Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 670029 times)

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1425 on: June 03, 2011, 03:33:58 AM »
For those that would also like to have all the schematics and scope shots posted thus far in order and in one convenient place, here is the updated pdf file.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1426 on: June 03, 2011, 07:37:01 AM »
Thanks Poynt.  Is that it?  Or is there more to come?  I don't really want to interrupt all this.

Regards,
Rosie

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1427 on: June 03, 2011, 02:27:04 PM »
There is one or two more yet to come, per my "more to follow". ;)

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1428 on: June 03, 2011, 04:15:02 PM »
Poynt  - here's the problem.  In order to disclaim benefit you first need to prove that there's no oscillation through the battery.  The thing you've got to do is show that no current flows through the battery during the negative cycle.  Because - here's the thing.  IF the oscillation is evident across the battery then - no matter the positive or negative voltage across the shunt resistor - instantaneous wattage analysis remains as a negative wattage.  This is the result of the advantage in the anti phase relationship between the shunt and battery voltage.  You just don't seem to get it.  Read the point of our 2nd test. 

And I haven't even dealt with your contradictions yet.  Your first set of examples did not factor in ANY inductance between the batteries.  Yet the value was equal to your 'expanded version' where you did factor this in.  And we know it wasn't factored in as we did that simulation.  Yet now you DO factor it in and then you reduce that inductance to show a corresponding decrease in the wattage.  My question is this.  How come it now shows a loss where it wasn't shown earlier?   It makes me nervous that there are hidden factors here Poynty.  We really need to know ALL your applied measurement parameters. 

And finally.  It is absolutely an incontestable fact that we REQUIRE inductance in order to generate that second cycle of current.  The difference is this.  You claim that if you remove it you thereby remove some of the benefit in that gain.  We agree entirely.  We need that material in order to KEEP THE VALUE of the current equal to or greater than the current that was first applied from the supply source.  That was the ENTIRE POINT of this and ALL similar circuits that we've built.  Here it is again.  The thesis requires that the circuit material itself is the source of the extra energy that is evident in the negative flow of current through the supply.  The difference is only in this.  Before we showed that benefit as a 'spike'.  Now we show it as it really is which is an self-sustaining oscillation. 

Regards,
Rosemary
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 12:12:36 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1429 on: June 04, 2011, 01:46:53 AM »
I think I need to comment on this post before it's lost in the thread.

For the next installment of simulation test runs, it's necessary to establish some simple background theory:

If each of the 6 twelve-volt batteries in the battery array have approximately the same state of charge, terminal voltage, and internal resistance, it is reasonable to assume that each of the 6 batteries will receive or supply the same amount of power in the circuit. As such, it is valid to measure and analyse the power in any one of the 6 batteries and apply a factor of 6x to obtain the total power in the circuit.
You need to specify whether you mean total power delivered or total power dissipated. Self-evidently it is NOT the total power in the circuit as the resistor element is also dissipating heat - is the first point. 

In this first test, the battery voltage probes are placed across the last jumper wire and last 12V battery. So we are measuring the voltage across a single 12V battery in series with 400nH of wire inductance in a single jumper. The power computes to -3.8W.
And here we have another contradiction.  May I remind you that your earlier results showed the following

                         Original full wire length: -106W
                         2/3 battery wire length: -77W
                         1/3 battery wire length: -48.5W


-3.8 * 6 is -22.8 watts - which no longer bears any relationship to the -106 watts as measured previously over the entire range of batteries.  I'm adding this as my point is not clear.  One would expect a proportionate reduction in the wattage - surely?

Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.
This makes no sense.  We have been given to understand that the power measurements, although represented as an average, were computed as the instantaneous product of vi dt.  How did you compute the amperage through the battery to determine +1.4 watts?  If you factored in the current flow from the resistance of the shunt at 1 Ohm - then, without question, you will INDEED get a positive value.  Because what you've actually factored OUT of the analysis is the rather significant fact that the current flow is both positive and negative - both clockwise and anti clockwise - both discharging AND recharging the battery.  Therefore - by simply eliminating the actual polarity of the current flow - by simply ASSUMING a positive current flow - then you MUST - INEVITABLY - get that number back to show a net discharge from the battery.  We do NOT typically see a 'negative' voltage across the battery.  Ever.  What we do see is a negative current flow through the battery.  You really need to show these waveforms if you're going to claim anything at all here Poynty.  Certainly if we're meant to follow this argument.  And whether the net current flow measured through the shunt is positive or negative - the fact remains that the instantaneous product of this and the battery voltage results in a negative mean wattage delivered by the battery supply. Again.  Please refer to our test 2 referenced in the report.

When the wattage probe available in PSpice is used to directly measure the instantaneous power of the single 12V battery, it computes to a net average of approximately -5.45W. If you recall the exercise on the polarity of power sources vs. power dissipators a little while back, you will know that the proper polarity for a source that is sourcing power, is negative. The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.
I cannot understand this at all.  Please clarify.  I understand the point of a 'common negative' as you put it.  But that 'common negative' is consistent with the flow of current during the discharge cycle of the battery.  It is therefore also consistent with the flow of current during the recharge cycle of the battery.  Correctly your wattage 'probe' if that's what's used to determine the actual instantaneous battery voltage and current through the battery should be positioned in the same way.  Why are you reversing it?  Please show us a schematic that indicates what you mean here.

Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W,
We do NOT know this?  Where did -5.45 watts come from?  You claimed +1.4 watts.  Then you made some kind of qualification with a rather confusing reference to your wattage probe polarity which I simply can't understand - and now you're claiming that the ACTUAL wattage, notwithstanding the earlier claim of +1.4 watts - is, in fact a negative 5.45 watts?  May we impose on you to please give us a schematic showing where you've put those probes if this is the source of the confusion.  Otherwise please stop referring to whichever of these two results are incorrect.  You have given yourself the extraordinary license of referring to either/or with a kind of freedom of choice that I am not sure is entirely applicable to accurate measurements anywhere. 

and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect.
What?  What are you trying to say?  Now we're back to your earlier statement.  Which value is correct?  +1.4 watts or -5.45 watt?  And what is absolutely NOT arguable is that the resistor Ohms is EVER factored in at 0.25 Ohms in your numbers.  It absolutely should NOT be applied to your simulations.  It ONLY ever kicks in when we compute the wattage during the brief 'on' period of the duty cycle when there are also no oscillations.  And your sims don't show this period at all.  You only work with those oscillations.  So.  If you're going to factor in 0.25 Ohms then this is most certainly wrong.  Then let me get back to this point you made.  You really need to clarify this Poynty.  You cannot use either value.  It's one or 'tother' - never either or - and certainly never both.  So.  Bearing the following 'quote' in mind as representative of 'true power' ...

       "As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W,"

it makes the balance of this reference rather absurd as you proceed to reference the +1.4 watts that you claim must be wrong if the -5.45 is correct.  And here's the rest of that reference.

If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).
Golly.  Does PSpice not manage impedance values?  Or are you saying that because your +5.6 watts balances better with your -5.45 watts that you prefer to NOT factor in the required impedance?  Are you suggesting that classical protocol errs when it computes an impedance value greater than the actual measured resistance when higher frequencies are applied?  Or are you actually running that oscillation at a really, really slow frequency? 

And then to compound the confusions you then state as follows

Computing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:

-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W

This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation.
Now we seem to be back to your earlier 'correct' analysis.  So where then is the relevance of your denial of this in your previous paragraph?  And why then contradict this AGAIN hereunder.

Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.

And then this rather startling conclusion...

Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.
As far as I remember you have NOT reversed the CSR probes.  I certainly HOPE NOT.  What you said was that you reversed your wattage probes and I am still not sure why?  There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the way they're configured. 

Poynty.  I'm rather inclined to think that your baffling us with that proverbial dust from bovines of the masculine gender.  You really need to explain the bases of your arguments better - with respect.  Please clarify these points before you confuse any of us any further. 

