PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-04-12, 07:51:40
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29]
Author Topic: The Rosemary Ainslie Circuit  (Read 409267 times)

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
The 3 watts consumption of the FG is the same category as the 55 watts consumption to just operate the FG.

then something has to provide power to turn the MOSFETs and it has to be the battery in this case.
In this case almost zero power is required to turn both mosfets on. And for the sake of argument, if none of that 0.5W did make it to the load resistor, it is still being dissipated in the rest of the circuit, mainly the RDS of the MOSFETS.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
POYNT;

Thank you for your hard work showing proper measurement of this circuit. I have been following closely, just not commenting.

Can you summarize your investigation i.e. are there any noteworthy observable anomalies with this circuit?

Your work is appreciated!


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
In this case almost zero power is required to turn both mosfets on. And for the sake of argument, if none of that 0.5W did make it to the load resistor, it is still being dissipated in the rest of the circuit, mainly the RDS of the MOSFETS.

I would agree you are right that little power is required to turn on the FETs.  I also agree you are correct that when the FG is in series with the battery, the FG 3 watts is part of the circuit because the 50 Ohms resistance is in series with the load resistor.

Now if in all the resistors are series configuration, the dissipated power would be:

Irms2 x (R1 + R2 ...)

Since the biggest resistances are load and FG 50 Ohms, we could concentrate on it.  Indeed the FG could put its .5 watts to the load resistor, but at the same time, the FG also suck power from the battery because it holds the biggest resistance in the circuit.  Matter of fact, it has about 5 times more power dissipated than the load resistor.  
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Since the biggest resistances are load and FG 50 Ohms, we could concentrate on it.  Indeed the FG could put its .5 watts to the load resistor, but at the same time, the FG also suck power from the battery because it holds the biggest resistance in the circuit.  Matter of fact, it has about 5 times more power dissipated than the load resistor.  
Indeed, that's why very little heating occurs in the load resistor from the negative portion of the cycle.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
POYNT;

Thank you for your hard work showing proper measurement of this circuit. I have been following closely, just not commenting.

Can you summarize your investigation i.e. are there any noteworthy observable anomalies with this circuit?

Your work is appreciated!
Thanks ION. Nice to know you're following along.

There are definitely no unexplained or OU-related anomalies in this circuit. As I've professed right from the very beginning 6 years ago, the "results" have always been an artifact from poor measurement techniques, and a gross misinterpretation of those measurements.
   
Group: Guest
Indeed, that's why very little heating occurs in the load resistor from the negative portion of the cycle.

So assuming all your measurement is correct.  The input should be

Pbat + Pfg = 4W + .5W = 4.5W

The output should be:

 (Ibat)rms2 x Rload = 4.5W max
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
4W additional power is being from drawn the grid as shown on the meter. 0.5W is dissipated in the circuit.

What are you trying to point out exactly?
   
Group: Guest
4W additional power is being from drawn the grid as shown on the meter. 0.5W is dissipated in the circuit.

What are you trying to point out exactly?

No... 4 watts is from battery measurement.  37V x 108mA or about as a few previous video ago.  I'm trying to get a Pin vs Pout.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Ah, that 4W is without taking into account the CSR value (0.25). Pbat is actually about 16W.
   
Group: Guest
Ah, that 4W is without taking into account the CSR value (0.25). Pbat is actually about 16W.

Oh okay, 108ma X 4 to get the real current.  What I'm trying to establish is the way we do calculation.  This should account for all energy source input that we know.  Of course this output is conservative because it ignore the 1 and .25 Ohms resistance since the biggest resistance hold the biggest dissipation.  And if the circuit capable of producing COP 2, then it should be man... or woman enough to cover its conservative part. lol

Do you see any problem with this method?





   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
COP2 would be minimum I think to overcome losses. COP3 min.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
From Rose's forum after the dry run testing on the 10th. She has finally conceded that conventional science prevails, and she was incorrect with her measurements and the conclusions drawn from them. It's only taken two years! They will perform similar testing today as well in a public forum for all to witness. It should be viewable on YT. I will post a link when I receive it.

