty cycle load using an equivalent heat output resistor.  Hence, my question, would you expect the same amp hour rating, i.e., discharge rate, from a given battery when loads of 1 amp at 100%, 2 amp at 50% or 4 amp at 25% are applied?  Each of those load profiles would generate the same heat output, but I would not expect the battery to respond equally regarding discharge rates. 


But, please forgive me, I was not aware we were not to post comments here.

PW


Hi PW,


You are correct with regards to your assessment of power and heat for ... "1 amp at 100%, 2 amp at 50%, 4 amp at 25% ... " and so on, but only for those nice, clean pure square wave pulses applied to a non-inductive, purely resistive load that cares not about rapid-edge transitioning pulses applied to it.  Things change when you apply the same pulsing regimen to an inductor. An inductor stores energy in a magnetic field AND heats up when powered. When power is remove via a switch of equivalent, the magnetic field collapses, viciously slicing through the inductor and any and all background or vacuum energy fields and further induces, collapses, induces, collapses, etc, and eventually damps out (most likely manifested as heat). These are complex events that are non-linear and asymmetrical, and DO NOT TEST OUT so neatly as the theoretical and 'ideal' examples above. Heat produced on the test fixture strays far from the theoretical and 'ideal' for various combinations of frequency and duty cycle.


For clarity: Amp-Hours is an expression of capacity ... and can be quite arbitrary. My batteries are 7Ah and only at .350A for 20Hrs, or it can be a 10Hr rating or a 5Hr rating or 50Hr rating.  I'm talking Watt-Hours ... "Energy".


Yes ... I assume that after every battery recharge, the batteries are returned to the same storage level each time ... and they are. It is easy to verify ... it is the reason for the rather complex charging and start-up procedure leading into every test.  This is what is tested:


From the instant the load is applied, time is carefully tracked to make sure the test's starting voltage is reached in the same time as in the other tests. For a purely resistive load applied during this time, this proves the battery's capacity is the same as for previous tests. This is inarguable. A voltage drop or voltage rise from the same starting voltage across a known resistive load over the same measured time is the same amount of Energy. As long as the temperatures are also the same. Again ... this is the reason I also sample the unloaded battery voltages at the start and end of the tests .. again proving I'm recording actual resources used up and not 'surface charge' or 'fluff' ... "fluff" - what a stupid term! Who came up with that?


Thank you PW,


Greg

picowatt

Quote from: gmeast on April 28, 2013, 09:20:24 PM

Hi PW,


You are correct with regards to your assessment of power and heat for ... "1 amp at 100%, 2 amp at 50%, 4 amp at 25% ... " and so on, but only for those nice, clean pure square wave pulses applied to a non-inductive, purely resistive load that cares not about rapid-edge transitioning pulses applied to it.  Things change when you apply the same pulsing regimen to an inductor. An inductor stores energy in a magnetic field AND heats up when powered. When power is remove via a switch of equivalent, the magnetic field collapses, viciously slicing through the inductor and any and all background or vacuum energy fields and further induces, collapses, induces, collapses, etc, and eventually damps out (most likely manifested as heat). These are complex events that are non-linear and asymmetrical, and DO NOT TEST OUT so neatly as the theoretical and 'ideal' examples above. Heat produced on the test fixture strays far from the theoretical and 'ideal' for various combinations of frequency and duty cycle.


For clarity: Amp-Hours is an expression of capacity ... and can be quite arbitrary. My batteries are 7Ah and only at .350A for 20Hrs, or it can be a 10Hr rating or a 5Hr rating or 50Hr rating.  I'm talking Watt-Hours ... "Energy".


