Hello guys,


And Magzy - I'm hoping that you'll do us the favour of posting your results here on those tests.  They're BRILLIANT.  Every bit of evidence helps.  And such a clean way of showing it.

.[/b]

Hey Rose

I used the sim to predict what woopy got on the bench, so this is reliable as to outcome. =]

Here is the circuit in the sim and the code.

http://falstad.com/circuit/   for the applet

Copy code below and import into the applet from the file menu.

$ 1 5.0E-6 0.05817778142098084 50 5.0 43
s 384 80 448 80 0 1 true
v 448 352 448 80 0 0 40.0 1000.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
r 384 352 448 352 0 0.01
c 384 352 384 80 0 9.999999999999999E-6 0.0010000000000002418
r 384 80 304 80 0 2.0
l 304 80 224 80 0 0.22 9.31524329736314E-19
c 224 80 224 352 0 1.0E-5 0.0010000000000000425
d 224 352 304 352 1 0.805904783
s 304 352 384 352 0 1 true
d 304 352 304 256 1 0.805904783
w 336 144 384 80 0
w 304 256 304 176 0
w 304 176 336 144 0
o 6 1 0 291 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 0 -1
o 3 1 0 291 0.009765625 9.765625E-5 1 -1

Close the switch on the right till the cap is fully charged to 1000v.

Then close the switch on the bottom till the desired cutoff is reached.

You can lower the speed of the sim at the upper right slider so you can see in the first scope shot when to release the switch at a particular voltage.

The second scope shot shows the 1000v cap and what is left in it after the cutoff.

Just hit reset at the top right to start over to clear the cap values to empty.   =]


You will be able to see the femf caused by the flywheel effect. It may seem like the flywheel spins for a long time. The sim is running slow enough that we get to see this action.

Bemf happens very quick. So it is a fresh thing to see the time that the freewheel goes in this application.

Tesla was the man.  ;]


I think having the 1kv really gets the wheel going as compared to 10v.

I did a 21.6v cutoff,  and got 203.36v out.  The 1kv cap always equals 1kv - cutoff.  It really gets hard to believe there is a 50% loss happening. The sim does not show a loss such as this. In other tests that I did last night.  What if the calculations are not presenting what really is?   hmmm. We may have a win win situation. Me thinks it.

1  10uf cap at 10v     10v/10ohm load=1A  10vx1A=10W

2 caps in parallel,   20uf at 5v  5v/5ohm=1A  5vx1A=5W  but with 2 times the capacitance.  I see no loss here. Not 50%  Crazy aint it?   

So why 50% loss from battery to cap as the physics site stated?   

Yesterday we seemed to have a huge obstacle of physics, but i think we are clear of that now. I think we are in a much better position than we were last night.   


=]

Mags

Hey Rose

Before we were cutting off the source when the receiver cap reached the source voltage. We are now cutting off at a much lower voltage, and the gain is apparent more than before.

We are going with woopys method here of using a cap as the source. Both the source cap and receiver are 10uf for this test.

The source is charged to 1000v, for purposes of Big Show.
And we have the recycle diode in place in the middle that continues the cap charging after we release the source cap at our desired voltage.

1 The 1000v cap is charged

2 The switch is closed

3 We wait till the receiver cap reaches 10v  yes 10v

4 we open the switch and the recycle diode takes over to continue charging the receiver with the flywheel.

The outcome

The 1000v source cap is now 990v

The receiver, being cut from the source at 10v, reached 132v!!!

And this is the best part. We only have to replace 10v worth into the source cap to fill it up again. Not replace a complete 1000v worth at 10uf. Is that a savings?
I think so. It may be easier than if empty. Dunno. 

Mags

Golly Magzy.  This is FANTASTIC.  Very well done to you both.   Needless to say I couldn't do that simulator thing.  But I'm hoping someone will be able to help me at the weekend.  You guys are really something else.  Very well done indeed.  It's made my day.

I'm looking forward to the systematic destruction of all that supporating drivel that leaks out of some competing forums that's meant to represent what?  Intelligent analysis?  What will their final excuses be when we've disproved EVERY objection?  That will be interesting.  I am ready to put money on it that the protest will NEVER STOP.  LOL.   

