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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011  (Read 741404 times)

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #225 on: March 23, 2011, 02:32:38 AM »
Hi Poynt,
please try again your simulation with this setup please
and show burst waveforms (many cycles) and 3 to 4 cycles
on one scopeshot.

Many thanks.

Here you go Stefan. Notice the difference across the shunt, with and without the 110nH series inductance...

.99

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #226 on: March 23, 2011, 04:09:16 AM »
Harti,
Regarding your question related to the 'default' mean average voltage to positive during the 'high' wattage dissipation on the load - here's the reference in the report under RESULTS

3.2 Second test
The mean average and cycle mean average voltage across Rshunt indicates that some current has been discharged by the battery to the source rail. However, instantaneous wattage analysis applied to the voltage measured across the battery and Rshunt indicate, here too, that the battery supply source has had more energy returned to recharge it than was first applied to the circuit.  When this is applied to each sample from a spreadsheet analysis across the 500 000 to 1 million samples supplied by the digital storage oscilloscopes, then the product of this and the battery voltage represents the instantaneous wattage. The sum of these values, divided by the number of samples, represents the average wattage delivered over the entire sample range. This results in a negative value indicating that more energy is still being returned to the battery than was delivered. This is in line with the math function of the DSOs where it, too, indicates an increase of wattage back to the battery supply over the amount of wattage initially delivered from that supply.

More wattage returned to the battery than was delivered
Wattage dissipated at RL1= 44 watts
Switching results in the generation of extreme spiking at the transitional phases of the switch. 


The following is the video @ 6.33 minutes highlights the neg mean over the shunt - compared to 7.03 minutes that highlights the default to positive - notwithstanding the continued negative mean average.  This is in the annotations at the start of the video.  In the report this was listed under 'anomalies' PRECISELY as it's required to get an expert evaluation here.

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

There was an extensive debate held at OUR.com related to the correct wattage measurements.  The consensus was that wattage is correctly computed as the instantaneous product of vi over time.  If you look closely at the antiphase condition of the voltages across the shunt and the battery you will see that when the battery voltage is trending high - then the voltage across the shunt is trending low.  And conversely when the battery voltage is trending low - then the voltage across the shunt is trending high.  In effect, the returning current flow from the circuit 'trumps' the discharge from the battery that there is a zero loss to the battery - and, according to the math - results in a gain.  THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTIPHASE CONDITION OF THOSE VOLTAGES.  I have referenced this in this thread - extensively - and on the blog.  I have, in fact, been trying to draw your attention to this from the get go.  This is one of the many aspects of this 'evidence' that requires research and expert analysis.  This is also PRECISELY why we included two tests - to highlight this very point.  If the measurement of instantaneous wattage is a correct reflection of the energy delivered by the supply then here there is an inevitable net gain to the supply.  Interestingly - the voltage measured across the battery - defaults to less than its 12 volt each 'start' voltage and then, within minutes, recovers to its previous value. 

While I appreciate that this is now being used as a 'last ditch' effect by Humbugger as he reaches deep into that barrel in his efforts to refute the claim - it is, in point of fact, the ENTIRE theme of that demonstration.  That, and the fact that there is a negative mean average over the resistor at all.  Good heavens.  We could not have been more transparent in our evidence if we had recorded the demo in 3D.

There is NO simple explanation here guys.  There are challenges to conventional protocols, conventional predictions - conventional assumptions - ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #227 on: March 23, 2011, 04:13:07 AM »
Here you go Stefan. Notice the difference across the shunt, with and without the 110nH series inductance...

.99

Poynty - I can no longer see your waveforms and i would LOVE to see them.  There are others of us who also cannot open those files.  WOULD YOU PLEASE POST A PICTURE and just size it that it fits this thread.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED
This is copied over from your forum - written by you Poynty Point.

'Indeed, I am having difficulty figuring out why her shunt trace is at zero. Mine is showing about 1.5V or so, and hey, 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6V. It would seem what I'm showing is about right.'