Regards,
Rosemary

(added)
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 08:44:08 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1430 on: June 04, 2011, 02:31:23 AM »
And guys, while I'm busy at this I wonder if I can remind you of the actual anomalies.  The fact is that the current that is being returned to the battery supply is equal to or greater than the current that was first discharged from the battery.  That is the point.  While this is consistent with simulations - it's also more glaringly evident on the experimental apparatus.  The fact is that this little bit of energy that is either gained or retained by the battery supply is able to 'cook' either our element or as is now being tested separately, the 12 volt automotive solder iron - at wattages that are measured to be upwards of 80 watts.  So.  The actual level of current flow does nothing to discharge the supply and does everything to heat the load. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1431 on: June 04, 2011, 06:59:06 PM »
No disrespect intended Rose, but I'd prefer to continue with this exercise until it is completed, rather than risk a lengthy, arduous debate at this time. I have one or two more installments to go, then all should be quite clear.

For the record though, I have indeed been posting all the necessary scope shots, including the battery current, via the CSR voltage wave form (VCSR or V3-2). That wave form clearly shows both positive and negative instantaneous battery current in all cases. Also, the schematics clearly show where the scope probes are placed, in all cases.

It is also apparent from your comments that you do not fully understand what I have been showing, and why. That is most unfortunate.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1432 on: June 04, 2011, 08:07:52 PM »
You keep writing things and then skipping past the questions and so you go -  ever twisting Poynty.  Very slippery.  You REALLY need to explain this paragraph.  Where exactly are the probes?  If they're as shown in the schematic then they are NOT reversed.  And let us know which wattage value is right and which is wrong and WHY.  Again.  I see now that you claim that you actually DO reverse your probes across the shunt?  Still not sure why. Because they're correct as per your schematic.  What you say is that it's needed to 'establish a common ground'.  IF you've established a common ground then they are NOT reversed.  SO.  Back to the question.  Which value is right?  The +1.4 watts or the -5.4 watts?  They can't both be right.  Surely it would not involve that lengthy debate - that you complain about -  to indicate which value you think is correct.  And you absolutely CANNOT claim that they're both correct.  Here's the reference.

Next, when the battery voltage probes are placed directly across the single 12V battery and no jumper, the power changes polarity and computes to roughly +1.4W.
The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes). This has been the case throughout this exercise. It adds a bit of confusion, but that is the direction the "powers" normally go and it's important to keep this straight in one's mind.

And here is the actual quote referenced above. 

"The reason the last computation of +1.4W turned out positive, is because the voltage probes across the CSR are reversed (as a matter of establishing common ground for both the CSR and battery probes)."  WHERE are they reversed?  Certainly they're NOT reversed on the schematic.

Now back to the issue of the correct value for the CSR. As we now know the true power in any one of the six 12V batteries is about -5.45W, and that the previous measurement using a single 12V battery times the CSR voltage (battery current) came to approximately +1.4W (assuming a 1 Ohm value for the CSR), it may become obvious that assuming the CSR value to be anything other than 0.25 Ohms is incorrect. If we take the +1.4W measurement and multiply it by 4x (1/0.25), we obtain a power of about +5.6W. I have been approximating the values read off the scope, so in reality the previous measurement would actually be closer to +1.37W. It should be clear from this that the correct value for the CSR when looking at DC INPUT power, is the actual resistive value of the CSR, in this case 0.25 Ohms (regardless if the current is pulsed at a high frequency or not).

And this, with or without respect - is the single most absurd piece of nonsense written in the name of scientific measurement.  HOW exactly to you justify IGNORING the impedance on a known resistance and inductance of the CSR at the frequencies of that oscillation?  Unless you are now claiming that classical measurement protocols are WRONG?  I'm sorry Poynty.  It's one thing to attempt to balance out the measured power values.  But what you CANNOT do is 'pick a number' that looks right.  The resistance of the shunt at 0.25 Ohms is most certainly WRONG unless you're using a 'pure' resistor in your schematic.  And you have NOT specified this. And then you are NOT replicating our circuit but simply designing a NEW circuit with different parameters. 