Quote
Guys

We have just completed a 'dry run' required by Steve Weir in advance of the demo for tomorrow.  We followed stringent protocols that are outlined in a file that has now, apparently, been put on the internet.  If not I'll see what I can do to get the file link posted here.

The claim was made by Poynty that inductance on the battery was skewing our results and I refuted this.  SADLY he is RIGHT.  Far from being able to generate the required measurements - the advantage ENTIRELY falls away.  I am satisfied with the logic that Steve proposed for this proof.  And with the protocols required to prove this.  And again - WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS - NOTWITHSTANDING our earlier measurements.  This saddens me - on one level - the more so as I now feel that I must start this quest from scratch.  But on another level I'm strangely relieved.  It's complex.  And over time I may be able to understand it better - myself.  One liberating aspect is that I will not need to devote any time trying to persuade our academics to take this research on board.  Which I anticipated would take up way more time than I'd be willing to forfeit. And which I felt was an obligation on my part - as I was somehow compelled to protect the evidence against the onslaught to which it was subjected.  I can now, perhaps - proceed with ONLY those tests that really do interest me.

I have never made this fact public - but I am blind as a bat - and TERRIFIED of all things electrical.  I am simply NOT equipped to be an experimentalist.  And my devotion to this over the years has been out of a somewhat tortured sense of obligation to protect - what appeared to me to be a truth.  Whether or not the thesis is correct is irrelevant.  The fact is that this test most certainly DOES NOT PROVE IT.  And it is courtesy the input of our Poynty Point that I was obliged to bring the evidence to close scrutiny.

To cut a long story short - here's the thing.  We'll be doing the demonstration tomorrow - simply to put it on record that there is NO aspect of that oscillation that ACTUALLY delivers a gain.  This to prevent ANYONE wasting their time in trying to find it here.   It is ENTIRELY due to the inductance on the circuit that this is measured.  There is some evidence that inductance ADDS to the heat measured over the resistor element - which is possibly counter intuitive.  But the amount added - certainly on our circuit - is NOT significant.  We MAY - in due course - run the battery drawn down tests to evaluate various benefits in a switching circuit.  But we will NOT be boring you all with updates - basically because I do NOT think that open source is the way to go.  Unless, of course, we can first prove those values with the same standard of stringent testing protocols that Steve Weir imposed.

So guys - sadly - this is INDEED my swansong - as it relates to this circuit.  We will now have to retract our claims and our papers - and admit that there are errors in measurement that have accounted for that apparent gain.  I admit defeat.  Notwithstanding which, I'm rather proud of the fight that I managed in the face of my many detractors.  While it's kept me from gainful employment it has compensated by offering an intense level of intellectual engagement which I relish.  And it's all added to my love of science which I regret that I discovered rather late in life.

Thank you to all my supporters - and, in a rather circuitous way - to my detractors.  I will be continuing my work on this blog.  But as it will be confined mostly to the thesis - and to work to prove that thesis - it is unlikely that I'll be engaging as many of you as before.  For those who want to watch it - the demo will be aired tomorrow.  But it is only going to prove what I've written here.  Not good news.  But very relevant.  And most importantly - that those who read here - don't waste their time on this circuit.  Sadly.

Kindest regards
Rosie
   
Group: Guest
Please update the test results.  I think it's more attractive now.





   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Please update the test results.
A brief summary of the final demo today:

Phase 1 Pbat (at board) = -114.8W

Phase 2 (FG) power ~ 0.3W

Phase 3 Pbat (at batteries) ~ +15W

Power dissipated at RL ( ~20ÂșC rise from old data) ~ 2.5W


Quote
I think it's more attractive now.
What do you mean?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Steve Weir's updated version of the demonstration Outline.
   
Group: Guest
Why don't they use Irms to compare calorimetry and scope measurement.  They should show consistency if measurement is correct. 
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3809


Buy me some coffee
Quote
She has finally conceded that conventional science prevails
That is great news.

Quote
2 years
No one can accuse her of not sticking by her results  :D
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3073
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Better after two years than never at all. ;)
   
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-04-12, 07:51:40