I think what you meant is 0.25/11 x 72 = about 1.6 watts, NOT VOLTS.  In which case can you then explain the temperature over the load which, typically, is at 6 watts or greater at 72 volts applied.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 05:22:59 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #228 on: March 23, 2011, 04:29:15 AM »
Rosemary,

At 8:40 into the video, while your colleague is demonstrating 190C on the load with a 50VDC battery voltage, there is a good closeup of the LeCroy which shows that there is +243mV (about 1 Ampere on a 0.25 Ohm shunt) flowing out of the battery.

Could you please explain to everyone why the scope math that is showing us the product of the +243 mV trace and the +50.3 VDC battery voltage is telling us that the product is -5.43 VV?  How does the scope get a negative small number by multiplying two positive numbers?  By my figuring (even without using a calculator) 1A x 50VDC = 50 Watts.  All positive numbers flowing out of the battery.

Please clear this up.  It's rather confusing.  Thank you.

cHeeseburger

I trust that my previous post has now addressed this Humbugger.  It is the result of the phase shifts that the advantage goes to the charge condition of the battery.  Just bear in mind that the negative product of the voltages done by the math trace on both the LeCroy and the Tektronix is born out in the spreadsheet analysis.  AGAIN.  We have asked for EXPERT opinion on this as we are applying conventional power measurement protocols - based as they are - on wattage analysis.

Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #229 on: March 23, 2011, 04:34:07 AM »
Guys - I feel I'm trying to walk in a bath of treacle.  I thought that these facts had already been understood.  Harti.  You keep asking for 4 traces.  Please look at the frequency of that 'burst oscillation mode'.  That occurs at a rate that is determined - not by the switch - but by some resonating condition that is imposed on the circuit as a result of inductance.  Then.  Please note that the oscillation is self sustaining whether it is dissipating high or low energy on the load.  We ARE, indeed, showing you four or six cycles.  We then zoom into that oscillation.  There is no other way that this can be represented.

Kindest,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #230 on: March 23, 2011, 04:49:59 AM »
And Poynty - I actually do not care WHAT the inductance is on that shunt.  I only care that there is an antiphase condition that is born out in that those oscillations can be sustained.  Clearly they are re-inforcing each other that they continue certainly for as long as 3 minutes and, possibly, indefinitely.  You can factor in whatever value you like.  When it comes to an analysis of power then that ANTIPHASE CONDITION OF THOSE WAVEFORMS RESULTS IN A GAIN.  They clearly persist. And yet there is a sustained temperature measured at the load. 

In short - if one can allow that reversing current flow - WITHOUT blocking their paths - that they can move through the circuit in both directions - then they simply do not appear to 'ring' down to zero as is conventionally expected.  It really does not matter what values precede this event.  At that moment - in burst oscillation mode - you will be left with a net gain to the battery.  And at higher wattages, and as has been pointed out by Neptune - the theoretical implications are that we should simply apply more MOSFETs.

Rosemary   

cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #231 on: March 23, 2011, 05:11:16 AM »
I trust that my previous post has now addressed this Humbugger.  It is the result of the phase shifts that the advantage goes to the charge condition of the battery.  Just bear in mind that the negative product of the voltages done by the math trace on both the LeCroy and the Tektronix is born out in the spreadsheet analysis.  AGAIN.  We have asked for EXPERT opinion on this as we are applying conventional power measurement protocols - based as they are - on wattage analysis.

Rosemary

Since you are directly addressing me, Rosemary, I'll do you the honor of a direct reply.  The anti-phase relationship between the drain voltage and drain current is a normal expected fact of life in all MOSFET circuits that have the load between the drain and the power supply.  As the current rises, the drain voltage falls and vice-versa.  It explains and indicates and proves absolutely nothing and need not be analyzed by experts at all.  It's how all MOSFETs work.  It's just inherent.  Junction transistors and tubes do the same thing.  It's basic basic.

I pointed out and Stefan and others seem to agree with me that the higher-power setup indeed shows a draw of net 50W (50V x 1A) out of the battery while producing 40-some Watts of heat.  The negative reported number of the math trace is obviously in error, as one cannot obtain a negative result by multiplying two positive numbers.  It's that simple.  Stefan even gave one plausible theory as to how the error occurred.

