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.

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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 304148 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

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

Sorry about this.  I posted on the wrong thread. 

Regards,
Rosemary.

btw Mark.  I'm with your daughter on this.  Also enjoyed those penguins.  LOL

Offline markdansie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
Hi Rosemary,
I just want to know you and people like Bill are really appreciated by many people I know who read your threads even if they do not post
I can only encourage you to continue and your work has prompted many other researchers to look at your ideas and I know have many discussions world wide. These are not backseat forum jockeys but in many cases (not mine) highly qualified people. So if nothing else you are like a muse that have promted many others to look at the way we view things.
PS Bill...still a fan.
Just hope this in some way can be accepted by you by the many (yes there are many) as an expression of our appreciation.
Having managed a few divisions of a University many years ago I know how ego's and prejudice can dampen true free thought and inovation. Keep up the good work
I also have a very healthy respect for TK, he can be a pain in the butt he is part of the equation. People like him do good work in keeping us all on our toes
Mark

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

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

So much appreciate your thoughts here, deserved or otherwise.  Truth is that it's a first.  And very nice if I'm 'stirring the pot' so to speak.  The more so as one really just keeps posting with fingers crossed that any of what is written here is ever read.  And it's not a happy place to be - generally confronting those acknowledged science experts.  The really good thing is that we're now, very safe.  We're on a campus where our academics are actually looking at experimental evidence rather than leaning ever more heavily on scientific assumption.  The hope is that they, in turn, don't get bitten by that popular opinion which seems to determine scientific principle - of late.

Thanks Mark - again, very much indeed.  You've made my year.  I'm going to download your post and frame it.   ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosie
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 09:37:02 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys, just a quick update on the tests.  We're still struggling with the 555 switch.  The guys are trying to get something that reliably alters frequency and duty cycle.  It seems that Glen's switch doesn't do a good job of this.  This is possibly why Glen could not get the same level of efficiency that we managed on our devices.  Either that or there's a fault in the presentation of that diagram.   I believe they're trying a new configuration using an SG35.24.  We're also going to get a functions generator in to compare the results.

Also, as mentioned we're getting a really zut scopemeter.  But I'll photograph all when this is to hand.  So, bottom line - there's a few more delays.  But you'll see that these problems are important to resolve before we can actually forge ahead.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

BTW the students built two switches to see if there was some inherent problem with the first build - either in the components or the board itself.  All in the interests of accuracy.  Certainly none apparent.  So clearly the problem is in that schematic that Glen published.  I find it curious that every single schematic of that switch has also been plagued with some inherent error.  One hopes it was not intended.  And, when we find the problem - if such there is - then we'll post it here.  In any event the new schematic will also be shown - if it works better.


Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Guys, just a quick update on the tests.  We're still struggling with the 555 switch.  The guys are trying to get something that reliably alters frequency and duty cycle.

Rose,

The 555 is a timer or oscillator. The switch is the MOSFET or IGBT.

If what you are describing about the "altering frequency and duty cycle" is in fact the quasi-stable state the 555 can go into under the right operating conditions, and you are not able to achieve this, then I would suggest that your group try a number of different manufacturers of the 555 itself. I found the variations were quite evident, and for me, only one type produced the desired quasi-stable state.

One other factor possibly influencing this "effect" is the proximity between the 555 and the switch. Yet another, is the switch itself. Are you using the IRFPG50? If not, that might be a place to start.

.99

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rose,

The 555 is a timer or oscillator. The switch is the MOSFET or IGBT.

If what you are describing about the "altering frequency and duty cycle" is in fact the quasi-stable state the 555 can go into under the right operating conditions, and you are not able to achieve this, then I would suggest that your group try a number of different manufacturers of the 555 itself. I found the variations were quite evident, and for me, only one type produced the desired quasi-stable state.

One other factor possibly influencing this "effect" is the proximity between the 555 and the switch. Yet another, is the switch itself. Are you using the IRFPG50? If not, that might be a place to start.

.99

Hi Poynty.   ???  Where did you get all this license to comment?  Are you on probation?  Or was that a self-appointed exile?  In any event - I don't suppose it's my business.  Just really curious. 