And so these contradictions continue.  On and On. 

Computing the total power (using the Wattage probe) from all 6 batteries in the array we have:

-5.45W x 6 = -32.7W

Nota Bene.  You clearly and unambiguously state the following.

This is the actual correct value and polarity for the total INPUT power of the battery array in this particular simulation. Now, if we take the previous +1.37W measurement (which used the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t)) using just a single battery and no jumper wire, and multiply it by 4 (because of the 0.25 Ohm CSR), then by 6 (for 6 batteries in the array), we obtain a power of about +32.88W.

Other than the polarity difference (because the CSR probes are reversed), the two powers are almost identical in magnitude, and it is safe to say that now with the inductance eliminated in the battery voltage measurement, the VCSR(t) x VBAT(t) computation by the scope is very accurate.


Golly.  IF you eliminate the inductance and with a reversed polarity resulting from the reversal of the probe positions and assuming a zero inductance on the CSR and ......? :o.

This isn't a scientific argument.  It's a fantasy.  It's an attempt to redefine a circuit with measured inductances and measured resistances and then changing the known values and substituting it with all with something that is IMPOSSIBLE to build experimentally.   Why?  And why should we take your proposals seriously unless you first explain this?  I assure you that there is no-one will understand you Poynt - unless they're telepathic perhaps.  Because what you're writing is confusing and contradictory and no longer bears reference to the actual circuit that your simulation should be simulating.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1433 on: June 05, 2011, 05:57:44 AM »
Let me see if I can simplify the argument for you.

Mainstream argument is this.  Voltage from the supply * amperage from the supply * time - is the total energy available to a circuit.  Therefore energy measured to be dissipated at the circuit can NEVER exceed the amount of energy first delivered.  Therefore in calculating the energy dissipated it is required that this amount DOES NOT EXCEED the amount of energy first supplied. That's Kirchhoff's Law.  Therefore current * voltage * time supplied by the source will always equal current * voltage * time on all the work measured to result from that input of energy from the supply. 

Faraday's inductive laws - on the other hand - require that current from a supply can induce a counter polarised potential over inductive and conductive material.  This measurable potential can induce a reversed current flow where voltage across that material * amperage * time from reversed polarisation of that that voltage allows that inductive and conductive circuit material to become a secondary energy supply source. 

Mainstream assumption has been that the amount of potential difference that is then induced over circuit material will, nonetheless, obey Kirchhoff's laws.  Therefore, the amount of energy dissipated through those collapsing fields as a result of Faraday's Inductive Laws and widely referred to as counter electromotive force - together with the amount of energy returned to recharge the battery - will still equal the amount of energy first supplied.  Therefore do Kirchhoff's Laws remain inviolate.

However.  All measurements of energy delivered by an electric energy supply source relates to the loss of charge measured at the supply.  A measure of this loss is not readily accessible at a utility supply plug source as typically, this only measures the amount of energy delivered. This because the value of the applied potential difference remains constant regardless of the amount of energy that may be measured to have been delivered versus the amount of energy that may be measured to have been dissipated.  However.  This value is readily enabled by the use of a battery supply source as any loss or gain of charge or potential difference, is readily measured at the terminals of that supply as voltage.

What is known about the discharge and recharge of a battery supply source is that current delivered in a clockwise direction through the circuit - which is signaled above zero - is shown to deplete the voltage or the potential difference at that battery supply source.  Equally, current delivered in an anti clockwise direction through the circuit - which is signaled below zero - is shown to replenish the voltage or the potential difference at that source. 

What is evident in this circuit of ours is that the voltage that is returned to recharge the supply from the reversed potential difference induced over those inductive and conductive circuit materials during the 'clock wise' flow of current - is then able to return either the same or more current than was first initiated from that supply.  This results in a zero loss of potential difference at the supply.  Notwithstanding which, the results ALSO show that there is a considerable amount of energy being dissipated on the circuit that does NOT relate to the amount of energy supplied.  This because the amount of energy from the battery is the sum of the battery voltage * current * time both delivered by and returned to that source.   This results in a negative or zero loss of potential difference at the supply.  Yet the amount of energy dissipated on the circuit is measured to be anything from 7 watts to upwards of 88 watts. 