Just seen that Americans pride themselves on their tolerance of the new idea.  In fact, the top players at Google prefer to live in America to dodge some of that European Cynicism.  What was said was interesting.  "A new idea is very vulnerable.  It can easily be snuffed out".  That was on Stephen Fry's program on his trip around America.  My sentiments exactly.   Strangely - the detractors to all this 'new technology' here are mostly American.  Actually maybe not.  There are also some Canadians.   

Anyway.  Again.  Very well done Magzy.  I had a shrewd idea that you'd get the answer. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

LOL  Do you still get any sleep Magzy?  Good night indeed.

 

Rosie

Guys I thought I'd better answer this in depth or I'll be accused on 'closing my ears' to argument. 

Stefan is correct here.  Rosemary has explained that she sees very large spikes in the shunt (reported by her to be +10V and -30V in amplitude) at the moments the function generator switches.  These come from the signal generator trying to suddenly change the voltage on the huge gate capacitance and are further hugely exaggerrated in amplitude by the fast-changing nature of the resulting current spike and the inductance of the shunt.

Notice that it is stated as a fact that the spikes come from 'the gate capacitance - hugely exaggerated - by the fast changing nature of the resultant current spike'?  I would have thought he meant the resultant oscillation - or resonance.  Hardly a spike.  Anyway.  I keep needing to say this and clearly Humbugger is not getting the point.  The result of factoring in inductance and impedance would be to INCREASE the resistance on the resistor.  This would, correspondingly - reduce the value of the current flow measured from that voltage.  Which is valid.  Now here's the anomaly.  When this is done - when we factor in for this inductance and impedance - then the result is that there's an even greater benefit - an even bigger return TO the system - than before.  I've said this EVERYWHERE.  We've highlighted it in the report.  For some reason this is completely ignored.  I wonder if this is deliberate?  INDEED HUMBUGGER.  We're all interested in this fact.  Because it results in a greater gain when you do the required integrated power analysis.  Could it be that the phase relationship is the critical factor and NOT the actual measure of the current flow?  Or is the argument now that the phase relationship - which is required to sustain that current - else  it would simply dribble away at the zero crossing - is purely an aberration of the system?  Does the phase angle - shown by the scope meter, in fact NOT take place?  Strange.  Becasue it's seen through the battery, on the drain AND at the shunt.  Then - as mentioned - our delusions are also being shared by our oscilloscopes and our circuit components.  And you can't medicate those. 

They are only present in the gate-current loop and are not present in the battery loop, as I explained.

Also a gross misrepresentation of the fact - or, in other words, a humdinger of that 'L' word.  It is evident across the battery in a HUGE positive spike and it is simultaneous with the spike at the shunt.  Just that they're in antiphase, showing that its 'RECHARGING' that battery.

I believe it is these spikes that she agrees are far more negative than positive which cause her scope average on the current trace to often show a small negative value (millivolts) which is then misinterpreted as battery charging current. This only shows up in the scope-averaged current at the low-power operating level because the operating currents are very small, so these spikes throw off the average  In the higher power mode of operation, these spikes still subtract from the measured average current, but that current is much larger in this mode so the overall average still always shows as a positive number..

I've highlighted it.  Another HUMdinger from our Humbugger.  He HOPES that it's these spikes that throw off the average mean voltage across the shunt.  What then would he then do with the mean average voltage in consistently NEGATIVE mode when we're dissipating frantically high wattage from the resistor element?  I KEEP referring to this.  Clearly I need to show more of these waveforms.  I have some on the system.  I'll look for them.  And I will certinly concentrate on showing this in future.  AGAIN, Humbugger, this is an emphasis that you need to lose if you're depending on it to win this argument. 

To get a true measure of the actual battery current, either the function generator must be eliminated (as Stefan suggests) or the shunt must be moved out of the gate circuit loop and placed where it sees only battery currents.

