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 Posts: 897180
  • *Total Topics: 15807
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 31
  • *Total: 32

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 266561 times)

Offline otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Rosemary,

MOSFETs are just fine!! Im using IRFP 450 MOSFETs and this are the only one I almost cant blow.
A lot of times I have connected them in wrong ways and they all "survived" my "out of mind" connections. They are good and fast enough.

It seems that I have to throw my TPU into water to see how fast the water would get hot and not to forget, how highly energized particles would "love" a water bath.

Yes, Im a little bit crazy because I want to SEE!!

You said you want more power?? Something like this. Hmmmm. you also said that your setup is not frequency depend. Of course your setup depends on the used frequency because this frequency is pulsating the battery. And from the battery you get the voltage!
So, use 2 oscillators - carefully. Because in 1 moment we have a oridinary battery and in another moment we have an electrolyser!! A very powerfull one.

Otto

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi Otto, 

I think we used IRFPG50's  - I could try that 450 number.  But here's the actual problem.  In our experiments we used a R10 Ohm resistor - (inductive number) and the best we could get is between 28 and 34 watts of heat from the circuit using it.  Notwithstanding which the actual measured voltage in the CEMF exceeds 1100 which is very nearly at the FET's limit.  So - that's the problem.  I think you guys refer to it as 'rise time'.  We need to switch it to get the required resonance - and in switching it we restrict the current flow required to get enough power into the system.  The good thing is that the high voltage gives a huge punch to return that voltage through the battery.  And it definitely recharges the battery which means that the energy delivered is almost zero.  And there's still that 28 odd watts of heat at the load which is way in excess of the energy delivered by the source.  But ITS NOT ENOUGH.  We now have to heat 8 litres of water.  It calls for way more energy.  Which also means that we need a transistor with a voltage tolerance in the 10's of thousands.  The hope is that maybe an IGBT can cut it.  But then the next problem is to establish the return path for the current flow from the CEMF to recharge the batteries.  So... We're thinking a diode across the switch may do it?  It could take the place of that internal body diode that we depend on in the FET? 

Not sure how it will pan.  The hope is rather focused on using that circuit design on that 'back to front' battery system with a return path of both cycles for the CEMF.  Maybe it will add to the heat and - provided we can return this to the battery to recharge - then this may compensate for the losses we're expecting from switching the IGBT.  I'm in unchartered territory here Otto.  I just don't know.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

edited irfpg50
« Last Edit: July 29, 2010, 05:38:10 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
hi all

ok, now there is the beginning of a specification taking shape: 8L water!

the requirement list will need to grow from there


is it required to boil the water?  or just reach a certain temp?

is the next device just for testing or will it also eventually have to be practical (eg. for domestic use?)


let's consider a domestic kettle (just an example);

  - in a 220V consumer supply region, a 2KW kettle would handle approx 9A

  - the heating element would be need to be approx 24 ohms

  (max. volume of water is likely around 2L; heats water to 100*C in, say, up to 3 mins)


if the development of the circuit being proposed here (in this thread) is to continue using batteries then its likely that the supply volts will be much lower and the current much higher than the kettle example

we can see already that a heater impedance near 10 ohms is unlikely to be close to target - if we used a 24V battery supply for the kettle application  then we've divided the supply voltage by approx. 10 so we'd need to multiply the current by a similar factor (to around 90A in this example!)

we'd need a heating element with an impedance of around 0.25 ohm


so, one approach might be to 'divide-and-conquer' - have multiple 'inductive resistor' elements which can be safely handled by available MOSFETS; each sharing a fraction of the total current


are there other switching devices which might be considered?
 (eg. the SCR - or a related device)

  - supply voltage (and current also?) might be less of a constraint

  - but would an alternative switch - an SCR, say - have the required switching-speed characteristics?


so - some more requirements needed:-

 - target temp. for the 8L water
 - preferred supply voltage
 - practical constraints on the circuit
   (eg. would 10 elements + 10 switch devices, say, be acceptable just for tests, etc)

more (or tighter) requirements will help achieve a closer-bounded solution space

...sorry, i'm starting to sound like Prof. 'Lead Out'!   my meds must be starting to wear off!!  ;)

'nuff from me for now, regards
sandy

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
ok, now there is the beginning of a specification taking shape: 8L water!
is it required to boil the water?  or just reach a certain temp?
Hi Sandy.  The water does not need to boil - but I'd like to test it to boiling point.  We'll be fitting the cylinder with pressure valves so it probably won't get much over 80 degrees centigrade.

