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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83735
  • *Latest: williams

  • *Total Posts: 517821
  • *Total Topics: 15437
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 16

Author Topic: GM East Burst Heater Circuit  (Read 6858 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:39:55 PM »
Greg has updated his slide-show presentation:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fYCZsIsi7c&list=TL9a9XJC8CKzXE4C9ZZ2Ig-B2F-rpd-eX4

Things that Greg did well: 
Meticulously collected data over extended periods of time using equipment he believes to be reliable, and which should be.
Devised means to calibrate his measuring equipment:  Specifically the resistance of his CSR.
Devised null tests to compare the results of known or reliably determined measurements against measurements with his DUT.
Devised more than one null test to verify consistency in his results.

And his bottom line: 

1) For a given amount of battery voltage depletion using similar average current, Greg measures delivered battery energy using a pulse circuit that is 125% that of a DC circuit that drains the batteries by a like voltage over a similar period as a DC load.
2) For a DC current that generates the same rate of battery voltage depletion as the pulse circuit, Greg measures a significantly lower temperature rise:  29.7C versus 34.5C on the inside of his heating element.

So, what has Greg observed?  Is it:

1) A pulse circuit generates over unity results?
2) A pulse circuit does not generate over unity results?
3) A pulse circuit delivers more heat to a resistor than the Iaverage^2*R*DutyCycle?
4) A pulse load of some average power Pave_pulse discharges a lead acid battery at a lower rate than a DC load with the same average power?

Is it none, one, or some combination of the above?

What tests can Greg run that will either reinforce or dispute his conclusion that he has a 125% efficient configuration?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:39:55 PM »

Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2014, 10:20:17 PM »
Greg has updated his slide-show presentation:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fYCZsIsi7c&list=TL9a9XJC8CKzXE4C9ZZ2Ig-B2F-rpd-eX4

Things that Greg did well: 
Meticulously collected data over extended periods of time using equipment he believes to be reliable, and which should be.
Devised means to calibrate his measuring equipment:  Specifically the resistance of his CSR.
Devised null tests to compare the results of known or reliably determined measurements against measurements with his DUT.
Devised more than one null test to verify consistency in his results.

And his bottom line: 

1) For a given amount of battery voltage depletion using similar average current, Greg measures delivered battery energy using a pulse circuit that is 125% that of a DC circuit that drains the batteries by a like voltage over a similar period as a DC load.
2) For a DC current that generates the same rate of battery voltage depletion as the pulse circuit, Greg measures a significantly lower temperature rise:  29.7C versus 34.5C on the inside of his heating element.

So, what has Greg observed?  Is it:

1) A pulse circuit generates over unity results?
2) A pulse circuit does not generate over unity results?
3) A pulse circuit delivers more heat to a resistor than the Iaverage^2*R*DutyCycle?
4) A pulse load of some average power Pave_pulse discharges a lead acid battery at a lower rate than a DC load with the same average power?

Is it none, one, or some combination of the above?

What tests can Greg run that will either reinforce or dispute his conclusion that he has a 125% efficient configuration?
Hi MarkE,


Thanks for your input. It is clear you put some time into reading what I have done and it is also clear that you are sincere. For that I thank you.


But I'd like to correct you on one point. My temperature measurements did not involve only the temperature of the 'inside' of the element. The temperature measurement was not a temperature 'rise' as you referred to above, but a more valid 'temperature differential' ... the constantly maintained temperature between the inside of the element and the ambient environment tending to bias the element's temperature proper. This is a much more reliable technique than attempting to measure a temperature rise in these tests. Things are able to establish an equilibrium.


 As I have indicated, my YouTube slide show presents an "exploration". In the accompanying description I acknowledge possible 'problems' in the collected data when using batteries as a power source. Those problems are multi-pronged and include battery temperature, chemistry, battery age and number cycles the batteries have been subjected to (maybe again ... age here). In general, these 'problems' are associated with, what is referred to as, "The Battery Effect" ... a term used here and in other forums.