This is where?  There is nowhere on the circuit that is not connected to every other part of the circuit.  And it makes not a blind bit of difference if we put the shunt on the source or the drain.  And it amuses me that when we used a 555 their call was for a functions generator.  Now that we are complying to this the call is to get back the 555.  Makes one think that there's nothing will satisfy these extensive reaches into the bottom of that barrel.  The downside is that it - unfortunately - does seem to be bottomless.

In either case, the shunt must have an inductive reactance  that is far below the shunt resistance at 1.5MHz or the scope sampling and multiplying technique cannot be used due to large phase shifts in the apparent current versus the true current at any given sampling instant.

There it is again.We depend on the DISTORTIONS of those phase shifts.  Mainly because they seem to be resulting in a wave form that is continually reinforced.  There is NO QUESTION that if we eliminated them then we would lose that advantage.  The advantage is NOT IMAGINED.  Or is it that you'd simply prefer that we eliminate that advantage?

This is extremely difficult if not impossible to do, since even the length of a one inch straight wire will add 20nH to the shunt, causing many degrees of phase shift.  Even the very best "non-inductive" shunt resistors will exhibit several nanohenries of inductance and skew the phase at 1.5MHz significantly.[/b].

Well there you go.  That's exactly what's needed.

But all is not lost!  Even with a highly inductive shunt, as Rosemary is using, the true average current in the shunt is easy to obtain...without even using a scope that features averaging!

And here, guys we get to the nub of the issue.  The eternal requirement to AVERAGE.  Humbugger - hold your horses.  I intend showing you the AVERAGE on HIGH WATTAGE OUTPUTS so that I can finally silence this argument.  Then you'll need to retract this argument.  RIGHT NOW you're assuming that we ONLY GET HIGH WATTAGE ON POSITVE VOLTAGE AVERAGES ACROSS THE SHUNT.  THIS IS WRONG.  I will say this as often as is required.  We've shown it.  You are quite simply WRONG.  If your final supporting argument is based on the assumption that we cannot get a continual negative mean average at higher voltages then - again - you are wrong. 

Recall my demonstration from an earlier post in this thread where I showed a 0-2A trapezoid wave and the effects on the voltage displayed that a large inductance would have.  The true average current in that setup was +1A and ramped evenly back and forth between zero and +2A, never going negative at all.  Yet the inductive voltage was well below zero half the time, whenever the true shunt current was down-ramping toward zero.  See the first picture, reproduced here for your convenience.

Now we take that same circuit, doing the same thing, with the same values (printed out for you on the second picture) and add two little simple  RC filters to average both traces.  Guess what!  Both traces now show the exact true average current of 1 Ampere positive (50mV on a 50m Ohm shunt resistance).  They are exactly superimposed.  So now we know the magnitude and direction of the actual DC equivalent average current flowing even though we have measured it across a highly (grossly in this case) inductive shunt resistor!

This is hardly relevant.  Just another red-herring from that bottomless barrel of fishy facts.  We have entirely different results.  Probably because we're using live test apparatus and because we all have open minds.  It reminds me of those endless videos that you post of TK's where you show variations to waveforms from the same wire.  Unfortunately you ALWAYS show the reference at a junction and not on that wire.  I don't think we can accuse you of impartiality in the way you marshall your facts.

Regards,
Rosemary

thanks for the comments, Rosemary

i think there are a couple of things we can learn from those points:

 - we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label')

  and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations
 (another reason being that such an output would be a 'distortion' of the input - and for most digital or analogue signal applications that would be an undesirable feature of a product!)


 - 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy

  'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse  - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy

NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out  (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output

one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)

NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system

so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR

if the MOSFET data refers to true NR, then this would explain any anomalous electrical energy gained by systems such as Rosemary's

if the MOSFET data refers to NDR, then the parasitic oscillations are likely to be converting electrical energy to heat, as normal, not converting heat to electrical energy

 - i think we've all made note of the third point now, that some voltage transitions might still be necessary to get the oscillations going, even if the gate input is a fixed negative DC voltage (eg. battery)


i hope this provides a reasonable summary
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

- we can expect to have more MOSFET failures if we explicitly try to reproduce these parasitic oscillations (because the necessary gate drive is 'off-label')

  and this would be one valid reason that the manufacturer recommends avoiding parasitic oscillations

Very true, Nul-Points.  The gate oxide is very thin and fragile and gate voltage excursions beyond the specified limits on a repetitive basis basis will blast little holes in it, crashing the part's functionality little by little until...poof! 