is the next device just for testing or will it also eventually have to be practical (eg. for domestic use?)
It's intended for use - as is.  There may be a market for this as our rural communities are off grid and their only access to hot water is by lighting fires.  Modified versions of this would be ideal to cook with - but that's definitely phase 2 - down the line.

let's consider a domestic kettle (just an example);

  - in a 220V consumer supply region, a 2KW kettle would handle approx 9A
  - the heating element would be need to be approx 24 ohms
  (max. volume of water is likely around 2L; heats water to 100*C in, say, up to 3 mins)


if the development of the circuit being proposed here (in this thread) is to continue using batteries then its likely that the supply volts will be much lower and the current much higher than the kettle example
At this stage we're aiming for not less than 100 volts dc (battery supply) and possibly as high as 200 depending on whether or not we use the nickle metal hydride in conjunction with the lead acids.

we can see already that a heater impedance near 10 ohms is unlikely to be close to target - if we used a 24V battery supply for the kettle application  then we've divided the supply voltage by approx. 10 so we'd need to multiply the current by a similar factor (to around 90A in this example!)

we'd need a heating element with an impedance of around 0.25 ohm
I agree.  We need low resistance and high inductance in the resistor.  But we're planning to test a variety of these resistors to see which work best.  Again.  The problem is to determine the 'switching speeds' to generate the required 'preferred oscillation' and yet retain enough power to ensure that there is some realistic level of efficiency in getting that water hot.

so, one approach might be to 'divide-and-conquer' - have multiple 'inductive resistor' elements which can be safely handled by available MOSFETS; each sharing a fraction of the total current
We considered this option.  The down side here is that multiple units is possibly clumsy and expensive.  Hopefully we'll get around this option.

are there other switching devices which might be considered?
 (eg. the SCR - or a related device)

  - supply voltage (and current also?) might be less of a constraint
  - but would an alternative switch - an SCR, say - have the required switching-speed characteristics?
 
I have no idea.  You guys would know the answer.  One proposal made is that we use an IGBT as mentioned.  But then we'd need to introduce that diode across the switch to get a path for the CEMF induced current flow.  Still to be tested.

So that's where we're at.  But we still need to get some thermostat's and pressure gauges installed in the cylinder.  It's only just been plumbed in.  I'll take a photo of the set up either over the weekend or on Monday.  And we're still debating the best switch - and we've still got one more resistor to build before we can actually start those tests.  But I think it's a week away - at the most.  Can't wait.  I'll keep you posted.  And I'd be very glad of any advices that anyone can offer regarding switches.  Sandy?  Perhaps you can explain that SCR number.  I'm afraid I've never even heard of them.  I also want to explore a reed type switch but have been advised that it may be too 'sticky' and that there's a problem with arcing.  It seems we'll be obliged to use a transistor of some sort.  But not such a bad thing as we can at least retain that switching speed.

Thanks for the focus you've given us with these questions Sandy. 
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
hi Rosemary

apologies, i didn't mean for you to have to field all those questions

obviously you need to provide the requirement-related answers, but the more implementation-oriented ones are thrown out for consideration by members with power-application experience

your application sounds intriguing and very worthy - could this type of development herald the start of a new-technology steam age?

SCR is 'silicon-controlled rectifier'  - like a switchable diode - usually found controlling power devices on the mains supply - hence they can have pretty good voltage and current rating

however, i'm not so sure their switch-off behaviour would be suitable for initiating the inductive 'kick' of field collapse - but i'm sure folks with power-switching knowledge will advise

as you say, IGBTs have been suggested - but was there still a current-drive issue with them?  over to the heavy-current gurus!

i would expect reed switches to be discounted on two scores: 

 - they're not at all suited to any kind of current drive, especially with inductive loads (arcing issues, as you say)

 - they have very limited upper switching frequency - low hundreds Hz at best - i think your basic waveform is around a few kHz - and i don't think they'd be able to cope with your aperiodic or parasitic oscillation drive

a regular power relay would be better at the current drive - but equally dismal with the frequency response i feel

SSR - solid-state relay - might be a runner, again need input from those with power experience


more than enough** from me!

all the best
sandy


**oops... not quite...

  Rosemary, you *have* to see this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOv0AkphLhE&feature=pyv&ad=4232609694&kw=magnet&gclid=CNefjon5kaMCFYeY2Aodini3nA

...zipons, or what?!?  :)
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 02:19:55 AM by nul-points »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
  Rosemary, you *have* to see this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOv0AkphLhE&feature=pyv&ad=4232609694&kw=magnet&gclid=CNefjon5kaMCFYeY2Aodini3nA