My next slate of tests will be to replace the batteries with a capacitor bank comprised of caps having low ESR. To my surprise (at first) it is neither super nor ultra capacitors. Aluminum and Tantalum caps seem to be the choices. However, because of a capacitor's discharge curve, my cap bank will need to be HUGE both in series and parallel size. My goal is to construct a bank of caps that will give me the same 8-hour test as in my slide show and with a drop in voltage from 35VDC of only 1VDC under a 3.5 Watt load. Upon doing the math, I see it is financially impossible for me. But something like this needs to be done to eliminate "The Battery Affect".  So the answer is to scale the tests down to perhaps 1 or 2 hour tests ... at that, the cost is still in the $1000's.


All of this hints that any useful system would need to be 'cyclic' ... charge the cap bank (with something conventional) and then discharge the cap bank through the heater and circuit. And this mode of operation, unfortunately,  will introduce additional losses that will, at least, need to be accounted for.


Thanks MarkE.  Sincerely,


Greg

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2014, 11:10:27 PM »
What you call a temperature differential I understand to be the temperature rise of the inside of the heater over ambient.  In any event, from a purely qualitative standpoint, it showed that under the two test conditions there is reasonable evidence that more heat is evolved from the pulse circuit configuration than the DC condition that leads to an equal rate of battery voltage decay.

I can suggest tests that you can run that will not require the up front expenditure that you contemplate for capacitors.  Of course if you really have found an over unity condition a self-running test will be an acid test proof.  But if you can generate strong evidence without the expenditure then it might make it easier for you to find help covering the expense for that ultimate test, if you really have over unity.

If we return to the set of questions, the big one that you ultimately want to get to is whether or not you have more energy evolved from the heater than energy you have drawn from the power source.  The proxy that you have so far used for your power source is battery voltage decay.  If you have access to a 30V regulated power supply that can output at least 0.5A, then you can proceed by substituting a couple of configurations of the power supply for the battery bank.

In one configuration, you would connect the power supply in place of the batteries, and perform an initial test to qualify droop during the pulse on-time.  The idea is to insure that there is enough bulk capacitance to limit droop to less than 1%.  I did not see mention of the pulse width or rate in your presentation.  Your peak current is less than 500mA, so you can measure the power supply droop during the pulse on period.  If it is more than 0.25V, then add a 50V electrolytic capacitor that is at least:  2uF * Ton of your pulses, where Ton is in us.

From the measurements that you presented I derived a value for the current sense resistor of 49.86mOhms, and an average peak current for pulse operation of: 467.9mA, and an RMS current of 229.2mA.  I solved from: 27.59V/(CSR+245.6)=5.6mV/CSR, and a stated duty-cycle of 24%.  Among the assumptions that we are making is that the 5.6mV read by the DMM is a faithful average of the voltage across the CSR.  As I have previously posted, as long as the pulse frequency is more than 100Hz, DMM DC voltage readings are generally within 1% of the true average.  1% is certainly accurate enough for what we are looking at.

A first test would seek to determine whether the calculated RMS current produces the same heating effect as the pulse circuit.  If it does that suggests that the current through the heating element is what existing circuit theory suggests for a periodic rectangular waveform:  Irms = Iave/(Duty-Cycle)^0.5.  Because of the losses in MOSFET and the recirculation diode, existing circuit theory predicts that you will need slightly less current to reach the same temperature rise over ambient using DC than the pulse circuit. 

A result close to or under 229.2mA suggests that what you are seeing has to do with the battery being loaded by DC versus pulses.
A result close to 256.2mA reinforces the idea that the pulse circuit is producing 125% as much heat as existing theory predicts.

A second test would seek to calibrate heat output more rigorously.  This would give you a direct measure of the amount of power the heater resistor dissipates.  For that you want to measure the amount of heat conveyed to a thermal mass that is much larger than the thermal mass of your wirewound heater resistor.  A thermos that is large enough to hold the resistor and at least five times the resistor's weight of mineral oil is a good choice.  You would drill a hole in the lid for your thermocouple probe.  The probe would contact only the mineral oil.  You can manually agitate the oil during tests.  The thermal time constant will depend on how much oil you have, IE how big the thermos is.  You should be able to reasonably get through one test in half an hour or less.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2014, 11:10:27 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gmeast

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2014, 02:05:23 AM »
What you call a temperature differential I understand to be the temperature rise of the inside of the heater over ambient.  In any event, from a purely qualitative standpoint, it showed that under the two test conditions there is reasonable evidence that more heat is evolved from the pulse circuit configuration than the DC condition that leads to an equal rate of battery voltage decay.

