A Simple Test for Large COP Claims in Pulsed Inductive Heater Circuits

[humbugger]

...The one caveat is that you have to start from the same initial temperature for both trial runs and you assume that you don't also have to warm up other components in the setup as Ion stated....

That's two caveats!  Both of these seem very small to me because (re the second concern) I am assuming and stating so that there is only the load resistor heat being measured and in identical environment both times (DUT and Control).  Regarding the first concern, making sure the start temperature is the same on both tests seems to me to be very easy.

As I said before, my real reason to adopt the terminal equilibrium method is to proactively remove any potential excuse that the DUT takes a while to "come up to full COP".

My feeling at this point is that this whole thermal analysis topic has been given quite a bit of coverage from multiple perspectives.  The burden of choosing an appropriate thermal analysis method and documenting, recording, and presenting the data should fall on the claimant, and not the contributors to the forum.  If you do a good job then your audience shouldn't be picking apart what you have presented.

I couldn't agree more, but that's why people with wild claims are here at these forums instead of successfully publishing scholarly papers...and building reliable products embodying their "inventions".  They seem to be here and all over every forum because they think they have something special, but are unable or unwilling to describe it precisely or lay forth a decent test regime or even give enough specifics clearly for an adequate replication.  

In Rosemary's case, she has not been able to get a foot in any academic door with her various papers, it seems.  In nearly a decade of trying.  I am guessing she is here to see what the arguments might be, since the academics won't even listen.  And to learn, of course.  We hope, anyway.

[poynt99]

Yep, there are good arguments for putting the DUT and its LOAD in a chamber to measure the total heat produced, but I prefer to use a common load (chambered or not) and keep the DUT outside.  Then just compare how well the DUT heats the load for its given input power against how well a DC source and pair of fat wires heats the same load at an equal power.

I am focusing on claims that state "I have a magic box that heats a load using less power than just heating the same load with straight AC or DC power".

Given your correct comments regarding allowing the big load resistor to be in free air on the bench and ensuring identical airflow conditions, I just had to draw up this little cartoon.  Hope to hear the laughter over the roar of those two huge fans  

Presumptions aside, what's being overlooked?

humbugger, ION.

I fully understand where you are coming from. However, with our black box testing, are we retaining a completely objective and unbiased approach when we presume beforehand that the device can not be OU? By excluding the DUT itself from the total Pout measurement and presuming that its dissipation can be computed as the difference between Pin and Pout (resistor alone), I would say we are not being objective and unbiased.

A case in point:

Out test apparatus consists of a power supply, an enclosed DUT, and an open separate load resistor. In step 1. we measure an input power from the supply to the DUT (which is driving the load resistor), and a final temperature rise in the load resistor. In step 2. we connect the power supply directly to the load resistor and adjust the voltage to obtain an identical temperature rise as with the DUT. We measure the final power from the supply in step 2. and perform the division of power supply watts in each case to obtain COP. For this example, let's say that the power supply was 10W in step 1. and 8W in step 2. Then the COP = 0.8.

However, while performing step 1. we noticed that the DUT enclosure was glowing red hot and radiating an enormous amount of heat.

Now, however unlikely we feel this scenario is to occur, our feelings are irrelevant, and it's my opinion that we have to keep OU open as a possibility if we are to remain totally unbiased in our testing process. Obviously in this case, there is poor power transfer to the load resistor (which is irrelevant), but clearly the DUT itself in this scenario is exhibiting a COP>>1.

If we consciously choose to ignore the DUT dissipation, we are choosing to potentially skew the resulting COP calculation and discovery of an OU device.

This is why I was happy to see ION's new diagram where the DUT was included in the test results. Keep in mind that it is the DUT that is under test, not the load resistor. We are only looking at one form of output energy from the DUT; that being electrical. What about the other major form of output energy likely to be present in the DUT.....that being heat?

.99

[humbugger]

Excellent!  Thank you all contributors so far.  The discussions about thermal analysis are getting tiresome but have been very useful in finalizing my little test procedure proposal here.  To summarize:

1.  Only the load resistor shall be measured in terms of temperature.  The very same load resistor in the very same position in the very same environment shall be used for both the DUT runup and the Control runup.  Any fans on the bench power supply shall not be aimed at the load resistor.  

2. The procedure/setup for each test (DUT and Control) will be identical in terms of measuring the output.  The DUT setup goes first.  Once the load is heated by the DUT to a point where the temperature stops climbing (and before it starts dropping due to battery rundown)  that temperature will be recorded and the input electrical power will be recorded at that point in time as well.