You must also be aware, I hope, that the VV math trace and resulting number it generates is not the power in Watts.  The scope is not a sentient being and is unaware that one of the traces represents the current, so it cannot know that it is calculating power.  That's why it is labelled VV, or VxV and not Watts.  Also, the scope does not know the value of the shunt resistance, so it could not possibly give a result in Watts. 

So the claim that the higher power second test shows a net charge into the battery is just not true, based on the +243mV mean current shunt measurement your scope clearly shows.  The negative scope math number (-5.43 VV) is unfortunately wrong and an error, as pointed out clearly by myself and acknowledged also by Stefan and others.


Kindest Regards,

Bryan
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 05:25:07 PM by cHeeseburger »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #232 on: March 23, 2011, 05:38:09 AM »
Hi Rosemary . Could you please clarify two points from the video . Is the heating element in the canister immersed in water , or just air . Also , the 5 mosfets are mounted on separate heatsinks . Are these heatsinks electrically isolated /insulated from each other? From the experimenters point of view , does the higher efficiency of the present element justify its additional complexity and expense when compared to a simple wire wound element on a ceramic core?

Apologies Neptune.  I missed this.  The canister is just air.  The FETs are all insulated from their heatsinks.  There is a DEFINITE improvement in using this resistor element.  I think it's the added resistance and material from the casing - is my take.  But I'm absolutely NOT certain what's required Neptune.  This is where we need research.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #233 on: March 23, 2011, 05:54:00 AM »
Hi Magluvin

thank's very much for your reply 208 and included schematic
 
i did a small test of your idea and hope this is not too much off topic here ;)

perhaps you should open a specific thread for this specific idea  ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrwgEb5ac_w

And of course my BRAVO to Rosemary and her team for sharing  :)

good luck at all

laurent
Laurent - glad you like the video.  May I return the compliment.  That's a REALLY interesting result on your video.  It seems that there's way, way more energy available than from the supply.  Indeed that's where our own results point. 

Many thanks for highlighting this.  I hope you'll keep these results here if you do continue experimenting on this.  Or at least post over your results.  I think it's very much on topic as it seems to indicate that we've been ignoring the potential energy from the mass of circuit material.  That's been a big complaint of mine for some time.  LOL.

Very well done and another very clear video.  And Mags seems to be on the right road here - so, well done Mags.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #234 on: March 23, 2011, 06:09:44 AM »
So you agree that he second test shows 44W of heat costing 50W of battery drain, right?  And thank you for clearing my post.  It is an honor to be allowed to post here once in a while.  I'll not abuse the privilege,
I'm intrigued with this comment.  WHERE did Harti say that 44W of heat costs 50 Watts of battery drain?  I missed this entirely.  Or are you SPINNING here Cheesebreath?  I recall Harti mentioning that there MAY be a loss here - nothing definitive.  And that there is NO LOSS is born out in the instantaneous wattage analysis as indicated by the math trace.  Really Humbugger, Cheesburger, Cheesebreath, whoever it is that I'm addressing, you spin with great aplomb.  But it would be pleasant change if you could simply stick to the facts.

Quote from: cHeeseburger link=topic=10407.msg278911#msg278911
date=1300841590
Regarding the first test, then, we all agree that it would have been nice if Rosemary had given us a shot or two showing the actual waveform of the oscillation, rather than exclusively showing low-sweep-speed shots of the 100Hz duty cycle where no one can see the cycle by cycle shape of the actual oscillations.
The scope - unfortunately - can only show each cycle as they actually occur.  Between each cycle is a resonating or oscillating condition that the circuit generates.  There is NO OTHER WAY THAT THESE OR ANY OSCILLOSCOPES CAN SHOW THIS.  Are you entirely missing the point here Humbugger?  If you look at Poynty's CORRECT simulation - you'll see he has the same problem.  We are showing the waveform EXACTLY as it is.  Good heavens.  And you claim some kind of expertise to comment?  Then you'll need to get your head around this as clearly you have no idea what we're referring to.