.....................................................................................  If you have access to a 30V regulated power supply that can output at least 0.5A, then you can proceed by substituting a couple of configurations of the power supply for the battery bank.

In one configuration, you would connect the power supply in place of the batteries, and perform an initial test to qualify droop during the pulse on-time.  The idea is to insure that there is enough bulk capacitance to limit droop to less than 1%.  I did not see mention of the pulse width or rate in your presentation.


Hi MarkE,


I have a 30VDC regulated power supply. It's the one used and shown in the presentation. In the first graph showing the battery voltage plot, the text pointing at the middle of the curve states a 24% Duty Cycle. I did not post the frequency anywhere in the presentation so it would be hard to determine the PW, so here it is now: the frequency was 434,000Hz. So the pulse period was 2.3x10-6sec making the PW=5.53x10-7sec @ 24%D.C..


One other thing though: In some of Tesla's stuff I recall that some of his devices would not work if the system was grounded. I believe that may hold true in these sorts of systems where rapid edge-transitioning electromagnetic waveforms are characteristic. I honestly believe I have witnessed this phenomenon in my tests. It's possible that these sorts of systems are required to be isolated during OU operation. It's also possible it's the reason you can produce Heat-Equivalent OU performance and NOT Electrical OU performance. Thus it's the reason you can't use a regulated power supply in place of the batteries ... even if it's sitting on an isolation transformer. My beliefs are that the increased performance is not centered in the batteries, rather it is centered in the heater element itself. Allot of the Cold Fusion and LENR research use Noble Metals and metals having similar attributes. Nickel is one of those metals. The generation or presence of magnetic domains is also important in CF and LENR research. My heater element is air-core and the winding is NiCrFe wire, and the Iron provides support for the magnetic domains ... or however it is to be properly stated.


I'm pretty happy with the direction I'm taking my next slate of tests.


Regards,


Greg




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2014, 05:08:27 AM »

Hi MarkE,


I have a 30VDC regulated power supply. It's the one used and shown in the presentation. In the first graph showing the battery voltage plot, the text pointing at the middle of the curve states a 24% Duty Cycle. I did not post the frequency anywhere in the presentation so it would be hard to determine the PW, so here it is now: the frequency was 434,000Hz. So the pulse period was 2.3x10-6sec making the PW=5.53x10-7sec @ 24%D.C..


One other thing though: In some of Tesla's stuff I recall that some of his devices would not work if the system was grounded. I believe that may hold true in these sorts of systems where rapid edge-transitioning electromagnetic waveforms are characteristic. I honestly believe I have witnessed this phenomenon in my tests. It's possible that these sorts of systems are required to be isolated during OU operation. It's also possible it's the reason you can produce Heat-Equivalent OU performance and NOT Electrical OU performance. Thus it's the reason you can't use a regulated power supply in place of the batteries ... even if it's sitting on an isolation transformer. My beliefs are that the increased performance is not centered in the batteries, rather it is centered in the heater element itself. Allot of the Cold Fusion and LENR research use Noble Metals and metals having similar attributes. Nickel is one of those metals. The generation or presence of magnetic domains is also important in CF and LENR research. My heater element is air-core and the winding is NiCrFe wire, and the Iron provides support for the magnetic domains ... or however it is to be properly stated.


I'm pretty happy with the direction I'm taking my next slate of tests.


Regards,


Greg
Greg, so if your pulses are only 553ns wide, at a peak current of 0.5A it will only take a 1uF capacitor to keep the voltage droop under 0.25V.  There is certain to be at least that much capacitance at the output of your bench supply, so no supplemental capacitor should be needed.

I do not doubt that you've witnessed what you have measured.  I think the task now is to see what it means by conducting some additional tests.  For example the heat transfer test that I suggested would allow you to directly measure the heat output of the resistor, so you can compare that against the measured input energy over some period of time.  If you have a power gain for any reason that will show up as more thermal power output than the RMS power input.  You can perform the thermal test using batteries, so there is no change that would affect isolation.  Mineral oil has a uR of 1.0, and the eR is only 2.1.  That means the parasitic capacitance will be about twice what it was in free air, still a very small value.

Other things that you could do before you go out and buy a giant phalanx of capacitors is to use a relatively small capacitor, say 10uF @ 50V and a Schottky diode.  The Schottky diode would go in series with the battery red lead, anode to the battery+, cathode towards the test circuit and the capacitor would go across the test circuit power input side of the wiring.  You could then put your scope across that capacitor, and look for evidence of recharging.  If you do that test, make sure to disconnect any other oscilloscope channels. 

