Discharge 'characteristics "no" ... energy drawn from the batteries "yes". I must say, you are the only one stuck on this "characteristics" nonsense.


To attempt to clarify things further:


I use a scope to make sure the waveform is not doing weird things. I monitor the FET's drain for waveform shape and SH3 for one of the mean CSR values and I also use a DVM on SH3 as a check for agreement between the instruments ... and they always agree. Using a DVM is that poynty-head's thing he's so proud of.


BUT ... the values from SH3 do not represent the energy consumed by the circuit. NO instruments can detect the types of energies that account for the excess heating on RL nor can they detect anything going on inside the battery as a result of D1.


You are simply assuming that the final judgement has been rendered as to how to measure anything and everything and that everything is known that is ever to be known and there is nothing left to be learned. How terrible that you have limited yourself in that way.


Bye

Greg,

I am trying not to asume anything.  In the slide show, you theorize that the observed excess is due to the magnetic collapse of Rload.  If this is the case, why is a battery needed?  If the observed effect is due to the collapsing inductance of Rload, should this effect not also be readily observed when the circuit is being fed from a DC supply?

If you ran the BH circuit on a well filtered DC supply and noted the circuit's power draw and Rload's stabilized deltaT and then applied that equivalent DC power directly to Rload and measured less stabilized deltaT, that would do much to support your claim of overunity from the collapsing inductance theory you propose.  As all measurements would be at DC, they would be fairly easy to perform.

Have you ever performed such a test?


PW

Hi Picowatt,


I am NOT claiming anything relating to the source of the excessive heat on RL, I only suggested some possibilities. I have NO idea where the stuff comes from, only that more equivalent energy in the form of heat evolves than the energy supplied to it.


".. then why is a battery needed?"


That is perhaps the best question of all. Why?


Hooking up a DC supply to the circuit in place of the batteries yields completely different oscillations. I have tried this many times. It's just not the same thing, nor should it be regarded AS being the same thing.  That's just foolishness. One is a power supply and the other is batteries. Power Supply DOES NOT EQUAL Batteries.


Example of the traction drive:
Two discs ... one driving, one driven and under load. Their peripheries are in contact. The two discs each have gear teeth on their peripheries. The driven disc can't slip against rotation because both discs have gear teeth. Now I'm going to make the gear tooth pitch greater with many more finer and smaller teeth. Again, no slippage because they both have gear teeth. I now make the gear teeth so fine with so many of them that by all measurement each disc's periphery seems smooth and polished and now resembles a traction drive. But now under a lesser load, the  driven disc now slips. Why? ... because a gear drive is not the same a traction drive.  In theory, there should not be any difference between a set of coarse-toothed gears and a set of gears with infinitely many very fine gear teeth each ... but there IS.


So when you imply that a Power Supply as a DC source is the same as a Battery as a DC source, you couldn't be more mistaken.


You simply refuse to accept the possibility ... the possibility that your grandiose, expensive and sophisticated scopes and other 'accepted' devices just aren't measuring the types of energies present in these systems because they can't.


At this point, I'm now wasting my time here. You are anti-free energy, anti-OU, anti-OO or whatever you want to call it. I should have known that one of you characters from the TK assassination squad would show up.


I'm done sharing here. I have better things to do with my time than to play into your condescendence.


Adios

Greg,

I have only been trying to understand and discuss your experiments and methodologies.  Why all the attitude?  You seem to think you know what I think, great, where did you get that from?  I am not Harvey, I don't speak French, I am not "anti-OU" nor am I refusing to accept anything.  But, that is another matter.  In any event, is anyone that questions your methods or attempts to understand them subject to such behavior?  If so, good luck with that.  It will surely not assist you in gaining further acceptance.  I, however, am doing my best to ignore it...
 

I have looked over your slides for some time.  I believe I follow and can agree with your methods up to a certain point.

From your own measurements, it looks like you are saying that to produce the same deltaT as the BH, it takes 3.16watts from the DC supply.  Using the rheostat to produce the same Vdrop at SH3 requires 3.09watts.  Although I think there may be an error with regard to how you are determining the contribution of of the gate drive to the circuit, using your figure of .117watts, then apparently, from your numbers, the BH is using 3.2 watts to produce an output of 3.15 watts.  Even that just under OU efficiency is, it itself, amazing, but as I said, I believe you need to study the contribution of the gate driver a bit further.

When you disconnect the drain Vsupply, the capacitances in the FET increase to their extreme maximums, i.e., the driver sees a maximum capacitive loading.  When you reapply drain voltage, the FET capacitances reduce substantially.  Merely comparing and using only the difference in driver power between those two conditions may not provide an accurate assessment of the driver's power contribution to the circuit overall.