And the output or work on the circuit only depends on the amount of potential difference applied to the circuit material from an initiating cycle in a switching circuit - the availability of path to enable that counter electromotive force and the frequency at which the switch is applied.  And what you're doing in your simulations here - Poynt - is proving this argument.  Because by eliminating the inductive components on the circuit you are then also eliminating the induced potentials required to show this benefit.

Sorry.  I left out the conclusion.  Therefore - in as much as the energy delivered by the supply is zero - yet there is considerable energy measured to be dissipated as heat - then one may conclude that the circuit material is, indeed, a potential energy supply source - provided only that its  inductive potentials are enabled through Faraday's Laws of Induction.

Regards,
Rosemary
Added.

also amended.  I wrote current where I should have written Voltage.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 06:18:27 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1434 on: June 05, 2011, 06:58:38 AM »
And Guys, I think the most of us know that this inductive 'kick back' has benefit.  But the actual questions here relate to what actually affords this kick?  It's one thing to point to this HUGE surplus of energy over anything previously predicted - but WHAT in fact, is the source of all that energy?  I would propose that it's long overdue that the properties of current flow actually get evaluated.  If these results of ours are correct - then we really do have a problem.  Because whatever is responsible for heating our heaters and lighting our lights is clearly NOT related to the depletion of any property in the current itself.  This is now shown to come from a source and to return to that source.  And depending on how it moves, depending on it's polarity or its direction - it can either recharge or discharge that potential difference without any real material loss as required by our concept of energy 'dissipating' at the various work stations on the circuit.

Then there's the questions related to that oscillation.  What precisely enables the continual 'imbalance' that also seems to generate a perpetual resonating condition at such high values.  The current from the battery induces a potential difference over the circuit materials that then induces a potential difference at the supply - and so it goes.  Never do either the circuit nor the supply seem to find that required balance that is the actual known object of charge flow.  Could it be that there are two separate current supply sources and never the twain do 'mix' - so to speak?  Because that would indeed explain why the oscillation perpetuates itself.   

Lots of questions.  I just wish the debate could move there instead of this incessant need to question the results that are - now - no longer contestable. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1435 on: June 05, 2011, 05:05:17 PM »
And in a further effort to move this argument forward - here's the thing.  When the voltage measured across the shunt is greater than zero then those same oscillations take the battery voltage to its lowest values.  And, correspondingly, when the voltage measured across the shunt is less than zero then the oscillations in the battery take that battery voltage to its highest levels.  therefore the discharge value is based on a decreasing voltage * amperage * time while the recharge is based on an increasing voltage * amperage * time.  Effectively, in discharging the circuit is potentialised to ensure that the second induced cycle corresponds to a high recharge cycle.  That's the advantage of the 180 degree anti phase relationship of those voltages across the shunt and the battery. 

And it's obvious why this has not been fully exposed prior to these tests.  It's simply because no-one has identified a use for that oscillation.  It's KNOWN to generate unwanted heat.  It's been discarded - or 'snuffed out'.  It has NOT been exploited.  Much is written on how to get rid of it. Nothing is written on why or even how, one should actually exploit it.

And then - to get back to those simulations.  One assumes that Kirchhoff's Laws are a natural consequence of energy transfers.  Therefore there was never a need to 'write in' any code that stated 'in the event that the circuit measures a negative wattage - then display 'THERE'S A BREACH IN THERMODYNAMIC CONSTRAINTS - THEREFORE THERE IS AN IMPLICIT ERROR IN THE SETTINGS IN THIS PROGRAM.  GO CHECK THE SETTINGS' - or such like warning.  The algorithms are classical and applied with the full confidence that NOTHING can, in fact, breach those constraints.  So.  When classical measurement protocols are applied - as they are in any such software - then one SHOULD be able to rely on some value that returns a positive rather than a negative wattage.  If they don't - and if the software simply and continually measures the results as they present themselves - and those results show that extraordinary 'gain' to the supply source, then there is only ONE CONCLUSION.  Classical measurement protocols have always allowed for this result - this breach in the energy barriers - and Kirchhoff's Laws are simply based on assumption and NOTHING ELSE.  Therefore - there is nothing NEW in our circuit.  Nothing NEW in this effect.  It's been there all along.