SInce we know that the actual power into or out of the battery depends on the areas under the curves above and below zero and not on the peak voltage excursions there, and we acknowledge never having been showed those areas at any time, how can we conclude anything realistic about the first test based on only those peak excursions and the math trace which we agree was faulty and in error on the second test?
Which makes these comments equally spurious. 

What if the cyclic oscillation waveform looks like this picture?

Cheesebreath
It would only be relevant if it did.  It doesn't.  You really need to learn to read our scope values Cheesebreath.  We can only show what the scope shows.  That's a given. 

Golly. ::)

Rosemary

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #235 on: March 23, 2011, 06:13:52 AM »
Steve, it seems that I'm only selectively notified - per email - when posters comment on this thread.  Is this intended? Or is it some malfunction in your system?  I've been given notice of exactly 1 posting.  And to my surprise I find a whole lot of them.

I'll make enquiries at this end - but would be glad if you could see if there's some kind of glitch in your system.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #236 on: March 23, 2011, 07:19:21 AM »
hey Rose and Woopy

Woopy   Great show!  =]

Remember Woopy, it is not bemf here, the diode prevents that. =] Cant happen.

In your first test of the circuit with the switch open, Imagine this....

Battery is 5v.
No voltage across inductor
No voltage across the capacitor
The diode is just a one way street and nobody on it  ;]

When we close the switch, the first reactive component is the capacitor. It sees the potential available and wants to be equal with the voltage that is presented and current flows in the circuit.
The inductor builds a field as current flows.

Think of this, as the circuit goes from no charge on the cap to full charge, The current in a normal circuit will decrease as the cap reaches battery level, even just trickling in the last bit to the cap.

Well here we have that same deal, and the inductor is involved in that deal now and as the cap grows in charge, current slows and it will have less influence on the inductor over time till cap is full.

So what we are seeing is, the inductors magnetic field climb and peak, then the peak begins to collapse as the caps voltage increases, the potential difference available to affect the inductor becomes less and less, so naturally the field declines till the cap is full and the circuit has no more current flowing because the cap is now charged and current stops.  NOPE

When we kicked the inductor into motion, the flywheel starts rolling.

When the cap is reaches battery voltage 5v, the inductor is not done spinning, the field is STILL collapsing, forward current Still flows and forces another 4 to 5 volts into the cap.

When the field collapses to nada, our work is done.

Think, collapse is suppose to cause bemf, then why do we not have that here? Instead we got the Merry go round spinning on the amount of energy it took to charge that cap  to battery voltage in series circuit. But what do we see?  The merry go round is still spinning and forces more current into the cap, thus more voltage til the inductors field collapses to no field at all.
No bemf here. Diode wont allow it and your vid just proved what Im saying is truth. ;]

In the vid, I noticed you tapped the battery then released then connected. That little tap cost a vit of inertial value due to now the cap got a small charge before the full connect.  It was not your intention, just a mistake. Now the cap wont have as much continuous pull through the charge from beginning to end because it wasnt empty.  But you did great. The voltage should mostly always be around just less than 2 times batt. 

The comment on your vid says different cap size will do wonders, nope.
The cap is the amount of enegry that drives the circuit.  So a big cap, big long currents, etc.

Your test proves Im correct, your inductor wasnt the same, your cap wasnt the same, but bam just about 2 times the voltage. 

Im so haaaPPY   IM SO HAAAppy!   

Okee   The second setup with the shorting of the cap. That IS the Tesla Igniter pat. way of getting that inductor really spinning because now it is not a declining current in the circuit due to cap charging, you are going all the way baby, kids are flying off this merry go round, and current is moving forward. Now when you release the short, that flywheel pumps that cap way beyond battery voltage.

Thin is, it isnt free. it is pulling current from the battery to charge the cap, that is how much influence the energy stored in the inductor had.

This is all just to show that when an inductors "field" builds  n n N N and on the other pole s s S S  when the current is slowed down or stopped, the field collapses N N n n  and S S s s  and is still pushing forward current, to what ever it is connected to it and will accept it, as seen in woopys vid. ;]  No reverse emf here.  Diode doesnt allow it.

