hi Rosemary

the important thing at this 'poynt' is ...

There are 'nul-points' in ...

there  is 'nul-point' in ...

.99

whoever said "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" was obviously unaware how lame it looks! 

Lame indeed!

I see you got the "poynt".

I think the folks here could benefit from seeing something helpful in your posts. Acting like a smartass does not quite qualify.

.99

Seems odd

the first time i read this post just a bit ago, it read

"  'nul-points = Lame indeed!  "


But no indication that it was edited

Selective edit notifications?

Mags

Now the scope shot of MEAN [vbat(t) * vcsr(t)] * 4.

A whopping -192W back to the battery!   

In theory, these two measurements (the -192W and -9.94W) should be the same. Which one do you think is the correct one? Is either the correct one?

.99

Now let's look at the average power in the critical devices. The "W" probe in PSPice allows for a direct probing of instantaneous power in any given device. By applying the "AVG" function to these traces, we obtain a trace which converges on the real power dissipated in that device.

Measured is the REAL power in the following:

1) Q2-Q5 combined: ~14.6W
2) Q1: ~0.41W 
3) Battery: ~-33.3W*
4) Load Resistor: ~16.86W

* Normal battery power is measured as a "negative" because this represents power being supplied to a circuit, i.e. a loss of energy.

If we look at the power balance, we have:

33.3W = 14.6W + 0.41W + 16.86W
33.3W = 31.87W

The remaining ~1.43W can be accounted for by the power dissipated in the 2 Ohm Gate resistor, and the 0.25 Ohm CSR. Oddly, the function generator contributes about 3W to the circuit, and this is precisely the amount lost in the 2 Ohm battery lead resistor. These losses are not shown in the graphs.

It becomes quite apparent in the simulations, that if the gate impedance is too high the continuous oscillations stop. I am convinced that the FG somehow provides for a low AC impedance path through it's output terminal, and this is why the circuit still oscillates. This would also explain why the FG does not heat up even though it has a 50 Ohm resistor in series.

I hope that with the above details and analysis, the "problems" in all this mess are now starting to become apparent. Surely it is obvious that Q1 is providing almost no power to the load resistor. One might also observe that the power measured using the CSR and Vbat voltage points is largely reactive, and not indicating anything close to the truth in terms of what the battery is supplying or receiving.

.99

In reply #780 above, in the scope shot "Q1_scope03.png", the battery power was calculated using the average of Vbat x Vcsr.

It should be pointed out that this normally would provide the correct answer. In this case MEAN (Vbat) is the correct value, i.e. ~71V, but the value for MEAN (Vcsr) is incorrect. The reason for this as was pointed out above, is because the majority of current flowing through the load resistor and battery is doing so via Q2-Q5, and not via Q1 where the CSR is in fact connected.

As a result, the CSR will not indicate the true current through the load and battery. As a side note, Hum suggested that the CSR should be placed outside of the Vgs loop of the MOSFET Q1, and I fully agree. The results of this simulation also offer support for this. The CSR would indicate (and Rose would jump in glee) that the currents in the load are upwards of 6A in this case (1.5Vp/0.25), but in fact the average current from the battery is less than 0.5A.

.99

   I think Rosemary's whole reason for doing these various circuits and measurements is to help validate her thesis which is based on unorthodox physics not commonly believed to exist. I fail to understand why anyone would expect tests run on a simulation based on the current physics that Rose is trying to contradict to show her new concepts? Of course the simulation is going to show a different results than Her team gets, what would be the point in doing any of this if it could just be run on a simulation?
    Oh well I had to ask, Rose I haven't said hello for a while good luck.
Pete 

  & Magulvin I just edited this and it looks like Wilby's correct

Poiyt, would it be possible for you to post the zipped PSpice project of your latest circuit?

B.t.w. be careful with putting the Watt probe on the battery. The power indicated is reversed in polarity.
I've noticed this before. It's very misleading
You can check it with a simple circuit only existing of a battery and a resistor.

Hi teslaalset.

Have you seen this post above?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10407.msg282734#msg282734

I'm quite aware of the negative power indication when the W probe is placed on any source, and this is correct as I pointed out both in the above post, and on the scope shot text.

Good that you're on the ball though

.99

That point has been made more than once - ie. no simulation software can simulate scalar waves etc. whether by accident or design.  Yet they keep being put forward as 'proof' that the real circuit must be wrong!  That said, I think Rosemary actually asked for some of these simulations to be done, so she can't complain too loudly...

  Your right I think I even saw Harti comment on this so it might be a bit redundant but its like I said I haven't said Hi to Rose in a while and I by no means was representing Rosemary's stance on this.

Pete