Which is embarrassing.  Because since the turn of the 19th Century - there has been one scientific consensus which is that the electromagnetic force obeys Thermodynamic Laws.  It clearly does not.  Or it certainly doesn't obey the 2nd Law.  However, the good news is manifold.  It absolutely conforms to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence and it promises that our electric applications can be about as clean and as green as it required to halt the rampant pollution resulting from the applied and wasteful abuse of this energy.  And this circuit - albeit highly efficient - is just the first unfolding of all this potential. 

I think we're near the end of this thread.  I'm still sending out reports and circulars - but this next week will be spent in finalising and then submitting the paper.  For those who do not know this - we've been invited - again - to submit.  This time I think there will be some active protection at the review stage that it isn't entirely rejected but - hopefully - simply for editorial amendment as required.  Then I trust we'll finally get to the stage that I've been yearning for for over a decade.  Its passage to the academic forum will then be ensured.  And that will be wonderful.  This technology badly needs close scrutiny from our experts and proper research - in order to advance it.  But I must pay tribute to these forums.  It's honed the argument precisely because it's been so brutally attacked.  And - I think - it's also weathered this storm.  Battered and bruised - but still very much alive.

Regards,
Rosemary 

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1436 on: June 06, 2011, 01:34:17 AM »
A summary of the detailed analysis performed thus far:

In order to more fully explore the subtleties of this circuit, the battery array and battery jumper wiring was included in the diagram, and hence in the simulation. The jumper wiring adds a total of 2uH inductance (5 jumpers x 400nH ea.) to the battery circuit. In addition, the DC feed wires from the battery array (RED and BLACK) to the MOSFETs and Load Element mounted on the perf board, were broken down into 3 wire segments, each with an inherent inductance of 1.1uH and resistance of 0.33 Ohms.

So the expanded DC feed wiring still exhibits a significant magnitude of total inductance (3.3uH) and resistance (1 Ohm) in keeping with previous diagrams and simulations, with the exception that about 1/3 more inductance was added at Rose's request. The previous total inductance was 2uH in each leg, now there is 3.3uH. The battery jumper wiring has a total of 2uH as previously mentioned.

From here, battery voltage measurements were taken across several points in the battery wiring part of the circuit. When multiplied with the CSR probe voltage, first the instantaneous, then average INPUT power was reiteratively computed for each battery voltage measurement point, and displayed in the many scope shots. The battery voltage measurement points start at node 7 shown on the diagram. This is the voltage measured at node 7 in reference to the GND BUS node 4. From here the battery voltage probes were moved progressively to the left (on both the RED and BLACK wire simultaneously) in the schematic such that the wiring inductance effects on the battery voltage measurement become evident. After 4 measurements, the battery probes end up located at nodes 1 and 3. At this point, the battery voltage is being measured across the battery/jumper array and the CSR inclusive (see "schema04.png"). This measurement point eliminates the effects of the inductance and resistance contributed by the RED and BLACK battery feed wires. Because the interest is strictly in the battery voltage alone, the bottom battery voltage probe was moved to node 2 in the schematic (see "schema05.png"). This now eliminates the effects of the CSR resistance and inductance on the battery voltage measurement. Throughout this progression of battery voltage measurement points closer and closer to the battery array, it was shown that the net battery power, although negative in polarity, was decreasing in magnitude with each progressive move closer to the battery array. Note, for each and every measurement throughout the exercise, the CSR probes remain across the CSR unchanged.

Next, it was explained that a valid INPUT power analysis can be performed by measuring only one of the six batteries in the array, assuming that each of the six are in a similar operating condition. Combining the voltage measurement across the last battery in the array with the adjacent CSR voltage (current) reading, INPUT power can be computed. Total circuit power is computed simply by multiplying by 6.