If the inductor is actually disconnected from the circuit by a switch or a transistor that acts as a switch, the field collapse NNnn and SSss trys to force current forward but cant, no where to go. So the inductors self capacitance gets charged really hard, compressing electrons from its tail end to the forward end, and the field is finally zero. Now this compressed charge is very strong and relaxes its spring in the opposite direction(bemf) and the inductors poles s s S S and n n N N, and thus we have a high voltage potential in the opposite direction, and some flywheel effect in the other direction to go along with it.  ;]

Thanks Woopy   This was my precharge circuit when I was doing the sims a while back.

Field collapse isnt the cause of bemf, the bounce of the FEMF during the collapse and it bouncing off of the internal capacitance, that what causes bemf.  But most people I know think that reverse voltage is produced during collapse and thats not the truth.  ;]

Mags


cHeeseburger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #237 on: March 23, 2011, 07:43:54 AM »
I'm intrigued with this comment.  WHERE did Harti say that 44W of heat costs 50 Watts of battery drain?  I missed this entirely.  Or are you SPINNING here Cheesebreath?  I recall Harti mentioning that there MAY be a loss here - nothing definitive.  And that there is NO LOSS is born out in the instantaneous wattage analysis as indicated by the math trace.  Really Humbugger, Cheesburger, Cheesebreath, whoever it is that I'm addressing, you spin with great aplomb.  But it would be pleasant change if you could simply stick to the facts.
The scope - unfortunately - can only show each cycle as they actually occur.  Between each cycle is a resonating or oscillating condition that the circuit generates.  There is NO OTHER WAY THAT THESE OR ANY OSCILLOSCOPES CAN SHOW THIS.  Are you entirely missing the point here Humbugger?  If you look at Poynty's CORRECT simulation - you'll see he has the same problem.  We are showing the waveform EXACTLY as it is.  Good heavens.  And you claim some kind of expertise to comment?  Then you'll need to get your head around this as clearly you have no idea what we're referring to.
Which makes these comments equally spurious. 
It would only be relevant if it did.  It doesn't.  You really need to learn to read our scope values Cheesebreath.  We can only show what the scope shows.  That's a given. 

Golly. ::)

Rosemary

Again, Rosemary, since you are addressing me directly, I will try to answer your questions and address your comments.

Where did I get the 50W and 44W numbers and did Stefan agree with them...

The numbers all came directly from you, Rosemary.  44W is what you said the power in the load was, as estimated by the heat signature.  50W was derived by plain old arithmetic based on your scope's reported mean voltage on the shunt of +243mV (that's just about exactly 1A on a 0.25 Ohm shunt) and the same scope's reported battery voltage mean of +50.3 VDC.  Multiply these and you get about +50W flowing OUT of the battery. 

Everyone accepted those two basic bits of scope data as good numbers and Stefan agreed that the -5.43 VV your scope got by supposedly multiplying those two positive numbers was obviously wrong.  He attributed the error to your use of offsets to position the scope traces and then not accounting for the offset during the math.

Regarding your scope traces and everyone's constant request that you show the waveform of the oscillation itself, just a few cycles of it, rather than always showing just the burst envelopes at a slow sweep speed...

I am getting the idea from your statements above that you may be misunderstanding the requests.  The burst envelope is that 100Hz 50% duty cycle stuff you always show on the scopes.  Everyone  probably by now accepts that the circuit will oscillate forever once it is started.  Therefore, the bursts are not of much further interest.  We all see and believe that the circuit oscillates at 1.5MHz when the gate is low and stops oscillating when the gate is high.

What people want to see is the actual waveshape of the 1.5MHz oscillation itself.  Just a few cycles of it expanded out to cover the whole screen.  Now this is easy to capture if you know how to work the triggering, the trigger delay, the zoom, etcetra.  And it will show us all some things we want to see that you have never allowed us to see before, like the its actual shape and the relative time and area above and below zero.  No big deal, but I guess it's too late to do it now that the scopes are gone.   