3. The first Control test will be to adjust the DC power supply to the exact same level of power as was recorded when the DUT load test reached terminal temperature or thermal equilibrium.  The load resistor is then allowed time to reach thermal equilibrium under DC power.  If the DC power raises the load temperature higher than the same amount of power supplied to the DUT when it reached thermal equilibrium, the DUT COP is less than 1.00 and there is no reason to keep running the DC-powered load or record its final temperature.

4. If the thermal equilibrium temperature of the DC-powered load terminates at a lower temperature than the DUT load did, with identical input powers, then the DUT is indeed OU.  In this case, a second Control test will be done to estimate the DUT COP.

5. To get a number for the COP, the DC power supply will be adjusted upward until the load reaches the same terminal (thermal equilibrium) temperature as did the DUT load.  This power level will then be compared ratiometrically to that consumed by the DUT to obtain the DUT COP.

[humbugger]

Poynt...

I would agree with your eloquently-stated argument except for one major detail:

If the claimant comes forth and states specifically "My box/circuit/DUT will cause a certain kind of load to produce more thermal energy than by using the same amount of real input power fed directly into the specified load from "conventional sources", then my test procedure is the one to use.  At least until we actually notice the balck box glowing red hot with only 9 watts input with 7 in the load, at which time we might advise the claimant to reword the claim.  Unless the DUT is so small that 2W dissipation was likely to make it glow red hot, that is.

So far, in all the claims and schemes I've seen, the DUT exhibits the levels of internal heating that would be expected using "conventional analysis" in "conventional circuitry".  Until it is apparently anomalistic  or until the claimant states as such, I think we can ignore the normal, expected amounts of heat created by the DUT's circuit components.  If your propsed test procedure were to be applied in all cases despite normal-looking losses in the DUT circuits, I think it would unnecessarily complicate initial testing to no particular gain in knowledge.

Sorry, I was writing while you were posting your last post so it looked like i was ignoring you.

If, like Bedini et al, the claimant will never say exactly which output (thermal, torque, battery charging energy, etc.) represents a COP>1 or that only when all things are added together will the COP compute to overunity, then your procedure would be correct.

Maybe this is why Bedini and company keep building bigger and bigger ferris wheels...to make it more impractical to put the whole shebang in a thermally-insulated box withe DeProny brake glowing red hot on the shaft, a gigantic array of incadescent bulbs or heaters across all the batteries being charged, etc.

You see, if it takes 12 years for the DUT test to reach thermal equilibrium, those guys will sell a lot of ferris wheels and battery swappers in the mean time!  

Keep in mind that this thread is in the context of a DUT claimed to heat somewhat inductive load resistors far better than "normal power" directly applied.  For things like the JT, it may well be that total-inclusion testing is not only convenient and easy (no more arduous than testing only the load) but possibly superior to boot.

[humbugger]

Of course, despite the best-laid plans of the wisest of you, there will always arise the ultimate shouted objection:

"YEAH, BUT RADIANT LONGITUDINAL ENERGY DOESN'T TURN INTO HEAT, SO YOU CAN'T MEASURE IT THAT WAY!"



Fortunately for the purposes of this thread, wiggling zipons definitely do create heat, and as Tim Currey (of Rocky Horror fame) would say "IN ABUNDANCE".

About all I have left to say on my original topic is that if anyone wants more information on the test setup, like why each resistor and capacitor is there and what values they should be, etc. please feel free to ask away.  Otherwise, I'd like to invite Rosemary Ainslee specifically to comment on why the test described here would not be appropriate to test the COP of her circuit.  It's a lot easier than the way she and many others seem to be headed.

[MileHigh]

Don't even get me started on "cold" electricity!  lol

[humbugger]

For convenience to the readers and future commentors, I have put the test procedure and diagram together here in one post:

1.  Only the load resistor shall be measured in terms of temperature.  The very same load resistor in the very same position in the very same environment shall be used for both the DUT runup and the Control runup.  Any fans on the bench power supply shall not be aimed at the load resistor.  

2. The procedure/setup for each test (DUT and Control) will be identical in terms of measuring the output.  The DUT setup goes first.  Once the load is heated by the DUT to a point where the temperature stops climbing (and before it starts dropping due to battery rundown)  that temperature will be recorded and the input electrical power will be recorded at that point in time as well.

3. The first Control test will be to adjust the DC power supply to the exact same level of power as was recorded when the DUT load test reached terminal temperature or thermal equilibrium.  The load resistor is then allowed time to reach thermal equilibrium under DC power.  If the DC power raises the load temperature higher than the same amount of power supplied to the DUT when its load reached thermal equilibrium, the DUT COP is less than 1.00 and there is no reason to keep running the DC-powered load or record its final temperature.