I thought the switch switched the transistor?  How then does one refer to the 555 switching circuit?   And yes we're using an IRFPG50. 

Poynty - how does proximty to the MOSFET change things?  And should they be further apart or nearer?  I've got pictures of this on a previous post.  I'll try and find them.

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
I thought the switch switched the transistor?  How then does one refer to the 555 switching circuit?
The 555 circuitry is an oscillator/timer (not a switch) that drives (turns on and off) the switch, the switch itself being the MOSFET or IGBT.

Quote
And yes we're using an IRFPG50.

That is the best approach if you want to achieve the quasi-stable mode of oscillation in the 555. The IRFPG50 has a relatively high inter-electrode capacitance, and this "enhances" disruptive feedback to the 555 through the Gate lead. 

Quote
Poynty - how does proximty to the MOSFET change things?  And should they be further apart or nearer?

Proximity of the 555 circuitry and associated wiring to the MOSFET and Resistive load can have a great effect on the stability of the 555 operation. The distance not only has an effect, but the actual orientation of all relative to one another, especially the 555's orientation and distance to the load and/or switch.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) increases greatly with frequency (or rise/fall times) and current. This setup can emit large amounts of EMI, especially if running above 100kHz, but the transients alone will wreak havoc on unshielded circuitry, such as your 555 oscillator. Running at only 2.4 kHz can still cause disruptive interference to the 555 due to high dV/dt.

If you want to de-stabilize the 555 oscillator, try moving the load resistor closer to it, and vary it's orientation also. MOSFET proximity will probably have a lesser effect with regards to EMI and orientation, but it is still present.

.99

(PS. Stefan has given me full membership once again.)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
The 555 circuitry is an oscillator/timer (not a switch) that drives (turns on and off) the switch, the switch itself being the MOSFET or IGBT.
Get it.  The 555 drives the switch.  I should have known this.  I've written it in both papers.  Thanks Ponty.

Proximity of the 555 circuitry and associated wiring to the MOSFET and Resistive load can have a great effect on the stability of the 555 operation. The distance not only has an effect, but the actual orientation of all relative to one another, especially the 555's orientation and distance to the load and/or switch.
What is 'too close'?  What's the optimal distance required between the FET and the driver?  Glen had them on the same board - and Groundloop had them both on the same board.  We've done the same here - twice - with very little difference, if any, in the configuration to Glen's set up.

Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) increases greatly with frequency (or rise/fall times) and current. This setup can emit large amounts of EMI, especially if running above 100kHz, but the transients alone will wreak havoc on unshielded circuitry, such as your 555 oscillator. Running at only 2.4 kHz can still cause disruptive interference to the 555 due to high dV/dt.
With respect - I'm not sure what you're saying here.  What 'set up'?  The switch?  The MOSFET?  What needs shielding?  There is NO WAY that our inductor is causing electromagnetic interference.  It is entirely impossible - in the circuit tested - to get a stable relationship between the duty cycle and the frequency variations that we want to test.  And at this stage we're testing the set up without any inductive load connected.  Just testing the basic efficiency of the actual switch and it's 'driver'?  In any event - the 555. 

Poynty - I have an interminable quarrel with all you guys.  It's in the way you bandy words, terms and acronyms around without giving a clear indication of their meaning.  It hardly advances anyone's understanding.  PLEASE - even if it's as a courtesy to my lack of training - just explain things clearly.  No slick technical references PLEASE.  Just plain simple english.  Science is already hopelessly confused.  Lets keep it simple.   Even that 'high dV/dt' - gets me down.  I know what it means.  It's just - surely, so much easier to say extreme changes in voltage over time - or if you want to be more technical say - incrementally large changes in voltage over time.  There are MANY readers who, like me, have NO TRAINING.  And simple english at least advances some understanding.  This is not, after all, a purely technical forum for trained experts.  And I really would prefer it that we can all understand posts. 

If you want to de-stabilize the 555 oscillator, try moving the load resistor closer to it, and vary it's orientation also. MOSFET proximity will probably have a lesser effect with regards to EMI and orientation, but it is still present.
Again.  Why would I want to destablise the oscillator?  Is this required?  Our concern is that it's unstable.  We're trying to stabilise it.   