...zipons, or what?!?  :)
Hello Sandy,
I've seen this before.  How fascinating is that?  Just to rabbit on a little about physics - you probably know this.  Bell's theorems.  Let me assure you I have no idea what they are - but I do understand their conclusion.  From memory he says something to the effect 'The statistical predictions of quantum theories ....cannot be upheld by local hidden variables'.  I think this points to the fact that on a very profound level there has to be PERFECT symmetry - else our manifest universe would need to be utterly chaotic.  And it does seem as if that magnetised spherical shape very easily forms into symmetrical arrangements.  I am SO into patterns.  I'll have to try and get hold of some of those magnets.  Where does one buy them?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Hello all,

@Rosemary

so you want to warm up 8 liters of water.

You know about cold fusion??

Otto

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hello all,

@Rosemary

so you want to warm up 8 liters of water.

You know about cold fusion??

Otto
hello all.

@Otto.
Interesting question.  Do you?
Rosemary

Offline otto

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1215
Finally a clever person named Rosemary.

About heating water and the cold fusion stuff I know almost everything. I worked for years on the cold fusion "problem". I also heated my house with the  cold fusion principle. The problem was that is was summer and outside hot and not to mention inside my house. HOT!!

I used cold fusion only to heat up water in a very fast way. It was really not a problem but in that time I didnt know about pulsed coils and all the stuff.

In short why dont you heat up 0,2 liters of water and this water is feeded into a heat exchanger ......bla,bla, bla.... old boring stuff.

Otto

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline fritz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
I would upscale & verify the original setup in a very careful way:

1.) Optimize the wiring to shortest possible connections with perfect contacts avoiding loops using   upscaled     diameters.
     (we don´t want to be fooled by EMF or contact issues)
2.) Analyse the effect with an entire lot of batteries observing chemistry
3.) Identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation.
     This could be EMF, power spikes - but probably its the load spike coupled via drain-gate capacity via R1      pot - NE555 output - NE555 internal protection diodes - finally shifting NE555 comparator levels causing jittering oscillation.
4.) Try to galvanically isolate pulse generator from power circuit using opto-coupler.
     Maybe its possible to get the effect on feeding _ANY_ jittering oscillation with similar frequency.
5.) Identify the role of R1 as consequence of the 3.) - 4.)
     Is the role of R1 just to maintain that jittering oscillation using parasitic feedback from backEMF coupled via DS-cap ?. Is the role of R1 to limit the slope of charging the gate - or both. Would it work with outside jittering control signal - or is the feedback from the physical  load needed ?

6.) Based on 5.) it should be possible to design a robust system with properly driven mosfet (eliminate R1), operating independent from mosfet type and "instant on" operation. (maybe adaptive controller needed)

7.) Now it would be the right time to upscale batteries, currents, mosfets.
     Is this effect upscalable ? is there a maximum current depending on battery type ?

... and so on.
find the apropriate questions - and get your answers.

just replacing that mosfet with igbt, scr, ss-relay would change the way how this operates by 5 dimensions, with the only outcome that it doesnt work. Even if you could achieve same operation- you would restart at 3) seeing 5 other effects to explain.

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
  I'll have to try and get hold of some of those magnets.  Where does one buy them?

i expect Google and eBay will be your friends here!  ;)


i haven't seen anything like this before - but when i stumbled on this video yesterday it reminded me immediately of the zipon models in your Scribd paper

i thought you might interested to have some to make physical illustration of different stable configurations


all the best
sandy


PS.  in the video the presenter uses a credit-card to separate the magnets: ...probably not a good idea to use a card whose magnetic stripe contains important information!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hello again Fritz,

I get it that you're recommending that we redo all those tests?  And check the measurements?  Interesting.  And your recommendation is that we go back to the 'third para to check or 'identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation...' !  This simply indicates that, like so many others, you are assuming either an incorrect measurement or attributing a measurement to an incorrect cause. 

This actually goes to the heart of the problem with all OU claims.  Frankly I'm tired of answering these questions - but see that it's required.  And I'm not sure that anything I write here will make a blind bit of difference.  The simple truth is that this OU claim, as with so many others - is met with rank - and, probably, very appropriate scepticism.

