Exploring the Inductive Resistor Heater

[picowatt]

Discharge 'characteristics "no" ... energy drawn from the batteries "yes". I must say, you are the only one stuck on this "characteristics" nonsense.


To attempt to clarify things further:


I use a scope to make sure the waveform is not doing weird things. I monitor the FET's drain for waveform shape and SH3 for one of the mean CSR values and I also use a DVM on SH3 as a check for agreement between the instruments ... and they always agree. Using a DVM is that poynty-head's thing he's so proud of.


BUT ... the values from SH3 do not represent the energy consumed by the circuit. NO instruments can detect the types of energies that account for the excess heating on RL nor can they detect anything going on inside the battery as a result of D1.


You are simply assuming that the final judgement has been rendered as to how to measure anything and everything and that everything is known that is ever to be known and there is nothing left to be learned. How terrible that you have limited yourself in that way.


Bye

Greg,

I am trying not to asume anything.  In the slide show, you theorize that the observed excess is due to the magnetic collapse of Rload.  If this is the case, why is a battery needed?  If the observed effect is due to the collapsing inductance of Rload, should this effect not also be readily observed when the circuit is being fed from a DC supply?

If you ran the BH circuit on a well filtered DC supply and noted the circuit's power draw and Rload's stabilized deltaT and then applied that equivalent DC power directly to Rload and measured less stabilized deltaT, that would do much to support your claim of overunity from the collapsing inductance theory you propose.  As all measurements would be at DC, they would be fairly easy to perform.

Have you ever performed such a test?


PW

[gmeast]

Greg,

I am trying not to asume anything.  In the slide show, you theorize that the observed excess is due to the magnetic collapse of Rload.  If this is the case, why is a battery needed?  If the observed effect is due to the collapsing inductance of Rload, should this effect not also be readily observed when the circuit is being fed from a DC supply?

If you ran the BH circuit on a well filtered DC supply and noted the circuit's power draw and Rload's stabilized deltaT and then applied that equivalent DC power directly to Rload and measured less stabilized deltaT, that would do much to support your claim of overunity from the collapsing inductance theory you propose.  As all measurements would be at DC, they would be fairly easy to perform.

Have you ever performed such a test?


PW

Hi Picowatt,


I am NOT claiming anything relating to the source of the excessive heat on RL, I only suggested some possibilities. I have NO idea where the stuff comes from, only that more equivalent energy in the form of heat evolves than the energy supplied to it.


".. then why is a battery needed?"


That is perhaps the best question of all. Why?


Hooking up a DC supply to the circuit in place of the batteries yields completely different oscillations. I have tried this many times. It's just not the same thing, nor should it be regarded AS being the same thing.  That's just foolishness. One is a power supply and the other is batteries. Power Supply DOES NOT EQUAL Batteries.


Example of the traction drive:
Two discs ... one driving, one driven and under load. Their peripheries are in contact. The two discs each have gear teeth on their peripheries. The driven disc can't slip against rotation because both discs have gear teeth. Now I'm going to make the gear tooth pitch greater with many more finer and smaller teeth. Again, no slippage because they both have gear teeth. I now make the gear teeth so fine with so many of them that by all measurement each disc's periphery seems smooth and polished and now resembles a traction drive. But now under a lesser load, the  driven disc now slips. Why? ... because a gear drive is not the same a traction drive.  In theory, there should not be any difference between a set of coarse-toothed gears and a set of gears with infinitely many very fine gear teeth each ... but there IS.


So when you imply that a Power Supply as a DC source is the same as a Battery as a DC source, you couldn't be more mistaken.


You simply refuse to accept the possibility ... the possibility that your grandiose, expensive and sophisticated scopes and other 'accepted' devices just aren't measuring the types of energies present in these systems because they can't.


At this point, I'm now wasting my time here. You are anti-free energy, anti-OU, anti-OO or whatever you want to call it. I should have known that one of you characters from the TK assassination squad would show up.


I'm done sharing here. I have better things to do with my time than to play into your condescendence.


Adios

[picowatt]

Hi Picowatt,


I am NOT claiming anything relating to the source of the excessive heat on RL, I only suggested some possibilities. I have NO idea where the stuff comes from, only that more equivalent energy in the form of heat evolves than the energy supplied to it.


".. then why is a battery needed?"


That is perhaps the best question of all. Why?


Hooking up a DC supply to the circuit in place of the batteries yields completely different oscillations. I have tried this many times. It's just not the same thing, nor should it be regarded AS being the same thing.  That's just foolishness. One is a power supply and the other is batteries. Power Supply DOES NOT EQUAL Batteries.