Another thing that you can do that will help is that if you are using 4" ground clip leads that are standard with most scope probes, then buy some 75 Ohm resistors and solder a resistor right at wherever you normally clip the scope probe in your circuit, and then clip the scope probe hook onto the free end of the resistor close to the resistor body.  Little 1/8 W to 1/4 W resistors are good because they are small.  That will largely damp out the inherent resonant circuit formed by the scope probe input capacitance and the inductance of the 4" ground clip.  Also, use the 10X setting on the scope probe. I have attached a couple of scope captures that show the improvement in waveform quality that results before and after adding a 75 Ohm resistor when measuring a 10MHz, 1ns rise / fall time signal using 200MHz probes and a 200MHz bandwidth oscilloscope.  The green traces are using Chinese probes I bought for $12.50 each, and the blue traces are using probes that cost $150. each.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2014, 05:08:27 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2014, 05:48:37 AM »
Ms. Ainslie objects that I have suggested additional tests to Greg.  Greg acknowledges the possibility that what he has observed will turn out to be a difference in battery discharge behavior using pulses rather than DC.  Which BTW would still be a very useful thing.  If that is the case, versus over unity, and I believe it to be so, then one could either research to see if optimum frequency and/or duty-cycle is known or conduct experiments to find out what they are.  Perhaps more than 25% improvement is possible using the right wave shape and frequency.

Another possibility is that the differences that Greg sees are due to extra power coming from somewhere.  That would mean that at long last a self-powered over unity device could be engineered.  While I discount the likelihood of that being so, this is why we conduct experiments:  to find out the truth.  The thermal tests that I have suggested will make quick work of determining how much power the arrangement delivers.  If there is extra power, and Greg continues to be as meticulous as he has, then thermal tests will provide solid evidence.  If that is the case, then I know of at least one person who would willingly finance the capacitor tests.

Ms. Ainslie seems to think that I am out to derail Greg somehow.  She is welcome to her suspicions.  She is also welcome to try and point to anywhere that I have derailed a legitimate idea by any means.  I submit that the thermal tests that I have suggested can be conducted far more quickly at much lower cost than the capacitor phalanx that Greg has been pursuing.  I submit as I have above that thermal tests that reliably indicate OU would attract many offers of assistance.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2014, 08:47:05 PM »
I think it's interesting that the "cheapo" undamped probe seems to respond as well as, or perhaps even a bit better than, the much more expensive undamped probe. Less overshoot, smoother ringing.

This makes me feel a bit more confident, since I have a couple of the 12 dollar probes too. (Along with some of the much more expensive ones.) My scopes don't have the bandwidth necessary to see any differences in the probes; it's nice to see the test done on a 200 MHz scope. Thanks!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2014, 08:47:05 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2014, 09:51:02 PM »
I think it's interesting that the "cheapo" undamped probe seems to respond as well as, or perhaps even a bit better than, the much more expensive undamped probe. Less overshoot, smoother ringing.

This makes me feel a bit more confident, since I have a couple of the 12 dollar probes too. (Along with some of the much more expensive ones.) My scopes don't have the bandwidth necessary to see any differences in the probes; it's nice to see the test done on a 200 MHz scope. Thanks!
The el-cheapo probes are a pretty good value.  They are no match when performing coaxial probing.  They do OK for just looking at microcontroller I/O.  If you use a damping resistor then you can look at switching circuits and actually tell what you are looking at.  The better practice is to use a coaxial probing connection. That's just not always convenient.  Steve has collected all kinds of data on probes under different circumstances.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2014, 05:43:28 PM »
So here are a couple of data points that should at least be intriguing to anyone following Greg's experiments:

He has a temperature difference set-up with one TC probe stuck inside the ceramic heater resistor and one in ambient air.  Using the switching circuit, he records an average current of 5.6mV/0.0499 Ohms, at ostensibly 24% duty-cycle leading to a 34.54C temperature rise.  The rms value of that is: 5.6E-3/.0499*1/(0.24)^0.5 = 229mA.   The DC current that yields the same result he measured as 363mA, 58% larger.  This is a temperature measurement comparison and so has nothing to do with battery effects.