4. If thermal equilibrium of the DC-powered load occurs at a lower temperature than the DUT load did, with identical input powers, then the DUT is indeed OU.  In this case, a second Control test will be done to estimate the DUT COP.

5. To get a number for the COP, the DC power supply will be adjusted upward until the load reaches the same terminal (thermal equilibrium) temperature as did the DUT load.  This power level will then be compared ratiometrically to that consumed by the DUT to obtain the DUT COP.

[humbugger]

Upon re-reading the above, one item of clarification may be useful:

"3. The first Control test will be to adjust the DC power supply to the exact same level of power as was recorded when the DUT load test reached terminal temperature or thermal equilibrium"

This means you must adjust the DC power supply voltage such that the product of VI is the same as the product of VI as measured at the DUT test termination time.  The voltages and currents themselves will probably not be the same, so you have to hunt and peck a bit until the multiplied products are the same.  One great way to make this real easy is to know the DC resistance of the load (never mind any inductance).  Since all resistors change with temperature, and we don't necessarily know how muich always, a trick is to measure the load resistor with your DMM immediately after the DUT test is terminated and the resistor is disconnected but still hot. Clip one wire off and quickly measure the load resistance before it cools down much.  Then you can use Ohm's law to get a good close "first stab at it" by setting the DC voltage to the square root of the product PR (two knowns).

Tweak from that starting point as necessary, which will depend on how accurate your DMM was when you measured the hot resistor and how radical the tempco of the resistor is (tempco=temperature coefficient i.e. the thermal stability of the resisor).  The tweaking rule is simple:  Keep going until you match the power level very closely.  Don't worry about the load temperature.  You have all day now since you aren't draining a battery.  It doesn't matter if you give it too much power and accidentally get the load hotter than the DUT load got.  When you get the power right, then you can wait for the temperature to settle.

Remember, we are not trying to distinguish between COPs of 1.00 and 1.002 here, so get the power within a percent or two if possible and see what happens!

[ion]

humbugger

You've nailed it and explained it in more detail and with greater patience than I normally have when I post.

Regarding the anomalous red hot DUT, I also agree that this case is unique and posted to that effect early on.

This does not bias testing against energy gains in the DUT itself, as we can always re-arrange the test setup to shift the focus to the DUT as required.

The vast majority will be designed to output usable power to the load resistor, not as self contained heaters, and as you stated if the claimant has built a DUT that has anomalous heat gain in itself, and that is his claim, we can test strictly for that.

On another note, I re-ran the BO3 Test using a 1.0 Volt source instead of 10 Volts and readjusted the bias for a clean waveform as in the earlier test.

Results as follows:

Input Voltage 1.0 Volts Input Current 31.3 mA =31.3 mW

Output Voltage= 1.18 Volts / 100 Ohms = 13.9 mW

Efficiency = Pout/Pin = 13.9 / 31.3 = 0.444 x100 =44.4%

The earlier test at 10.0 Volts input yielded 75%

As I predicted blocking oscillators generally run with higher efficiency at higher input voltage.

[muDped]

...
As I predicted [bipolar transistor] blocking oscillators generally run
with higher efficiency at higher input voltage.

As a comparison, it would be interesting to see how well the new
technology low voltage MOSFETs perform.

In order to drive them adequately it may be necessary to utilize
a low voltage pulse generator circuit.  Or one of the low voltage
boost controller chips with integral switches.

A minimum voltage approaching 3 Volts may be necessary as well.

[aetherevarising]

For convenience to the readers and future commentors, I have put the test procedure and diagram together here in one post:

1.  Only the load resistor shall be measured in terms of temperature.  The very same load resistor in the very same position in the very same environment shall be used for both the DUT runup and the Control runup.  Any fans on the bench power supply shall not be aimed at the load resistor.  

2. The procedure/setup for each test (DUT and Control) will be identical in terms of measuring the output.  The DUT setup goes first.  Once the load is heated by the DUT to a point where the temperature stops climbing (and before it starts dropping due to battery rundown)  that temperature will be recorded and the input electrical power will be recorded at that point in time as well.

3. The first Control test will be to adjust the DC power supply to the exact same level of power as was recorded when the DUT load test reached terminal temperature or thermal equilibrium.  The load resistor is then allowed time to reach thermal equilibrium under DC power.  If the DC power raises the load temperature higher than the same amount of power supplied to the DUT when its load reached thermal equilibrium, the DUT COP is less than 1.00 and there is no reason to keep running the DC-powered load or record its final temperature.