Yes ... I assume that after every battery recharge, the batteries are returned to the same storage level each time ... and they are. It is easy to verify ... it is the reason for the rather complex charging and start-up procedure leading into every test.  This is what is tested:


From the instant the load is applied, time is carefully tracked to make sure the test's starting voltage is reached in the same time as in the other tests. For a purely resistive load applied during this time, this proves the battery's capacity is the same as for previous tests. This is inarguable. A voltage drop or voltage rise from the same starting voltage across a known resistive load over the same measured time is the same amount of Energy. As long as the temperatures are also the same. Again ... this is the reason I also sample the unloaded battery voltages at the start and end of the tests .. again proving I'm recording actual resources used up and not 'surface charge' or 'fluff' ... "fluff" - what a stupid term! Who came up with that?


Thank you PW,


Greg

Greg,

Yes Greg, I can see that your waveforms are anything but square.  They do not however represent a 100% duty cycle anymore than a sine wave does.  Disregarding the semantics, the point was that different load profiles will produce different battery discharge curves.  Your pulsed circuit is one load profile of less than 100% duty cycle and the fixed resistive load is a different load profile with a 100% duty cycle.

It is my understanding that you use the measured time between your battery start/stop voltages using two different load profiles to calculate your efficiency.  That is, I thought you used the fixed resistance load in concert with start stop voltages versus time to determine input power.

Possibly I have not read your test protocols correctly, but it sounds like you are using the response of the battery to one load profile as a method to measure the "energy" dissipated by a different load profile.



PW

gmeast

Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2013, 09:45:02 PM
Greg,

Yes Greg, I can see that your waveforms are anything but square.  They do not however represent a 100% duty cycle anymore than a sine wave does.  Disregarding the semantics, the point was that different load profiles will produce different battery discharge curves.  Your pulsed circuit is one load profile of less than 100% duty cycle and the fixed resistive load is a different load profile with a 100% duty cycle.

It is my understanding that you use the measured time between your battery start/stop voltages using two different load profiles to calculate your efficiency.  That is, I thought you used the fixed resistance load in concert with start stop voltages versus time to determine input power.

Possibly I have not read your test protocols correctly, but it sounds like you are using the response of the battery to one load profile as a method to measure the "energy" dissipated by a different load profile.



PW


Hi PW,


Read it carefully. You are incorrect in your assessment, but I appreciate going through this exercise with you. The circuit load was a recorded value that 'was what it was' across SH3. It was NOT an established load, it was the load on the battery the circuit (seemingly) presented, or 5.6mV on 0.05-Ohm CSR SH3. It was a RESULTANT value on SH3 in the Circuit test. It was simply a value that was recorded. Nothing was 'set to it' in the Circuit Test. However, the 1st Resistive Load Test Was ADJUSTED to 5.6mV on SH3. So we have the same (seeming) load on the batteries ... one being the RESULT of loading the batteries and the other being SET AS THE LOAD on the batteries. What meters, scopes and instruments CANNOT DETECT are the energies providing either excess heat to RL or any energies being returned to the batteries, or both.


As it turns out, it doesn't matter what the load was for the 1st resistive load test. A heavier load would draw the batteries down sooner and a lighter load would draw them down later. A heavy load is a higher wattage (power) and a lighter load is lower wattage (power). What's important is where this discharge curve crosses the ENDING voltage of the Circuit test.  Higher Power X Shorter Time = Lower Power X Longer Time. It ends up being the same Watt-Hours of Energy.


The 2nd Resistive Load Test was the PROOF. I used the quotient of the 1st Resistive Load Test's Energy / The Circuit Test's Heating Energy (on the test fixture provided by the precision DC power supply) as a factor to adjust this test's resistive load such that its starting and ending voltages were the same as for the Circuit test. And that simple ratio 'pegged' the proper loading 'dead-nutts-on' or 'spot on'. It's nearly exactly the energy as for the 1st Resistive Load Test. Of course I was able to get actual power from this because I could measure the resistive load, and I know the battery voltages, and a child can do the math.


I then 'Proved' the Proof by applying this power 'DIRECTLY' to RL (using the precision DC power supply) which resulted in less heating on the test fixture.