The next battery voltage measurement was taken across the last 12V battery (VBat6) and its associated wire jumper (LJumper5). See "schema06.png". Here it is shown that the INPUT power still computes to a negative value (-3.8W) (assuming CSR=1Ohm).

Once again, because the interest is strictly in the voltage across the battery itself, the top battery voltage probe was moved down, eliminating the effects of the jumper inductance on the measurement and providing a direct measurement of the battery voltage alone. See "schema07.png". As a reminder, it is critical to keep in mind how the INPUT power is computed; PBAT(t) = VBAT(t) x IBAT(t). VBAT is the battery voltage (either a single 12V, or all six), and this can not include the voltage contributed by any stray inductance. It is imperative therefore to measure the battery voltage directly across the battery terminals; no jumper or feed wiring can be included in this battery voltage measurement.

With the battery voltage probes placed directly across the last battery (Vbat6), the battery power computes to about +1.37W. As a result of measuring the battery voltage directly, thus eliminating the effects of the jumper inductance, the battery net average power figure has actually reversed polarity. Previously, when "LJumper5" was included in the battery voltage measurement, the net average battery (Vbat6) power computed to about -3.8W. This is the most important point all ought to pay close attention to, because it clearly shows how the inductance associated with only ~20 inches of wire can completely skew the net average power computation.

Next, it was shown that the total net average power from all six batteries computed to -32.7W (-5.45W ea.) using the Wattage probe available in PSpice. Note that the polarity of this net average power is negative, and this is the correct polarity for a source that is sourcing a net power. If the battery source was receiving a net power, the polarity would have been positive. This -32.7W is the TRUE power being sourced by the six batteries, and the key word is sourced. The evidence produced from the simulation clearly shows that the batteries are not receiving a net power and are not being charged, despite what appears to be the contrary when the battery voltage measurements are NOT made with the probes directly across the battery terminals (i.e. with inductance affecting the measurement as is the case shown in "schema06.png").

The probes as placed across the CSR are reversed, relative to the orientation of the probes as placed across the battery Vbat6. See "schema07.png". From top to bottom starting at the top of Vbat6, the probes are placed as follows: +, -, -, +. This is the reason a power computation using the probes configured as such, will yield a positive power (when made with no inductance in the battery voltage measurement) when multiplied together and averaged to produce a net power figure. The figure of +1.37W previously obtained clearly illustrates this fact (for a refresher, please refer to the previous discussion on the correct power polarity for power sources (NEG) and power sinks (POS)). The only reason the probes were placed in reverse across the CSR in the simulation, is because this is the best method available when using standard passive scope probes; it allows for a common ground point for both scope channels at node 2. This is how the Ainslie team was advised to orient the probes, therefore it was done this way in the simulation as well in order to keep the results the same.

The issue regarding the actual value that should be used for the CSR, is an issue that will be addressed in the next installments.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1437 on: June 06, 2011, 05:26:42 AM »
I'm finally honing in on the point OF POYNT'S confusions.  Reading CORRECTLY from the positive terminal THROUGH the circuit TO the negative terminal as is correct then the probes are ACTUALLY positioned as follows. 

Probe battery at positive terminal on the drain rail  +
Probe shunt at junction of the SHUNT AND circuit wire +
Ground of shunt and battery probes at battery negative terminal -

This is ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT with conventional protocols and allows a consistent reading of both probes of all the circuit's measured voltages relative, as they are, to zero.  Therefore the following...

The probes as placed across the CSR are reversed, relative to the orientation of the probes as placed across the battery Vbat6. See "schema07.png".
  The probes are absolutely NOT reversed according to your 'schma07.png'.  They are both positioned PRECISELY as required by ALL STANDARD CONVENTIONS that the positive and the negative voltages across both the battery and the shunt are consistent with the directional flow of current.  I'm afraid I have to contradict you here Poynty.  You have NOT reversed them.  What you have done is INCORRECTLY REFERENCED THEM AS FOLLOWS.