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

(DELIGHTED to read that you're re-instated BTW - and more so as you're engaging here.  Much appreciated)   ;D

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys just a brief update on a small experiment that we're putting together.  Think of the polygonal 'patches' on a rugby ball - not sure yet whether they're to be penagons or hexagons  or some combination ? then extend the shape to the centre of a sphere - in a roughly conical construct but with flat sides - reaching to a point at the end.  Then add a small curve to the surface of the polygon.  Enough of them and we'll have a sphere. 

Then.  These are to be cut out of neodymium magnets - cylindrical - with the norths at the centre and the souths on the surface or vice versa.  That way we'll have a rough equivalent of a magnetic monopole.  Then.  Add pin bearings to each side - on a stand - and the hope is that it'll generate a spin at 180 degrees to the Earth's magnetic lines of force.  IF it spins then we unquestionably will have a generator if it's placed within a copper coil.

In any event I'm digging deep into the pockets to get this construct together - and, hopefully soon, I'll be able to report on it's success or failure.  I'm hoping for some kind of result by the weekend or soon thereafter.  We'll see.

By the way - it can't be patented as the construct has been made very public, by me, on a couple of forums already - including this.  And - if it does spin then it will answer some very deep questions - I think - especially as it relates to a magnetic field.

Regards,
Rosemary

We'll also be constructing some kind of plastic sphere to encase these in as there will be some considerable forces of replusion.

Offline IotaYodi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Sounds a little like a buckyball. About the same configuration they used in the atomic bomb for implosion. Might be a little hard to construct. Got me to thinking if the magnets should be manufactured in the same latitude as the experimental sphere though it probably wouldnt matter.
Ive had a similar idea but using 2 interlocked toroid shapes with one vertical for the magnetic field and the other horizontal for the electric field. Iron would be the magnetic field toroid and a copper winding on the other toroid for the electric field. Maybe a resonant tuning on the coil. Orientation to the earths axis may come into play.  Just a wild idea.
 Hope You build this sphere I would like to see it.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Sounds a little like a buckyball. About the same configuration they used in the atomic bomb for implosion. Might be a little hard to construct. Got me to thinking if the magnets should be manufactured in the same latitude as the experimental sphere though it probably wouldnt matter.
Ive had a similar idea but using 2 interlocked toroid shapes with one vertical for the magnetic field and the other horizontal for the electric field. Iron would be the magnetic field toroid and a copper winding on the other toroid for the electric field. Maybe a resonant tuning on the coil. Orientation to the earths axis may come into play.  Just a wild idea.
 Hope You build this sphere I would like to see it.

Hi Iota.  It's going to be hell to get this together - especially as we've got to keep the magnets really small - otherwise I don't think we'd be able to cope with their repulsion.  My concerns are these.  We may sacrifice too much material in the design and this may reduce the magnetic fields to something that's way too negligible.  Then the fact is that we've still got a very symmetrical shape - a platonic solid - and, it's my experience that magnetic fields resolve themselves where there's symmetries - and they then come to a rest state.  I think, ideally, one needs to incorporate some imbalance.  My hope is to put the bearings at an obtuse angle - not unlike the axial spin away from true north of our earth.  But I strongly suspect that we'll need to rebuild something with one too many north's or souths' and, ideally, the simplest would be a cube constructed from pryamids where one cube would be machined with an opposing field to the other three.  But this is the first step - and also the most expensive - just to get the base parameters established.  I'm not sure how 'true' I need to keep the spherical shape either.  It could be that a flat surface polygon would introduce the required 'sharp' angle to conflict with the earth's smooth field.  Just don't know.  Another thing is that we may have to incorporate magnetic bearings - but my intention at this early stage is to build the 'pins' from magnets - that they oppose whichever surface is exposed in those polygons.  That way I may be able to reduce the friction even if only fractionally.