But, where I am having the most difficulty accepting your results is when you use the time it takes the battery to discharge to 27.44V when loaded with the rheostat to determine total watt hours consumed.  This is where my concern regarding a battery's capacity varying with different load profiles comes into play.   If desulphation and pulse plating effects cause the battery to have an increased capacity when the load is pulsed above that capacity observed under a DC load, it would be improper to use the disharge curve as you do to determine watt hours.

To expect similar discharge curves from a battery under a given load for 8 hours and that same battery under that same given load for the same duration but with a desulphator circuit attached would be questionable at best.

Regarding the oscillations being different with a DC supply, have you attempted to produce the battery's equivalent circuit at the output of your supply?  That is, isolate the supply with an equivalent circuit that models the measured ESR, ESL and C of the battery?  That may allow you to produce the same oscillations using the DC supply and perform further investigations using just the supply.


PW   

   

TK:

It looks like the domain name servers don't like Rosemary's baby anymore.  Could it be temporary or something else???  Knocked off the air by a Zipon-Neutron bomb?

Gmeast:

When you speak to PW you are graced with the presence of Zen Master electronics and measurement guru.  Harvey is not in the same league as PW at all.  Rosie Posie can't qualify anyone because she has no knowledge base to work with.

I have only skimmed at some recent postings on this thread and I can tell you that you should take every single word that PW says very very seriously.

MileHigh

Greg,

I have only been trying to understand and discuss your experiments and methodologies.  Why all the attitude?  You seem to think you know what I think, great, where did you get that from?  I am not Harvey, I don't speak French, I am not "anti-OU" nor am I refusing to accept anything.  But, that is another matter.  In any event, is anyone that questions your methods or attempts to understand them subject to such behavior?  If so, good luck with that.  It will surely not assist you in gaining further acceptance.  I, however, am doing my best to ignore it...
 

I have looked over your slides for some time.  I believe I follow and can agree with your methods up to a certain point.

From your own measurements, it looks like you are saying that to produce the same deltaT as the BH, it takes 3.16watts from the DC supply.  Using the rheostat to produce the same Vdrop at SH3 requires 3.09watts.  Although I think there may be an error with regard to how you are determining the contribution of of the gate drive to the circuit, using your figure of .117watts, then apparently, from your numbers, the BH is using 3.2 watts to produce an output of 3.15 watts.  Even that just under OU efficiency is, it itself, amazing, but as I said, I believe you need to study the contribution of the gate driver a bit further.

When you disconnect the drain Vsupply, the capacitances in the FET increase to their extreme maximums, i.e., the driver sees a maximum capacitive loading.  When you reapply drain voltage, the FET capacitances reduce substantially.  Merely comparing and using only the difference in driver power between those two conditions may not provide an accurate assessment of the driver's power contribution to the circuit overall.

But, where I am having the most difficulty accepting your results is when you use the time it takes the battery to discharge to 27.44V when loaded with the rheostat to determine total watt hours consumed.  This is where my concern regarding a battery's capacity varying with different load profiles comes into play.   If desulphation and pulse plating effects cause the battery to have an increased capacity when the load is pulsed above that capacity observed under a DC load, it would be improper to use the disharge curve as you do to determine watt hours.

To expect similar discharge curves from a battery under a given load for 8 hours and that same battery under that same given load for the same duration but with a desulphator circuit attached would be questionable at best.

Regarding the oscillations being different with a DC supply, have you attempted to produce the battery's equivalent circuit at the output of your supply?  That is, isolate the supply with an equivalent circuit that models the measured ESR, ESL and C of the battery?  That may allow you to produce the same oscillations using the DC supply and perform further investigations using just the supply.


PW   

 

Hi PW,


Read it again! There is NO Delta-T in either of the battery draw-downs. That's not in the data ... RL is not even hooked up during those draw-downs. Look ate the circuit diagrams.


FYI: I received a PM from a 12-year old that completely understands this, but had to explain it to her science teacher ... who finally 'got it'.


You are in error on the gate driver issue. I spent many hours testing this because of your insistence that it be included. It turns out to have a constant overhead whether it's driving the gate or not and therefore, for the sake of pure research, that overhead can be excluded just as the PWM's can. That's not even a point for discussion.


As far as everything else goes, as I said, "I'm done sharing here".


Regards,


Greg

WHERE IN THE HELL ARE YOU HARTMAN? TAKE CARE OF THIS HIJACKING CRAP NOW! YOU ARE STILL PERMITTING THE SAME  NON-PRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR ON THE PART OF:


"THE SQUAD"

Let me moderate my own thread so I can delete obvious B.S.