It must be reasonably obvious to all readers here that my knowledge of circuitry is somewhat scant.  I really cannot stress how little I know.  But the learning curve associated with the design and type of switches is not that steep.  I'm reasonably sure that with a bit of application I could probably wrap my mind around it.  I'm not sure one first has to be Einstein to understand them or apply them.  I deliberately keep my knowledge vague - for a variety of reasons.  If this post doesn't stress everyone's attention by being a bit lengthy then I'll explain it better.  I'm rather anxious to demystify physics generally.  I really need to keep it simple.

But to begin with I'll try and point out where I started.  I developed a magnetic field model - without ever picking up a book that explained current flow or any applied electrical engineering.  I simply read the Dancing Wu Li Masters.  A really brilliant book that tackles the explanation of physics from purely conceptual terms.  Had this not been my introduction then I very much doubt that I'd have had a handle on the subject at all.  The point is this.  I had an edge that qualified physicists don't yet understand.  Physics is perfectly advanced from a conceptual standpoint.  Possibly better understood like this than through the abstractions of mathematics.  It must be remembered that Pauli - as an example - defied that the atom could ever be conceptualised and recommended that it remain in pure pure abstract mathematical terms.  Our quantum mechanics rather depend on this.  The second advantage I had was that the only text book on physics that I could ever understand was written by Paul Dyson.  Another marvel of clarity.  In effect these two writers managed what most physicists don't.  They wrote the subject in simple concept.  They did not lapse into those dry and bewildering abstractions that generate a slew of unanswerable questions where the 'general picture' is lost in ever deepening cycles of obscurity.  To follow an argument in physics as rendered by your average physicists it to first require a romp into equations and symbols that are as meaningful to the average layman as those symbols of magic must have been to the layman in Medieval times.  Think of the authority that must have given the Merlins of that time.  It's the same authority that our mainstream academic have wrested from us, the lay public.  I wonder to what extent they would be 'laughed out of court' should physics ever become SO simple - that your average 6 year old can follow the most of it and your average teenager the whole of it.  And what then if not one single part of it requires a mathematical equation.  THAT would be to commit a kind of heresy.  It would be deemed to be sacrilege.  It would need some skilled witch hunting.  A burning at the stake.  It would need to be addressed in terms of utter contempt and dismissal.  Else, all that nonsense associated with the 'abstractions' and 'deep imponderables' would be seen as a kind of wild pretension aimed at controlling all that knowledge or - God forbid - hiding a lack of it.

Actually.  That's what I propose is the case.  Really profound questions have still to be answered by mainstream.  I am firmly convinced that the actual essense of physics is that simple that your first lessons should be advanced at your early grades and your final lessons in your first year of high school.  Everything after that is FUN.

Which is - at the risk of sounding somewhat ridiculous - my mission here and on these experiments.  And which is why I am anxious to keep my explanations simple and unpretentious.  No-one told me that the flow of current was the flow of electrons.  I had to work it out from the term 'charge' as referenced by both Dyson and Zukov.  But when I finally understood that mainstream considered current flow to be the flow of electrons - then I had a real PROBLEM.  How is this possible in the light of Pauli's exclusion principle?  And anyway.  By now I was knee deep in my experiments and I had already determined that current flow comprised the flow of magnetic fields.  Then - because I KNEW this - then I also KNEW that I could return this to the battery to recharge the battery.  That was my early test.  I used inductors with diodes and routed current flow back to the battery to recharge it.  But the problem with those early tests was this.  The result was not extreme enough to be conclusive enough.  I needed a more dramatic result.  That's when I discovered the property of the mosfet with it's strategically placed body diode.  There was my path.  Once I found this I could switch at speed and then... finally, the result was dramatically and clearly evident.

The circuit was first presented to some physicists at UCT - Professor Violie and Professor Klaymans (apologies if I've spelled their names wrongly) - in and around the year 2000.  That was just to express the logic.  In other words the objective was to return inductance back to the battery to recharge the battery.  In effect - I was proposing that the equivalence principle would be challenged if - indeed - a battery could recharge itself.  They both acknowledged that the test would be conclusive - one way or the other and even suggested that their own lab technician do the test.  The technician declined.  He said he was not prepared to get involved with 'over unity' tests.  The downside was that nor were they prepared to evaluate the circuit when I finally achieved that effect.  I was told that they were theoreticians.  They would NOT evaluate experimental apparatus as it was outside their field of expertise.  LOL