Even when the drive from the sig-gen is within the specified limits, voltage spikes due to parasitic inductances and gate circuit wire lengths and drain voltage swings coupling through the Drain-Gate (Crss) capacitance can push the gate voltage well beyond the maximum specs.

The standard way of preventing this is to place a pair of series-connected 15V zeners back to back across the gate and source leads very close (right on the leads as they enter the plastic body if possible) of each MOSFET and with very short (use SMT chip zeners if possible) leads on the zeners.  This would probably prevent future breakdowns of the gate oxide without having any noticeable effect on the oscillations Rosemary has based her theories upon.

- 'positive' resistance is the characteristic of a component to directly convert electrical energy into heat energy

  'negative resistance' is considered to be the inverse  - ie., the ability of a component to directly convert heat energy into electrical energy

NR has been the subject of much discussion and debate - basically it would mean that electrical energy could be generated without having to expend energy - ie. no user-provided work would be required - because ambient heat which exists all around us, indoors and out  (and waste heat from other machines) could be used as input to a negative resistance system to provide 'free' electrical energy as output

one of the few genuine 'negative resistance' components (based on carbon fibre material) was recently discovered in the US (by another lady researcher, Deborah Chung)

Here is a direct quote from Ms. Chung's original paper:

"True negative resistance in the former sense is not possible due to energy conservation. However, apparent negative resistance in the former sense is reported here. ... Although the negative resistance reported here is apparent rather than true, its mechanism resembles that of true negative resistance (which actually does not occur due to energetics) in that the electrons flow in the unexpected direction relative to the applied current/voltage."

– Wang, Chung, Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fiber composites[1]

She nor her co-author ever claimed or suggested, from day one until now, that the device is useable a source of electrical energy from ambient heat.  You have been reading too much Bearden.

NR is not to be confused with negative differential resistance (NDR) where the component does exhibit the inverse Volts/Amps relation to usual Ohms Law, but there is still a positive DC offset, so in this case we are still expending energy as work to drive the system

so - the links quoted previously describe the parasitic oscillation area of the MOSFET characteristic graphs as exhibiting 'negative resistance' - but i didn't see them clarify if it is NDR - or if it is true NR

if the MOSFET data refers to true NR, then this would explain any anomalous electrical energy gained by systems such as Rosemary's

if the MOSFET data refers to NDR, then the parasitic oscillations are likely to be converting electrical energy to heat, as normal, not converting heat to electrical energy

The MOSFET data most certainly refers to the latter...NDR, as you call it.  All that means is that there are regions in the transfer function curves that show a non-ohmic decrease in current as voltage increases...nothing more.

Humbugger

Guys, nul-point - whoever reads here - I've taken this as an opportunity to explain this with the caveat that this is simply my own eccentric thinking and you are free to dismiss it as required.  But it's also why we put that circuit together in the first instance.

The proposal is that the atom comprises a nucleus at the centre and electrons that orbit the nucleus.  These are evident.  What is not evident is the proposal that there are the atomic energy levels comprising two dimensional magnet fields.  These trap the atom's electrons in their orbits around the nucleus.  The atom is inviolate.  The valence condition of atoms can be varied.  This predisposes it to molecular bonding which bonding can then partially or completely balance that atomic valence condition.

BUT.  The actual bonding of those atoms is managed by discrete packages of one directional magnetic fields.  These are extraneous to the atom.  These can orbit either in a circle with a fixed direction or justification.  Then one half of any orbit will oppose the other half - thereby having an potential to interact with any two unlike charges, positive or negative.  Or it can orbit in the figure '8' - thereby having the potential to interact with any two 'like' charges, positive to positive and negative to negative.