The only thing that makes this at all tricky to capture is that the 1.5MHz oscillations take a while to settle to a regular cyclic pattern after the burst begins, so it's hard to try to capture the very first bunch.  They won't all look the same until the jolt that got them started has faded and the regular repeating identical oscillation cycles steadily continue. 

This is where knowing how to use the triggering and zoom features is essential.  Believe me, these scopes can capture and display any part of any waveform you want to look at.  You just have to know how to use all the scope's powerful triggering and horizontal timebase features.

By the way, the only material and significant diffrence between my sim and Poynt's is that he uses a repeating pulse generator like you do to stimulate the start and stop of the oscillations.  I purposely used a single-shot pulse to demonstrate that the oscillations will continue forever once started, something you have speculated on but not tried yet, I guess.  My oscillations turn on and off too when I use a repeating pulse generator, but I thought this had been thoroughly demonstrated already and wanted to add some new findings to the knowledge base.

If I left anything unanswered please feel free to persist in your inquiries.

Kindest Regards,

Bryan
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 06:01:22 PM by cHeeseburger »

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #238 on: March 23, 2011, 07:51:14 AM »
Now, if we understand that, imagine keeping the flywheel going buy Kickin it in intervals to keep it going with the shorting the cap technique.
That was teslas way of keeping the discharge cap full in the igniter pat. 

Femf.   Or maybe a correct term  FCCFEMF 

Field Collapse Continued Forward Electro Motive Force.

Night

Mags

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie circuit demonstration on Saturday March 12th 2011
« Reply #239 on: March 23, 2011, 08:01:38 AM »
Mags - the fact is that there is considerably more charge in the cap than in the battery.  And this, a small battery - has not lost its potential difference as a result of that charge.  That should be the focus.  I'm not sure that it can be argued that the negative current can't flow through the diode.  But nor am I sure that it's that relevant.  What is pertinent is that there is far more energy in the cap than has been delivered by the supply.  And that's what your config proves.  I don't think one need go much further than this to disprove certain claims outlined in thermodynamic laws.  It's HUGE. Hugely signficant.  JUST THERE.

What intrigues me is that - on our circuit - we have, unquestionably, no discharge of energy from the battery during the 'on' time of the duty cycle.  I can't explain this.  In order for that really strong oscillation to take place at all one would expect that there's some transference of potential difference which would show on that shunt.  The only PD that's evident is when it triggers on the negative setting of the gate. To me that may be explained by your forward EMF.  But I'm still working on this.  It may, also, simply be a 'skewed' result due to the inductance on that shunt - as Poynty claims.  But you see the problem then is this.  If one factors in the full effect of the inductance - then one also would need to add to the Ohmage or the resistance on the shunt.  This only increases the benefit.  And this is because the actual advantage has nothing to do with the resistance.  It's to do with that extraordinary antiphase condition of those voltages.  In point of fact, IF power is based on wattage -  VI DT - then - subject to any evidence of this oscillation - we're left with an oversupply back to the battery.  That's the sum that needs to be evaluated.  Either the fundamental measurements applied to power are WRONG - or we have something that flies in the face of.  There are no other explanations.  Bear in mind that the oscillation is not an erroneous indication resulting from a skewed voltage analysis.  If it were then it would never move through the battery and back to be measured at the drain.  It does move back and it is measurable there. 

What is intriguing is that this parasitic oscillation - as its termed - seems to be a preferred condition of current flow.  Let's face it.  On the atomic level we know that everything moves to a state of rest - certainly in a gravitational field.  Here we've got a current that simply cannot come to rest?  So.  What are we looking at?  An electromagnetic interaction on the particle level?  If so - then it seems that there's an equivalence in that electric and magnetic interchange that is self-sustaining.  And it's probably always been there.  Just over-looked or done away with as a nuisance. In point of fact, it seems to want to spin - as you put it.  No evident requirement to get to that rest state.

But again.  I'm not entirely sure that the diode stops a negative flow.  But nor am I sure that its relevant.

Kindest regards,
Rosie