So:

1) Is the reported duty cycle accurate? 
2) Were the battery voltage, power supply voltage, and current sense resistor readings accurate?
3) Were the thermocouple readings accurate proxies for like power dissipation by the heater resistor?

Any of these can be checked to see that they are true or false. 

1) Is a matter of taking a good scope shot of the MOSFET drain voltage.  Measuring duty-cycle is not difficult.  It is unlikely that Greg confused a 10% duty-cycle for 24%.
2) Can be verified with an additional DMM to double check the readings.  They are probably close.
3) This is trickier.  There are lots of ways to go wrong with temperature measurements as proxies for heating power.  The known reliable way to obtain heating power and energy readings is to measure the temperature rise of a known liquid thermal mass.

From a sanity check standpoint, it seems unreasonable that a simple pulse circuit should yield 58% excess energy over its DC rms equivalent for the simple reason that such circuits are used in billions of products everyday.  Someone else should have noticed.  Still, "should have" is not a scientific answer.   The primary unknown can be resolved with a pair of heat transfer experiments.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2014, 05:43:28 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2014, 07:37:02 PM »
If reliable measurements of temperature that yield heating power are actually desired, a brief literature search will reveal how it is generally done. The same load should be used for both the control and experimental trials. The imperfectly insulated load will of course take some time to reach its equilibrium temperature with the surroundings; at this point it will be dissipating the same amount of power it is receiving from the supply. (Or from wherever it is getting its power, like its zipons being agitated or whatever.) The temperature-time curves are plotted for both DC supply from a voltage regulated supply, and the Burst Heater circuit. The power supplied in each condition can be measured as DC power in, and the power dissipated at the load can be determined by finding the equilibrium temperature and comparing it to that obtained at the various non-extraordinary DC power levels used for calibration. This might take some time, as in a good load cell it might take 30 minutes or more for it to reach equilibrium temperature. The load's thermal mass and insulation should be chosen so this thermal settling time is not too long and not too short, and of course the load must be allowed to cool back to (regulated, constant) ambient temperature before beginning each trial run. Several trials should be made at each DC power level to allow for statistical accuracy checks. If variations are made in the operating parameters of the Burst Heater circuit, several trials should be performed at each set of parameters as well. The same load cell should be used because small differences that may not be under the experimenter's control could affect results if different load cells are used. A schedule of trials can and should be prepared beforehand and the order of trials can be randomized so that load cell ageing effects, if they occur, can be distributed evenly or randomly over the data set. Automated data logging, or at least a chart recorder record of time and temperature, would be a big help, but it is actually possible for a determined individual to record the necessary datapoints with paper and pencil.
This process will yield a series of curves in temperature-time plots. The equilibrium temperature reached by the Burst Heater trials can be compared to the temperatures reached at the various DC power levels and interpolated to yield the actual power dissipation level of the load cell when it is powered by the Burst Heater circuit.
Presumably the conventional power input to the Burst Heater circuit can be accurately measured... it could be powered by the same DC power supply at the same power levels as used for the DC calibrations, for example.
This process will also yield the data necessary for actual input and output energy comparisons as well, if anyone cares to do a bit more math.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2014, 08:25:43 PM »
If reliable measurements of temperature that yield heating power are actually desired, a brief literature search will reveal how it is generally done. The same load should be used for both the control and experimental trials. The imperfectly insulated load will of course take some time to reach its equilibrium temperature with the surroundings; at this point it will be dissipating the same amount of power it is receiving from the supply. (Or from wherever it is getting its power, like its zipons being agitated or whatever.) The temperature-time curves are plotted for both DC supply from a voltage regulated supply, and the Burst Heater circuit. The power supplied in each condition can be measured as DC power in, and the power dissipated at the load can be determined by finding the equilibrium temperature and comparing it to that obtained at the various non-extraordinary DC power levels used for calibration. This might take some time, as in a good load cell it might take 30 minutes or more for it to reach equilibrium temperature. The load's thermal mass and insulation should be chosen so this thermal settling time is not too long and not too short, and of course the load must be allowed to cool back to (regulated, constant) ambient temperature before beginning each trial run. Several trials should be made at each DC power level to allow for statistical accuracy checks. If variations are made in the operating parameters of the Burst Heater circuit, several trials should be performed at each set of parameters as well. The same load cell should be used because small differences that may not be under the experimenter's control could affect results if different load cells are used. A schedule of trials can and should be prepared beforehand and the order of trials can be randomized so that load cell ageing effects, if they occur, can be distributed evenly or randomly over the data set. Automated data logging, or at least a chart recorder record of time and temperature, would be a big help, but it is actually possible for a determined individual to record the necessary datapoints with paper and pencil.
This process will yield a series of curves in temperature-time plots. The equilibrium temperature reached by the Burst Heater trials can be compared to the temperatures reached at the various DC power levels and interpolated to yield the actual power dissipation level of the load cell when it is powered by the Burst Heater circuit.
Presumably the conventional power input to the Burst Heater circuit can be accurately measured... it could be powered by the same DC power supply at the same power levels as used for the DC calibrations, for example.
This process will also yield the data necessary for actual input and output energy comparisons as well, if anyone cares to do a bit more math.
I think that the process can be somewhat compressed by the fact that there are some interesting data points:

A. Pulse circuit test.  Let rise until the temperature stabilizes for at least five thermal time constants.  The thermal time constant can be estimated once there are at least three data points, and the rate of temperature rise has declined to half or less the starting rate of rise.

B. Cool off.  Turn off power.  Open vessel and let cool off until the temperature in the vessel is within 2C of ambient.

C. DC tests.
1) The average current of 112mA. (assumes duty cycle and average currents measurements taken of the pulse circuit operation are reasonably accurate)
2) The rms equivalent current of 229mA, (assumes duty cycle and average currents measurements taken of the pulse circuit operation are reasonably accurate)
3) The rms equivalent of 128% power vs:   = 229mA*(1.28)^0.5 = 259mA
4) The presently measured 363mA current

D. same as B

E-G, repeat A, B, and C.


The thermal time constant of the heat exchanger can be determined using the first pulse test.  Once the thermal time constant is known then the option exists to either cool off between DC runs, or simply adjust to progressively higher settings and wait five or more time constants between recording the results for each power step for the rise over ambient to stabilize.  It doesn't provide quite as much data, but unless the power inputs vary massively, and they don't, or the power leak rate is more than a small fraction of power in, then there isn't a lot of new useful data to be had by cooling down and then restarting during runs of like types, IE DC versus pulsed.  I do think that the unit should cool off between the DC runs and the pulse runs. 

I would do the pulse run first.  Then the DC runs can be stopped when a data point is found that exceeds the temperature rise of the pulse circuit.  In the unlikely case that the pulse circuit temperature rise is not even as high as the average current case, then a new lower current data point will be needed. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2014, 08:25:43 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2014, 07:54:47 PM »
Greg, I hear that you say that I gave up on you.  I have suggested some tests that I recommend you do before spending a ton of time and money building a giant capacitor bank.  The last you wrote, you were not interested in my suggestions.  The tests are directed at comparing the heat that you can evolve from your resistor when driving it at different DC current levels compared to the pulse drive.  The theory is simple enough:  When a resistor is driven by a rectangular pulse train (resistance translates voltage and current so we can refer to either), the energy imparted by each pulse is:

V2/R*TON or alternately: I2*R*TON

To get average power we just divide by: TPERIOD.

The equivalent DC voltage or current is then: 

Vrms = V*(TON/TPERIOD)0.5
Vrms = Vave*(TPERIOD/TTON)0.5

Irms = I*(TON/TPERIOD)0.5
Irms = Iave*(TPERIOD/TTON)0.5

Whether you believe it or not, DMMs really do a very good job of measuring Vave, and Iave even with spiky signals.  So, FWIW you can measure that directly.  Average voltage and/or current is really only useful when one or the other, voltage or current are stable.  Then if they are both measured at the power source the product does come out close to average power.  But remember, one or the other has to be stable.  In your situation, the supply voltage can be made very stable with decoupling capacitors.