4. If thermal equilibrium of the DC-powered load occurs at a lower temperature than the DUT load did, with identical input powers, then the DUT is indeed OU.  In this case, a second Control test will be done to estimate the DUT COP.

5. To get a number for the COP, the DC power supply will be adjusted upward until the load reaches the same terminal (thermal equilibrium) temperature as did the DUT load.  This power level will then be compared ratiometrically to that consumed by the DUT to obtain the DUT COP.

Hello Humbugger.  What a PLEASURE ARE YOUR POSTS.  Yes,  What you propose is EXACTLY what we do.  Well done.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

ADDED  And while our resistor doesn't 'glow' - you sure as hell can't touch it.  We're not talking subtle evidence - or even subtle wattages.  The problem is ONLY that Poynty won't accept our results without the use of a differential probe.  He only allows this with Lawrence's set up.  I'm sure he's got his reasons.  He just doesn't make them clear.  LOL  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to assume that he's simply putting recognition of our own test results out of reach

[humbugger]

Here is a question, possibly a dumb one, regarding the suggested use of current probes based on single-turn primary transformer principals (as they all are) in the context of measuring DUT input power.

Here are some example snippet quotes from various threads from a search of the term "current probe".  They appear to be in the context of measuring the input current to a pulsing or oscillating DUT.

In doing some simulations, I believe I've discovered Steorn's fatal flaw in their measurement of the input power/energy. In the video part 2 Sean denotes what is being measured, and he mentions: 1) Input Current, 2) Input Voltage, and 3) Output pickup coil current.

The Input Current is being measured with a current probe (this is proper technique), and other than a possible positioning change, this is most likely ok.

Indeed, Rose Ainslie is a special case, and stealing a phrase from our good friend TK, I can scarcely believe that I am still trying to teach her the finer points of challenging scope measurements. 

Last night I almost lost my mind when after arguing with her for an hour or so about how a current probe will give the same, but better results than a CSR measurement, I finally got out of her the fact that she assumed the current probe would have to be connected to a separate oscilloscope from the one taking the voltage samples, and hence her "objection" to the current probe approach!

The last one is from earlier in this thread.

My dumb question is this:  How can you recommend the use of a current probe which ignores the DC component of the input current?  An input current on a pulsed or blocking oscillator circuit generally contains an AC component riding atop a DC component.  Say you have a square wave of AC current of ten amps rms amplitude.  If it's riding a DC current of 100A but you read the current using a transformer-based probe, you will only see the ten amp component and never the 100A DC part.

Great for measuring RF currents in AC-coupled circuits that are always symmetrical about zero amps and for looking at the ripple component only on switching supplies, etc, but I don't see the application in measuring input currents in circuits that draw DC current as well as AC current.  Help me out here.

[aetherevarising]

Here is a question, possibly a dumb one, regarding the suggested use of current probes based on single-turn primary transformer principals (as they all are) in the context of measuring DUT input power.

Here are some example snippet quotes from various threads from a search of the term "current probe".  They appear to be in the context of measuring the input current to a pulsing or oscillating DUT.

The last one is from earlier in this thread.

My dumb question is this:  How can you recommend the use of a current probe which ignores the DC component of the input current?  An input current on a pulsed or blocking oscillator circuit generally contains an AC component riding atop a DC component.  Say you have a square wave of AC current of ten amps rms amplitude.  If it's riding a DC current of 100A but you read the current using a transformer-based probe, you will only see the ten amp component and never the 100A DC part.

Great for measuring RF currents in AC-coupled circuits that are always symmetrical about zero amps and for looking at the ripple component only on switching supplies, etc, but I don't see the application in measuring input currents in circuits that draw DC current as well as AC current.  Help me out here.

Humbugger - we use very sophisticated DSO's and the essential recommendation is that we do not 'mix and match' as results would not necessarily be endorsed by those DSO manufacturers.  I was advised by both suppliers that they DO NOT HAVE THOSE CURRENT PROBES AVAILABLE.  I can't comment on whether or not they're manufactured.  However. What I do know is that we've used a current probe - very expensive number - that indeed flattened out the curve to something entirely different to that shown by the voltage across the shunts.  Since the probe never actually got into direct contact with the wire - clamp type - it was assumed to be unable to establish the actual voltage.  And this was based on the assumption that it could not operate at the required frequencies.

I personally do not see why a current probe is even required.  Essentially it will not perform better than a voltage analysis of current - in any event.