The atom's outer energy levels determine the valence condition of the atom.  With these three potentials then these discrete fields are then able to interact with the outer energy levels of ALL atoms.  The proposal is that they interact with the atom's energy levels very much as does a small gear interacting with a larger gear, the smaller - those discrete binding fields - operating at a velocity that exceeds light speed.  This renders them invisible. 

Then.  The current flow from the source voltage 'breaks' those orbits.  Here's why.  The quantum value of all those discrete binding orbits will be some combination of positive and negative - regardless of the bound atomic valence condition.  Current flow has a single direction - therefore a single charge.  It will, therefore, repel precisely one half of all the charge from those discrete binding fields - that it comes into contact with.  The source voltage is, by definition greater than the resistance in that bound material.  It therefore repels those same charges.  In doing so, the repelled charge is forced outside the body of the material.  It 'lurks'.  It congregates as a field and circles that component material and is measured as voltage imbalance or potential difference.  This voltage has a single direction or justification.  But it is 'open ended' or 'imbalanced'.

The remaining circle - that half that was not 'expelled' by that current flow - has nothing to orbit and nothing to attach to.  It loses it's orbital velocity and becomes as 'hot and as slow and as big' as it was 'cold and fast and small' - in its previous 'field condition'.  This then is measured as heat.  It results in the immediate compromise of the bound condition of material that it was - previously - binding.  It also results in the partial expansion of that material - BOTH conditions depending on the degree or number of these orbital symmetries that were broken by the force of the current flow.  Nothing is changed in the atomic state.  Only the bound condition is now varied.

When the source voltage is interrupted - then those extruded fields, that voltage imbalance - can now generate a current flow.  But it moves in an opposite direction to the initial flow of current.  It moves, not unlike a 'spring' releasing.  And it moves around the circuit components to return to its source.  If it can get back to the source then it will again separate into discrete packages and re-unite with those 'broken fields' - that hot unhappy 'other half' that remains in the material.  Given enough time then it will regroup and then it will  again be able to continue binding that material in their field condition as 'fast, cold, small' fields.  In effect it will simply reconstitute their previously binding field condition.

That parasitic oscillation is then, according to this analysis - the result of a perpetuating an imbalance where the satisfied potential difference of the battery supply induces potential difference in the circuit material.  And, in turn, which, induces a second cycle where the satisfied potential difference in the circuit material then enduces a potential difference in the supply.  That 'equivalence' is determined by the circuit itself and it's a potential in all electric circuits.  This, because the electromagnetic interaction is enabled by inductive conductive material. 

And traditionally this has not been exposed because the required path for both current cycles has not been provided as this relates to returning or negative current cycle.  Put a whole lot of FET's together and the road is then wide - the path is big enough and there's nothing to stop that negative current flowing from all that induced negative voltage.  And proof that this may be correct is in the fact that the heat over the resistor element is retained through that entire cycle of oscillation.

Which is just my explanation guys.  Do with it what you can, or want.  It does seem to have some kind of correspondence to what we're seeing.  But it also depends on the fundamental principle that a magnetic field comprises particles or tachyons which would, here, need to be magnetic dipoles. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

hi Rosemary

glad you've been able to replace the MOSFETS

i seem to remember that you mentioned recently that you'd measured around 5W getting returned to the SigGen?

if this is correct, then it is certainly possible that you also have a problem with that equipment now - the SG output stage may not be designed to cope with power getting returned in opposition to its usual current flow!


Hi Neptune

extra external reversed diodes across the MOSFETs are always a possibility - but i have a feeling that those links we all looked at were saying that the parasitic oscillation should be avoided because it caused excessive feedback from the output to the gate (hence the possible energy return to the SigGen too)

i'm not sure if adding external diodes across Source & Drain will diminish the gate overdirve, if it does then its likely to be because its also stopped the parasitic oscillation!

it might be necessary to find a compromise with the gate series input impedance - ie. try & find a value which is high enough still to just causes oscillation at a negative drive level, but low enough to limit the gate overdrive voltage which can develop due to the oscillation

could get interesting 
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com