Example of the traction drive:
Two discs ... one driving, one driven and under load. Their peripheries are in contact. The two discs each have gear teeth on their peripheries. The driven disc can't slip against rotation because both discs have gear teeth. Now I'm going to make the gear tooth pitch greater with many more finer and smaller teeth. Again, no slippage because they both have gear teeth. I now make the gear teeth so fine with so many of them that by all measurement each disc's periphery seems smooth and polished and now resembles a traction drive. But now under a lesser load, the  driven disc now slips. Why? ... because a gear drive is not the same a traction drive.  In theory, there should not be any difference between a set of coarse-toothed gears and a set of gears with infinitely many very fine gear teeth each ... but there IS.


So when you imply that a Power Supply as a DC source is the same as a Battery as a DC source, you couldn't be more mistaken.


You simply refuse to accept the possibility ... the possibility that your grandiose, expensive and sophisticated scopes and other 'accepted' devices just aren't measuring the types of energies present in these systems because they can't.


At this point, I'm now wasting my time here. You are anti-free energy, anti-OU, anti-OO or whatever you want to call it. I should have known that one of you characters from the TK assassination squad would show up.


I'm done sharing here. I have better things to do with my time than to play into your condescendence.


Adios

Greg,

I have only been trying to understand and discuss your experiments and methodologies.  Why all the attitude?  You seem to think you know what I think, great, where did you get that from?  I am not Harvey, I don't speak French, I am not "anti-OU" nor am I refusing to accept anything.  But, that is another matter.  In any event, is anyone that questions your methods or attempts to understand them subject to such behavior?  If so, good luck with that.  It will surely not assist you in gaining further acceptance.  I, however, am doing my best to ignore it...
 

I have looked over your slides for some time.  I believe I follow and can agree with your methods up to a certain point.

From your own measurements, it looks like you are saying that to produce the same deltaT as the BH, it takes 3.16watts from the DC supply.  Using the rheostat to produce the same Vdrop at SH3 requires 3.09watts.  Although I think there may be an error with regard to how you are determining the contribution of of the gate drive to the circuit, using your figure of .117watts, then apparently, from your numbers, the BH is using 3.2 watts to produce an output of 3.15 watts.  Even that just under OU efficiency is, it itself, amazing, but as I said, I believe you need to study the contribution of the gate driver a bit further.

When you disconnect the drain Vsupply, the capacitances in the FET increase to their extreme maximums, i.e., the driver sees a maximum capacitive loading.  When you reapply drain voltage, the FET capacitances reduce substantially.  Merely comparing and using only the difference in driver power between those two conditions may not provide an accurate assessment of the driver's power contribution to the circuit overall.

But, where I am having the most difficulty accepting your results is when you use the time it takes the battery to discharge to 27.44V when loaded with the rheostat to determine total watt hours consumed.  This is where my concern regarding a battery's capacity varying with different load profiles comes into play.   If desulphation and pulse plating effects cause the battery to have an increased capacity when the load is pulsed above that capacity observed under a DC load, it would be improper to use the disharge curve as you do to determine watt hours.

To expect similar discharge curves from a battery under a given load for 8 hours and that same battery under that same given load for the same duration but with a desulphator circuit attached would be questionable at best.

Regarding the oscillations being different with a DC supply, have you attempted to produce the battery's equivalent circuit at the output of your supply?  That is, isolate the supply with an equivalent circuit that models the measured ESR, ESL and C of the battery?  That may allow you to produce the same oscillations using the DC supply and perform further investigations using just the supply.


PW   

   

[TinselKoala]

@PW:  Of course you are Harvey. Who else could you be? You are Harvey, I am Brian (or Bryan) .... the Red Queen has declared it to be so, therefore it is so.

Note that she also continues to lie and to libel us both, as well as .99,  in letters she is sending to other people.  The outrageous lie about .99's simulation, and the absurd continuing fascination with "pickles"..... reveal her mendacity and her madness for all to see.

[MileHigh]

TK:

It looks like the domain name servers don't like Rosemary's baby anymore.  Could it be temporary or something else???  Knocked off the air by a Zipon-Neutron bomb?

Gmeast:

When you speak to PW you are graced with the presence of Zen Master electronics and measurement guru.  Harvey is not in the same league as PW at all.  Rosie Posie can't qualify anyone because she has no knowledge base to work with.

I have only skimmed at some recent postings on this thread and I can tell you that you should take every single word that PW says very very seriously.

MileHigh