Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[allcanadian]

@poynt99
Quote:
"All TK would have to do for the control DC case to make it completely fair, is to place the MOSFET, diode, and shunt in series with the load resistor/coil and fix-bias the gate so the MOSFET is fully ON.
But then I wouldn't be surprised if TK already did it this way."

LOL, unfortunately it does not work that way in the real world, do you think the mosfet would dissipate the same heat when switching at high speed and fully on from a DC source?. As well you missed my point completely, I don't care if the comparison is "fair" in any way, shape or form, it is irrelevant. The fact remains that the conservation of energy applies in every case and the same heat will be generated in both the Ainsley circuit and control unless energy enters the system from somewhere else. As well you cannot just measure at the resistor/inductor, you must measure all heat generated everywhere in the circuits and they will always be equal unless more energy enters the system. It should be obvious that until you understand where this "extra" energy comes from or how it could be utilized, this whole experiment is pointless. You are doing nothing more than verifying the conservation of energy and not very well I might add.
Regards
AC

[TinselKoala]

Please review the original claims of Ainslie in the two relevant publications.

The main claim is that the LOAD heat energy is 17 times more than the BATTERY supplied during the time in question.

No claims have been made, nor investigated, concerning heat in the mosfet--except that I realize, OF COURSE, that the heating of components must be taken into account in the final accurate energy balance computations...which Ainslie has NOT done.

The above graph shows that, if the Ainslie circuit is OU in heating the load, then so must be my DC regulated supply, and by an even larger margin.

Any "wasted" heat in the mosfet or other components is irrelevant to this claim, or to the data displayed in the graph.

I assure you that I have nothing at all to do with whether or not anyone can or cannot access this website.

And I do not read the "energeticforum". I don't have time for the sports page or the funny papers, either.

[poynt99]

@AC

@TK
That is an interesting graph but of course it does not show the heat dissipated in the mosfet of the Ainslie circuit in which case the graphs would be nearly identical because as we all know energy is conserved. We also know the circuit generates heat, it is simply a matter of how much relative to the input and where it is generated in the circuit. In essence if one wanted to judge the graph as depicted it would represent a violation of the conservation of energy because you cannot get any less energy out than you put in for the same reason you cannot get more energy out than you put in, within a closed system. When you find out how one would make this closed system an open one then you will have the answers your looking for.
Regards
AC

@poynt99
Quote:
"All TK would have to do for the control DC case to make it completely fair, is to place the MOSFET, diode, and shunt in series with the load resistor/coil and fix-bias the gate so the MOSFET is fully ON.
But then I wouldn't be surprised if TK already did it this way."

LOL, unfortunately it does not work that way in the real world, do you think the mosfet would dissipate the same heat when switching at high speed and fully on from a DC source?. As well you missed my point completely, I don't care if the comparison is "fair" in any way, shape or form, it is irrelevant. The fact remains that the conservation of energy applies in every case and the same heat will be generated in both the Ainsley circuit and control unless energy enters the system from somewhere else. As well you cannot just measure at the resistor/inductor, you must measure all heat generated everywhere in the circuits and they will always be equal unless more energy enters the system. It should be obvious that until you understand where this "extra" energy comes from or how it could be utilized, this whole experiment is pointless. You are doing nothing more than verifying the conservation of energy and not very well I might add.
Regards
AC

These two sentences from your post refers to the two tests not being a "fair" comparison. Even though the word "fair" was not used, it is implied.

"...it does not show the heat dissipated in the mosfet of the Ainslie circuit in which case the graphs would be nearly identical because as we all know energy is conserved."

and

"In essence if one wanted to judge the graph as depicted it would represent a violation of the conservation of energy because you cannot get any less energy out than you put in for the same reason you cannot get more energy out than you put in, within a closed system."

Clearly you missed the point I was making, and that is: in order to show that indeed "energy is conserved", the initial test done as I proposed would take into account all other component dissipations in the circuit that would not have been accounted for if they were ommitted.

Pulsing the MOSFET at 2.4kHz is hardly a high frequency and the losses in it will be negligable, provided the gate drive has a reasonable (555 is ~100ns) rise and fall time. With a rise and fall time of 1us (relatively slow), there is about a 5% increase in dissipation in the MOSFET. The power dissipation in the MOSFET in each case will be about 200mW.

Taking a second look at the circuit and the proposed DC control test, the flyback diode in the RA circuit dissipates next to no power with the flyback spike being so incredibly short in duration. In fact this circuit is so heavily biased towards the resistive vs. reactive component that it is hardly worthwhile treating the resistor as an inductor at all. As such, the diode should be left out of the DC control test. Therefore, only the coil/resistor, MOSFET, and shunt should be in the control circuit. A DC voltage of about 4.6V will be required to achieve the same heat dissipation in the coil/resistor as in the pulsed-mode case using a 24VDC supply.

You go on to say this:

"As well you cannot just measure at the resistor/inductor, you must measure all heat generated everywhere in the circuits and they will always be equal unless more energy enters the system."