Greg

Greg,

I never said that the delta T's were used with regard to drawdown (except for the initial BH run).

Based on your numbers, up to the point where you do compare drawdowns, you demonstrate an efficiency of about 2.5% OU, or just under OU if your calculated driver contributions are added in.

This is determined by comparing the power required from the DC supply to produce same deltaT as the BH, which is used as "output power", to the power calculated from either the rheostat test or the measured SH3 voltage and the average Vbatt, which is used as "input power".

Am I correct so far?

The drawdown numbers from the rheostat test are then used to determine the time required for Vbatt to cross the BH run's end voltage, and the length of time at which that occurs is then used to calculate the watt hours consumed by the BH.

Is this correct?

PW

You are simply wrong, and I'm done here.

Greg,

What part is wrong?

I have looked at the slide show several times.  If I am wrong, please tell me where am I wrong.

Surely you would not want others to have the same misunderstanding that I am when looking at your slide show ...

PW

But others don't.

Greg,

Again, tis is what I get from the slide show:

1.  You run the BH and note the deltaT, SH3 voltage, and log the battery discharge curve.

2.  To determine output power you use the DC supply connected to Rload to produce the same deltaT at Rload as in (1) above and note the supply I and V.  Using the supply I and V you calculate output power, which I believe was determined to be 3.16 watts (from memory, I don't have the slide video open right now)

3.  To determine input power, you use a rheostat in series with SH3 set to produce the same SH3 voltage as in (1) above (which I believe was 5.6mv) and calculate input power based on the total resistance used and the Vbatt average voltage.  You also log the battery disharge curve over time while performing this rheostat test.

As alternate input power verification, you also use the SH3 voltage from (1) above multiplied by the average Vbatt voltage and note that the two methods agree closely.  I believe that from the input power tests/calculations you arrived at 3.09 versus 3.099 watts or something like that, depending on the method used to determine input power.

At this point, by your your own meaurements and calculations, you demonstrate 3.16 watts of output using only 3.09 watts of input, which is just over unity by 2.5% or so.  If your calculated driver contribution is added to the input power, then the figures shift slightly to 3.16 watts out for 3.20 watts in, which is just slightly under OU.

Am I correctly following your slide show up to this point?

PW

This is where you have gone wrong. You cannot use REAL-TIME measures of Power to determine EFFICIENCIES of these things. You MUST use 'Energy'. The energy consumed from the batteries is 25.28 Watt-Hours heating RL (3.16W X 8-Hours). That heating over 8-hours drew the battery down .4V and at 8-hours the battery voltage was 27.44V.  For the 1st draw-down, the same Starting Voltage after battery re-charge and stabilization, the Rheostat load drew the batteries down to the SAME 27.44V in 6.38 hours. The Rheostat load was 3.1Watts for ONLY 6.38 Hours for an Energy of only 19.78 Watt-Hours. The 5.6mV SH3 was simply a reference for adjusting the  load rheostats. I could have used anything. I could have used 10mV and the batteries would have drawn down quicker, but the energy would still have been around 19.78 Watt-Hours. I could have used 3mV and the draw-down would have lasted longer than 8-hours, but still would have been around 19.78 Watt-Hours ... at the point where the batteries hit 27.44V.


The 2nd Rheostat load test simply used the ratio of the Energies from the first two tests to adjust the rheostats such that the starting and ending voltages were the same as the 1st test (the circuit test) ... 27.84V to 27.44V.  19.78Wh / 25.28Wh = 0.78  So 5.6mV (SH3) X 0.78 = 4.4mV for the new SH3 voltage drop and I adjusted the rheostats to produce that load. The 2nd draw-down test at 4.56mV(avg) (SH3) resulted in identical starting and ending battery voltages as the circuit test ... 27.84V to 27.445V. Then I measured the load rheostat resistance and calculated the power which was 2.52Watts .... THIS IS THE INPUT POWER.  I then applied 2.52Watts DIRECTLY to RL and it produced a significantly lower Delta-T, and this simply proved everything out.


You are like everyone else that has assumed you can simply use poynty-head's PIN POUT nonsense crap for determining efficiency. YOU CANNOT USE REAL-TIME MEASURES OF POWER FOR THIS STUFF. YOU MUST USE MEASURES OF ENERGY!


The reason I know you haven't done any more than skim my presentation is that ALL OF WHAT I SAID ABOVE IS IN THAT SLIDE SHOW.


Take off your BLINDERS you guys.


Regards,


Greg