But the reaction form our academic engineers - where the measurement of energy IS indeed in their expertise - was that they roundly assured me that the battery COULD NOT RECHARGE ITSELF.  Simple.  Period.  They would not waste their time.  That started a kind of 'dialogue' if such it could be called - where the entire engineering fraternity on three local campuses - effectively learned to put the phone down on me if and when I called.  At this stage my argument was simply - 'just take a look at the experiment'.  I eventually gave up and took the experiment to industry.  There - obviously in view of a more pragmatic interest in applied energies - there was enough curiosity to at least attend a demonstration and apply their own measurements or test parameters.  Whatever new 'angle' they required - I tested it.  If they told me to jump a foot - I jumped 2 feet.  BP wanted battery duration tested with carefully established controls.  Sasol were happy with a demonstration.  ABB Research (North Carolina) wanted the entire apparatus and then to do the tests as they chose.  Spescom used ever more specialised measuring instruments.  The more specialised the instruments the better the result.  And whichever test was required it was performed.  I say this everywhere.  Sasol even offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further which offer was politely declined due to an overarching lack of interest. 

What I'm trying to show you here Fritz is this.  Every test that could possibly be required to prove this result has been performed.  I absolutely WILL NOT be persuaded to redo proof of concept.  It's been done to death.  I've mentioned 4 companies here only because they're all quoted on our local bourse.  But there were many other engineers.  Many, many both as individuals and as companies.  2 solid years of my life was devoted to promoting this proof.  My final push was to get a paper published in an academic reviewed journal.  Needless to say I failed.  So I did the next best thing.  I published in a technical journal.  I also put the apparatus on display for a week at MTN Sciencentre in continuous demonstration mode in the hopes of interesting physicists at a conference being held there.  This at the request of the admin at that Centre.  Needless to say not one person attended a demo nothwithstanding it's being well publicised.  And then I just gave up.  My son - bless him, saw this as a cause of my deepening depression and, knowing something of the internet he put up my blogspot 8 years after these sorry events.  Then the subject took fire and the rest is history.

But it's history repeating itself in many ways.  I would remind you of my article 'IF I WAS A TROLL' which I'll append for those of you who may not yet have read it.  It's my experience on open sourcing this.  Some of my experience in any event.  I've yet to write chapter 2. What I'm trying to tell you is this - and I cannot stress it enough.  Yet I'm committed to Open Source.  I keep hoping that those with insight and with the ability to understand that simple, simple model - will be able to develop it as required.

The RESULTS are REQUIRED in terms of a magnetic field model.  The results have been MEASURED according to exacting measurements protocols established by those very same academic engineers who for all these years would NOT LOOK at the principles.  The battery depletes at the rate that is measured across the shunt resistor.  And the resistor cooks at a level of wattage dissipation WELL IN EXCESSS of the energy seen and measured to be delivered by the battery.  NOW.  I really do need to move on.  We all do.   

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33937867/IF-I-WAS-A-TROLL

Offline fritz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
I get it that you're recommending that we redo all those tests?

I´dont know what tests you have done. If there is some more data needed (for the process to scale it up) which cant be derived from the already performed tests - its probably necessary to do further tests. I remember that I suggested to check the wiring - because we want to have more amps .....

And check the measurements?

why not. Everytime I exchange a component or modify something I make my measurements. piece by piece.
Because I want to improve or even maintain the already achieved performance - if some change degrades the perfomance I want to know and identify that as early as possible.

  Interesting.  And your recommendation is that we go back to the 'third para to check or 'identify the feedback mechanism which is causes that jittering oscillation...' !

What is the feedback mechanism ? special anti-matter phenomenon within NE555? no.
If you have to replace NE555 and mosfet with different circuit to scale up the amps - you probably don´t want to break the already working feedback.
So you have to investigate it - and replace it by something workable with the scaled up version.

  This simply indicates that, like so many others, you are assuming either an incorrect measurement or attributing a measurement to an incorrect cause. 

paranoia ?

I trust your measurements and the effect. If it comes to your theory - well I don´t understand it - why should I comment it - or question it ?
Do I need to believe it if I cannot understand it ? no.  I think thats a fair approach.


peace.

rgds.

fritz


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968

I trust your measurements and the effect. If it comes to your theory - well I don´t understand it - why should I comment it - or question it ?
Do I need to believe it if I cannot understand it ? no.  I think thats a fair approach.

I agree.  I've defined the first phase of this procedure to test until we get the required waveform.  Thereafter - phase 2 - optimising it.  All measurements confined to energy delivered by the supply compared to energy dissipated at the load.  There is NO need to rerun proof of concept.  And there is no need to redefine the measurement parameters.

I'm not paranoid Fritz.  I'm tired.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline fritz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
There is NO need to rerun proof of concept.  And there is no need to redefine the measurement parameters.

somhow you don´t understand me.




 

OneLink