I love your concept there.  It's just so pure and so simple.  I LOVE SYMMETRIES.  The hell of it would be to hold that construct that all parts could spin if they wanted to.  But that's definitely the geometric design of the electromagnetic interaction.  Very intriguing.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

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

I need to apologise.  There's been delays in the delivery of our Le Croy scopemeter being delivered from Gauteng.  It will, apparently be here on Friday.  Our switch - I believe, is nearly up and running - some small adjustment with a replacement capacitor - and then, God willing, I'll be able to complete our first tests.  My hope is to work there over the weekend. 

Regards,
Rosemary.

Offline Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
 ;) Zee liquid buckey ball, perfect model (and what of surface tension  lol).   I like your thread,  really we strayed a bit but this stuff needs thought and we are working it up well here.   

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Hi Hope.  I'm only adding the topic about the magnet monopole because it's relevant to the thesis.  But I agree.  It's interesting to find those pure shapes.  Hopefully they'll speak to us.  In any event - here's the status.  A friend of mine has worked up the design using pentagons.  He's got to add a dome to get the sphere.  And it seems that the construct will need bigger magnets than we intended.  The final construct will otherwise be 4 milimeters in diameter.  LOL.  So.  I've now got to source different magnet sizes.  But fortunately we've got a fairly large supplier near us.  Then the idea is to machine this as it may be kinder to the magnet both in terms of the brittle nature of neodymium and in terms of magnetic field itself that may be rather compromised through spark erosion.  In effect we have to machine 12 shapes - look something like diamonds - and then assemble all those pieces that I suspect will probably resist our best efforts.  LOL It's all quite challenging.  The truth is that having finished the one - there's a real possibility that we'll have to build two more - and I'm not sure that they should all be the same size.  It would have been nice to follow a blue print.   ;D  Also - we may also try and shape 6 others into a pyramidal structures with the same principle of burying the north or south inside the structure - but this time I'll leave it like a cube.  In any event.  Some interesting experiments and rather challenging to put it all together.

For anyone who's following the switch saga - or the switch/driver/oscillator? whatever - the new oscillator, using the alternate transistor (GS35.24 I think) - is also not giving us the range of frequency that's optimally required.  It's now been proposed that we move to using something called a micro controller unit.  Apparently it runs on software and is able to operate stably - at a far higher frequency ranges - is easy to preset the required duty cycle to ever smaller fractions - and all tests will then become more reliably repeatable.  Since we're waiting for the delivery of our scope meter - we're going to explore this option as well.  My concern is only that I know that part of the required oscillation happens by overriding the duty cycle and all those units that we've put together before - managed this.  I'm not sure if the micro processing unit will somehow prevent this.  We've also ordered the new 'flange' to accommodate a wider range of resistors - for testing.  This will be installed the minute we've finished our base test numbers on our 'semi' standard element.

So.  We're getting there.  Gradually.   ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
For anyone who's following the switch saga - or the switch/driver/oscillator? whatever - the new oscillator, using the alternate transistor (GS35.24 I think) - is also not giving us the range of frequency that's optimally required.  It's now been proposed that we move to using something called a micro controller unit.  Apparently it runs on software and is able to operate stably - at a far higher frequency ranges - is easy to preset the required duty cycle to ever smaller fractions - and all tests will then become more reliably repeatable.  Since we're waiting for the delivery of our scope meter - we're going to explore this option as well.  My concern is only that I know that part of the required oscillation happens by overriding the duty cycle and all those units that we've put together before - managed this.  I'm not sure if the micro processing unit will somehow prevent this.  We've also ordered the new 'flange' to accommodate a wider range of resistors - for testing.  This will be installed the minute we've finished our base test numbers on our 'semi' standard element.

So.  We're getting there.  Gradually.   ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

You'll most likely need the 555, which was stressed in my previous posts. The "over-riding" duty cycle occurs because of interference back to the 555.

But try the microcontroller, it will provide a wide range of frequency and duty cycle outputs. It probably won't like to drive the MOSFET directly though, in which case you'll be utilizing a proper MOSFET driver. I doubt the desired quasi-stable oscillation will be achieved with anything other than the right combination of chips, and the 555 seems up to the task, due to its inherent sensitivity to outside influences.

.99