Rms values require integration.  For a clean rectangular pulse the equations above represent the appropriate integrals.  If there is any issue keeping the voltage steady during the pulse, decoupling capacitors close in to the switching transistor will fix that problem.  If you are using a flyback / freewheeling diode, you want to make the battery power connection right at the cathode of the diode / capacitor connection, and keep the: MOSFET, flyback diode, capacitor wiring loop as small as possible, and make the battery negative connection right at the MOSFET source.  You can then run a wire from the diode/capacitor battery + connection off to the positive side of the heater resistor, and a wire from the MOSFET drain to the heater resistor.  You would probe with your scope from the MOSFET source to the MOSFET drain with one channel and from the MOSFET source to the diode/capacitor connection with the other.  If you use 75 Ohm resistors in series with the probe tips you will get pretty clean and accurate measurements.  The voltage across your load is the difference voltage between the two channels.

What good old ordinary circuit theory predicts is that the DC rms equivalent drive will evolve the same amount of heat from the resistor as the pulse drive.  If you see 25% more with the pulses than their rms equivalent, then something unexpected is going on that has never been seen by people who design switching power circuitry when they take careful measurements.  If you cross that bar while showing that there are no obvious errors in the measurements, and the technique I have explained should ensure that you don't have such errors then you will get a lot of attention.  If what you have so far is actually an illusion, then these tests will show you that.

Do what you want.  I know you don't trust me.  But these tests really are valid and will tell you and anyone else who reviews them and the results whether or not you have found an anomaly for a lot less effort and cost than the capacitor bank you said you were assembling.


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2014, 08:20:04 PM »
 GMeast said,
Quote
I'm pretty sure he figured he was in a losing argument in that he would have to call me a liar or accuse me of falsifying data, and that's a serious thing to try ... even for them.

I find it hugely ironic.... and ROFL funny.... that Gmeast makes such a statement, on the forum of the proven liar and fabricator of data Rosemary Ainslie. Ainslie still has the fake Figure 3 scopeshot displayed prominently in her "unretracted" daft manuscripts and her "adden-dumb" still claims it is valid. She has never issued any statement of correction or explanation for the Figure 3 scopeshot, and _all of her claims_ involving heat and "no measurable power from the supply"  depend on that shot and the other, similar, fabricated scopeshots which show ample Gate drive voltages during the non-oscillating portions but have _no_ current shown.

And let's not forget this Little demonstration of when she actually made Donovan Martin lie for her, in the video she posted to one of her four YouTube accounts, and then later shouted that "she did not post that video".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

The further strings of lies from Ainslie can be seen in practically every post she makes, like her present accusations that I "rely" on DMM readings, when it is clear to everyone with eyes and a brain that I RELY on digital oscilloscope readings and spreadsheet calculations and only use the DMM readings as PROOF that the experiment is occurring as I say.

GMeast is not doing his own credibility any good by associating himself with the proven liar and data fabricator Rosemary Ainslie.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: GM East Burst Heater Circuit
« Reply #13 on: April 19, 2014, 06:17:06 AM »
GMeast said,
I find it hugely ironic.... and ROFL funny.... that Gmeast makes such a statement, on the forum of the proven liar and fabricator of data Rosemary Ainslie. Ainslie still has the fake Figure 3 scopeshot displayed prominently in her "unretracted" daft manuscripts and her "adden-dumb" still claims it is valid. She has never issued any statement of correction or explanation for the Figure 3 scopeshot, and _all of her claims_ involving heat and "no measurable power from the supply"  depend on that shot and the other, similar, fabricated scopeshots which show ample Gate drive voltages during the non-oscillating portions but have _no_ current shown.

And let's not forget this Little demonstration of when she actually made Donovan Martin lie for her, in the video she posted to one of her four YouTube accounts, and then later shouted that "she did not post that video".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE

The further strings of lies from Ainslie can be seen in practically every post she makes, like her present accusations that I "rely" on DMM readings, when it is clear to everyone with eyes and a brain that I RELY on digital oscilloscope readings and spreadsheet calculations and only use the DMM readings as PROOF that the experiment is occurring as I say.

GMeast is not doing his own credibility any good by associating himself with the proven liar and data fabricator Rosemary Ainslie.
I don't visit the sins of the Tasmanian devil on the follower.  Her crazy behavior does not reflect directly on him.  I believe that Greg really believes that he's getting a 25% surplus.  So the task is to find out whether or not he is right.  I think that he has gone to some effort to try and conduct valid tests.  I hope that he will follow through one way or another.  I offer my suggestions as one way of following through with less expense and effort than what I understand he has proposed with the big capacitor bank.  If he takes up my suggestions, great.  If he doesn't, but follows through by some other means, that is good too.

 

OneLink