Thanks PW,


Greg



picowatt

Quote from: gmeast on April 28, 2013, 10:39:59 PM

Hi PW,


Read it carefully. You are incorrect in your assessment, but I appreciate going through this exercise with you. The circuit load was a recorded value that 'was what it was' across SH3. It was NOT an established load, it was the load on the battery the circuit (seemingly) presented, or 5.6mV on 0.05-Ohm CSR SH3. It was a RESULTANT value on SH3 in the Circuit test. It was simply a value that was recorded. Nothing was 'set to it' in the Circuit Test. However, the 1st Resistive Load Test Was ADJUSTED to 5.6mV on SH3. So we have the same (seeming) load on the batteries ... one being the RESULT of loading the batteries and the other being SET AS THE LOAD on the batteries. What meters, scopes and instruments CANNOT DETECT are the energies providing either excess heat to RL or any energies being returned to the batteries, or both.


As it turns out, it doesn't matter what the load was for the 1st resistive load test. A heavier load would draw the batteries down sooner and a lighter load would draw them down later. A heavy load is a higher wattage (power) and a lighter load is lower wattage (power). What's important is where this discharge curve crosses the ENDING voltage of the Circuit test.  Higher Power X Shorter Time = Lower Power X Longer Time. It ends up being the same Watt-Hours of Energy.


The 2nd Resistive Load Test was the PROOF. I used the quotient of the 1st Resistive Load Test's Energy / The Circuit Test's Heating Energy (on the test fixture provided by the precision DC power supply) as a factor to adjust this test's resistive load such that its starting and ending voltages were the same as for the Circuit test. And that simple ratio 'pegged' the proper loading 'dead-nutts-on' or 'spot on'. It's nearly exactly the energy as for the 1st Resistive Load Test. Of course I was able to get actual power from this because I could measure the resistive load, and I know the battery voltages, and a child can do the math.


I then 'Proved' the Proof by applying this power 'DIRECTLY' to RL (using the precision DC power supply) which resulted in less heating on the test fixture.


Thanks PW,


Greg

Greg,

Possibly I misunderstood.

I thought you were running your pulsing circuit, noting the stabilized temp, and measuring time between battery start and stop voltages.

Then, usng the bench supply, you adjust for a similar stabilized temp and note the V and I from the supply.

Then, using the V and I figures from the bench supply test, you select a fixed resistor value that applies a similar load to the recharged and stabilized battery as the bench supply indicated and again note the time between battery start and stop voltages.

Efficiencyis then determined by comparing the first and last portions above.

If that is incorrect, I will have to take some more time when available to reread your protocol.

PW




gmeast

Quote from: picowatt on April 28, 2013, 11:13:29 PM
Greg,

Possibly I misunderstood.

I thought you were running your pulsing circuit, noting the stabilized temp, and measuring time between battery start and stop voltages.

Then, usng the bench supply, you adjust for a similar stabilized temp and note the V and I from the supply.

Then, using the V and I figures from the bench supply test, you select a fixed resistor value that applies a similar load to the recharged and stabilized battery as the bench supply indicated and again note the time between battery start and stop voltages.

Efficiencyis then determined by comparing the first and last portions above.

If that is incorrect, I will have to take some more time when available to reread your protocol.

PW


Hi PW,


Thanks for the exchange.  All of the information is in that Slide Show. When you:


... " take some more time when available to reread your (my) protocol." ...


it would be time well spent.  Actually there are so many technical and non-technical individuals who have contacted me and expressed gratitude for having explained these experiments in the detail and with the simplicity and clarity that I have, I don't see the need to engage you any further on this.  Most everyone else seem(s) to 'get it'.  My efforts are now aimed at conducting several dozen (more) experiments testing the reliability of my protocol and publishing the results as I have with the Heater Slide Show.


I do this for all of those experimenters out there that NEED a simpler way to conduct their experiments, take measurements, generate meaningful data and contribute technology that will help break the backs of the control mongers of this world. 


Regards,


Greg