Both the circuits (as proposed) now contain the same components which are active in the heating process. As such, it is only necessary to measure the heat in the coil/resistor in each case, and compare input powers. The DC voltage in the control test is adjusted to achieve the same settled temperature as obtained with the pulsed circuit.

The COP btw of both circuits (pulsed and DC) is about 0.86.

And Regards to you too fine Sir,
.99

[spinner]

@spinner
Quote:
"In fact, it is well "underunity"- it's just a common, or, better,  quite useless electronic circuit. It actually doesn't have a real purpose... (except to feed all the amateur trolls at this very moment)..."

It seems almost every word you type is a contradiction to actual fact, the circuit is not useless it has been proven to generate heat, that is the "real" purpose you stated doesn't exist, LOL.

"actual fact"(?), "prooven to generate heat".... "real purpose"...

Big words... Tell me, what are the "actual facts"? Provided by which "authority"? A bunch of "OU enthusiasts"? Yep, those few must be smarter than the rest, millions of currently active experts, combined with all the previous generations and knowledge....

And, FET can "generate" heat? Uau!
17-times more than any other (obsolete) "electricity to heat" converter? OK..
Ah, got it... Electrons are somehow pumping the heat from surrounding (or any other currently unknown not recognised source, like a stardust radiation,..), entering the FET, dissipating the (additional) heat, and leaving the FET cold ....
Logical.
The other, rather old explanations, like a "FET" is just a "transistor" (link it with a bunch of obsolete "laws" like Ohm's...) Even the 'ole mr. Kirchhoff can come handy... As long as you know what are you looking for...

As for the simple, common or otherwise circuit components, do you know how many people have won a nobel prize for simply describing the interactions in and around a simple coiled piece of wire which in fact represets an air core inductance?

"Air core inductance"? A "simple coiled piece of wire" can really do that? And some people actually got a Nobel prize for that? Eh, you're kidding, right?! That's impossible!

If it is so common or better quite useless I wonder why all these people were awarded a nobel prize for their understanding of it?. As well there are those fools from MIT playing with simple coils of wire and transmitting electrical power, which Intel just paid millions of dollars to for stock options, maybe you can explain to them how common or useless their simple components are. Are these now very rich person's from MIT troll's as well?

People are transmitting "electrical power" ? No way... We all know that Tesla was just a crook, as were all his successors afterwards....
Even though I heard that an EM "transmission of energy" is quite common and widely used nowadays, I simply cannot believe it... "I'll ring you with my mobile"? Yeah, right... Joker...
I want to see you being "provided with a 10kW wireless power" (will it be enough for your needs?).
Just pick the frequency and the rest of the conditions...

You see what you and your merry gang of critics understand of basic electronics is not even a start in regards to what you need to know and understand in order to succeed and blaming others for your ignorance will not help matters. You are never going to succeed by measuring what is happening in the circuit proper, you have to understand the field interactions exterior to it and how they relate to one another and the circuit.
Regards
AC

Me and "my merry gang of critics" will do our best to understand what is going on.

I sincerely suggest that you do the same.

It seems there's a loooong way ahead of you before you'll catch anyone...

But I see you are improving your knowledge, which is good!
You're spreading the word of the damned "CoE principle" allmost like you know what you're talking about..!

Forgive me, I'm still remembering some of our previous "fruitfull" conversations, where you were calling me "ignorant" on many occasions... Like in that Archer's thread,.. (Well, lever isn't an OU device, is it?) ...
Or the "OU pool pump" ... Or... Name it...  Doh... Never mind..

Cheers,
spinner

P.S.
It's still kind of fun, isn't it?
I would like to have a "FET OU heater" for myself, too...!
But, I'm just an ignorant skeptic, so I'll probably never see the revelation....

[spinner]

Please review the original claims of Ainslie in the two relevant publications.

The main claim is that the LOAD heat energy is 17 times more than the BATTERY supplied during the time in question.

No claims have been made, nor investigated, concerning heat in the mosfet--except that I realize, OF COURSE, that the heating of components must be taken into account in the final accurate energy balance computations...which Ainslie has NOT done.

The above graph shows that, if the Ainslie circuit is OU in heating the load, then so must be my DC regulated supply, and by an even larger margin.

Any "wasted" heat in the mosfet or other components is irrelevant to this claim, or to the data displayed in the graph.

I assure you that I have nothing at all to do with whether or not anyone can or cannot access this website.

And I do not read the "energeticforum". I don't have time for the sports page or the funny papers, either.

Lol..
Battery is recharging while the "Ainslie circuit" is "generating" the heat...  And, generating heat is the best possible task for "electronic circuits", we all know that. And, "CoP of 17" is a good start..

Can we have a contest, who would provide "The best FET heating circuit with the known input power"? Please?? Eh, I'll pass...

TK, I'd go for yours "CoP of 20+" dc regulated/control circuit...
1 kW in, 20 out?; 

No wander that MiB are messing with your computers....