This would determine if the 'effect' is the result of vagaries associated with the wiring.
No !
You definitely need wires to connect your parts.
If you want to upscale your device for higher currents and load - you will need more diameter for the wire.
20Ah batteries have an internal resistance of 15mOhms. Thats almost in the range of the wiring.
For an upscaled device - you probably want to choose 100Ah or 400Ah batteries.
Whats the resistance of the wires in the demo device ? Do you know ?
Maybe there is a minimum resistance needed for save operation ? Do you know ?
Wires are inductors - what inductivity have the wires in the demo setup ? Do you know ?
If you´re engineering something - you have to deal with all that stuff.
Whats wrong with it ?
This would determine if the 'effect' of a recharge may not be consistent with actual recharge.
No !
As already mentioned different batteries have different internal resistance, depending on temperature, charge condition and pulse durations involved.
Actual batteries are not rated for that purpose - means you have no data nor guarantee that values will be different - for the same lot - or the same battery model. So you have to collect the data on your own. Even if the effect is proven - it is of no value if it works just with a single battery.
So if you want to build lots of things like that - you have to get a grip on your key components. The battery is a key component.
You may add overvoltage and deep discharge circuits and so on...
This would determine if the switch is responsible for what we claim is 'self resonance' or 'preferred oscillation.
What I have seen on your scope traces is a sporadic 50MHz glitch introducing a "short" cycle.
All "normal" cycles don´t have this glitch. This glitch comes initially from the NE555 power supply rail.
But how does it come there ? inductive coupling ? On experimenting - you can find out.
This would determine if the resonance can be 'imposed' on the circuit
This would be prefered, because you cannot solder 10 NE555 on top of each other to increase the drive level to drive more mosfets with increased gate charge.
So you probably want to replace that NE555 with something that automatically adjusts and seeks the right properties for that oscillation.
Not sure what a DS-cap is. I take it that R1 is the load resistor. The control signal DOES NOT jitter. I take it - nonetheless - that would determine whether the load inductance was responsible for the oscillation.
The gate of a mosfet has almost infinite resistance against source and drain.
But the gate forms mutual capacitors with source and drain.
This capacitor ranges from 100pF up to 100dreds of nF depending on the used part, how much in parallel and so on.
This capacity is somewhat determined in the datasheet - but has significant tolerances.
In a "professional" design - you want to get rid of those uncertain conditions.
In your demo circuit - the gate capacity plays an important role - because it forms an RC low-pass with R1.
This is why you would have to match R1 every time you change the mosfet.
In first order - the gate capacity against source (in combination with R1) limits the amount of time needed to charge up the gate and to discharge it - which finally controls the figure of the output resistance varying with time on switching on and off.
Otherwise we have that mutual drain-gate capacity (DS was a typo). If you discharge the gate capacity (turning off) - the back-emf of the inductive load will lift off together with the drain voltage. Because of the DG capacity - we have a flow of charge from drain to gate on switching off.
In a normal circuit you overcome that by having a low resistor from gate to ground - and an extra protection diode to protect the gate.
You can break the mosfet by having a higher gs voltage than rated - typical 15 volts.
If you would switch an inductive load with a mosfet - and would disconnect the gate immediatley on turning off - the back emf on the drain will lift the gate via drain-gate capacity - and the mosfet would be dead.;-(((
But this means that the DG capacity can operate as a feedback path.
Not sure what you're recommending here. Presumably whether or not it could be determined if the switching circuit alone could generate the 'effect'.
This would not work for the reasons that I've explained. We've 'scaled it' as far as it can go with the MOSFET. We've tried MOSFETS in series. It's too brittle.
a predicted change in '5 dimensions'. 'Go back to 3'. 'the only outcome that it doesnt work'. What part of this is experimentally relevant and how much of this is determined as required precisely because of that predicted outcome 'it doesn't work'?
The only proof would be to try it out. (using tunable external pseudo-random oscillator).
Getting rid of that 555 and the mosfet and the tuning of R1 is essential for scaling up.
If the mosfet (dg-capacity)+ R1 + coupling spike back into 555 is the feedback path - then you will run into problems changing that configuration.
(because that path is broken then)
If the outcome of further investigation is that you have to insert a short cycle if there is a special signature in the load current (already mentioned 50MHz glitch) - then we can design a circuit for that triggering as huge mosfets banks as needed.
But right now the chicken and egg thing isn´t clear.
If this glitched is caused by an intermittant NE555 output stage overload effect - well a pseudo random oscillator would do the same job.
What you have listed here Fritz are the very questions that were addressed by our accreditors. The experimental evidence was required in terms of the thesis. The experimental results speak to the thesis. There is NO other interpretation. Else we would not have got that accreditation. This is precisely why I do not want to waste more time on this thread with more experiments related to proof of concept.
And exactly what is it that I still do not understand?
That there is a different point of view.
You found something, invented something, there is a proof of concept.
But transforming that to an easy replicable and scalable "technology" is a job on its own.
If I use my oscilloscope to find an intermittant glitch crashing my controller - this doesn´t mean that I dont´t trust proof of concept.
What is as clear as daylight is that you doubt the results related to proof of concept. I could spend another year researching this to your satisfaction and still you would have doubts.
Is it necessary to wipe away my doubts if I just want to help you with the driver stage ?
A hands-on experience would wipe away doubts anyway if they really exist.
It's the nature of the claim that causes this. Those results. They do NOT make sense in the context of known physics.
OK there is something, a battery, a load, a switch, excess energy. A miracle happens.
But BTW: I don´t think that there is a bubble in spacetime which surrouds your circuit causing everything to work completly different.
In that case I cant help you anyway because I dont know how electronic components in a spacetime bubble operate.
Regards,
Fritz