From top to bottom starting at the top of Vbat6, the probes are placed as follows: +, -, -, +.
SO.  You CANNOT read the probes from 'top to bottom' for goodness sake.  And nor can PSpice read them from 'top to bottom'.  How PSpice is reading them and how you SHOULD be reading those voltages - is their series positions starting from the positive terminal of the supply to the negative terminal of the supply though the circuit.  Therefore - correctly - the probes are as follows + + and COMMON -.  Else you are NOT reading the true voltages but reading a REVERSED voltage over the second or CSR probe.  You have made a mistake here Poynty.  Why?  You surely know better?

Which rather makes nonsense of the following.

This is the reason a power computation using the probes configured as such, will yield a positive power (when made with no inductance in the battery voltage measurement) when multiplied together and averaged to produce a net power figure.
It would be nice to blame this result on the incorrect positioning of the probes.  But the fact is this.  IF PSpice is showing a positive reading when the probes are positioned as the ARE INDEED positioned - THEN THAT READING IS CORRECT.  Therefore, INDEED, the following value is ALSO....

The figure of +1.37W previously obtained clearly illustrates this fact
...CORRECT.  In exactly the same way as the previous figures per schema 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 are ALSO correct.  All probe positions were ALL correctly positioned for PSpice to read a consistent polarity of current and voltage through the circuit.  So.  I do not get your point AT ALL with respect to any reference to a 'reversal of probe' polarities. 

(for a refresher, please refer to the previous discussion on the correct power polarity for power sources (NEG) and power sinks (POS)).
And I'm not at all sure that it's 'we' who need the refresher course here Poynty Point.  So  :o

The only reason the probes were placed in reverse across the CSR in the simulation, is because this is the best method available when using standard passive scope probes;
This is NOT the best method at all.  It's the ONLY method.  Good gracious.

it allows for a common ground point for both scope channels at node 2. This is how the Ainslie team was advised to orient the probes, therefore it was done this way in the simulation as well in order to keep the results the same.
I personally was NEVER advised on this.  Nor were any members of our team.  I assure you.  Happily we all KNOW that this is the ONLY AND CORRECT METHOD TO POSITION THE PROBES TO GET A CORRECT READING.

Good heavens Poynty.  WHAT are you going on about? 
Rosie

Added. It's a matter of some concern that we're at this level of 'dialogue' Poynt.  I thought you would have known better.  Or are you depending on our readers not knowing better?  I simply never know with you.  But if you doubt what I've said here - then go and speak to ANY of your own members.  Even MileHigh.  You ERR here, GROSSLY.  ... Actually, on second thoughts DON'T ask MileHigh.  Ask WW
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 05:56:14 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1438 on: June 07, 2011, 01:35:03 AM »
"Poynty", I do believe you've touched a nerve.
 :o

Rosemary, you either aren't understanding what poynt99 is saying, or you are deliberately obfuscating. Your objections to his analysis make no sense.
 :-*

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #1439 on: June 07, 2011, 04:33:24 AM »
"Poynty", I do believe you've touched a nerve.
 :o

Rosemary, you either aren't understanding what poynt99 is saying, or you are deliberately obfuscating. Your objections to his analysis make no sense.
 :-*

No TK.  I'm not obfuscating.  I'm clarifying.  It's Poynty who's been obfuscating.  You've all grown rather too reliant on your assumption of my idiocy.  Fortunately the readers of this thread and my blog include some heavy weights - unlike yourselves.  And it's that readership that is actually advancing this cause.  I don't want to be too precipitous here - but rest assured - right now I feel entirely HOPEFUL.  To be precise, I think I've finally slain the Jabberwocky.  "One, two! One, two! And through and through".  Our paper will be due for submission by mid month.  WHAT will you guys do when and if that's published?!?  You all really need to think HARD TK.  :o
 All that good news.  Where will it put you?     

Kindest regards,
Rosie

 ;D

and here's that all important link.
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html
I'ts been a long walk TK.  "The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
                                        He left it dead, and with its head
                                        He went galumphing back"