Rosemary

[humbugger]

Hello dear Rosemary!  It is very nice to finally correspond with you on this.  We may argue some if our correspondence continues but I think it can be both friendly and productive, perhaps.  So here's my first argument:  

I don't think you can quite put all the blame on Poynt here,  I've been observing all the stuff regarding your circuit and read all threads on all forims.  It sure doesn't look like the method I describe is where the general test regime has gone.  True, you did seem to start out in a basically similar way in the original published article.  That is using thermal output measurements and a shunt to look at the current, sort of.  But your shunt was more or less in the output circuit, you did not use RC filter hardware integrator method to average the current and DC input voltage, etc.

It seems that these days your circuit is being evaluated using more and more expensive complex scope-based math-intensive techniques.  If this does not have your blessing, at least tacitly, you could use this thread as a good set of arguments for keeping it straightforward and simple.  Especially when your colleagues at the university do their testing.

I see good reasons to use a nice scope to "tune up" your circuit and find its "sweet spot" before testing (I would use an old-fashioned wideband analog scope to avoid being confused by sampling artifacts and aliasing for this purpose) but no good reason to even have a scope on the bench during COP testing.

Anyhoo...it is great to see you surviving all of the controversy and bickering and infighting and banning that has gone on.  You are a real trooper indeed.  

[MileHigh]

My dumb question is this:  How can you recommend the use of a current probe which ignores the DC component of the input current?  An input current on a pulsed or blocking oscillator circuit generally contains an AC component riding atop a DC component.  Say you have a square wave of AC current of ten amps rms amplitude.  If it's riding a DC current of 100A but you read the current using a transformer-based probe, you will only see the ten amp component and never the 100A DC part.

Great for measuring RF currents in AC-coupled circuits that are always symmetrical about zero amps and for looking at the ripple component only on switching supplies, etc, but I don't see the application in measuring input currents in circuits that draw DC current as well as AC current.  Help me out here.

The current probe does measure DC current also.  I believe that it is based on a sophisticated Hall-effect sensor that senses the cylindrical magnetic flux around the wire.  So it senses the absolute magnitude of the magnetic field and does not rely on a form of inductive coupling which could only sense changes in magnetic flux.

Rosemary:

And while our resistor doesn't 'glow' - you sure as hell can't touch it.  We're not talking subtle evidence - or even subtle wattages.  The problem is ONLY that Poynty won't accept our results without the use of a differential probe.  He only allows this with Lawrence's set up.  I'm sure he's got his reasons.  He just doesn't make them clear.  LOL  If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to assume that he's simply putting recognition of our own test results out of reach

The most likely reason is that your setup has signals with much higher bandwidth than Lawrence's Joule Thief setup.  The bandwidth is too high for ordinary scope probes but that's not the case for Lawrence's setup.

MileHigh

[aetherevarising]

Hello dear Rosemary!  It is very nice to finally correspond with you on this.  We may argue some if our correspondence continues but I think it can be both friendly and productive, perhaps.  So here's my first argument:  

I don't think you can quite put all the blame on Poynt here,  I've been observing all the stuff regarding your circuit and read all threads on all forims.  It sure doesn't look like the method I describe is where the general test regime has gone.  True, you did seem to start out in a basically similar way in the original published article.  That is using thermal output measurements and a shunt to look at the current, sort of.  But your shunt was more or less in the output circuit, you did not use RC filter hardware integrator method to average the current and DC input voltage, etc.

It seems that these days your circuit is being evaluated using more and more expensive complex scope-based math-intensive techniques.  If this does not have your blessing, at least tacitly, you could use this thread as a good set of arguments for jkeeping it straightforward and simple.  Especially when your colleagues at the university do their testing.

I see good reasons to use a nice scope to "tune up" your circuit and find its "sweet spot" before testing but no good reason to even have a scope on the bench during COP testing.

Anyhoo...it is great to see you surviving all of the controversy and bickering and infighting and banning that has gone on.  You are a real trooper indeed.  

Not sure of what you mean by that RC filter number.  Presumably you want us to use a capacitor.  It's absolutely not DOABLE.  But nor am I prepared to explain why.  But it doesn't matter Humbugger.  I've long determined that these forums are not trying to evaluate anything at all.  Notwithstanding the apparent intentions they're more anxious to discount than disprove.  And it's a waste of time.  We're exploring other channels.  Much more to the point.  I think these forums are pretty well discredited anyway as a means to advance this technology.

I think that by any reasonable standards - then right now our experimental evidence is unequivocal.  That's good enough for me.
Rosemary

[aetherevarising]

For the record.  I do not answer or even read MileHigh's posts. 

[aetherevarising]

FOR THE RECORD.

The frequencies required for our tests are all both the same as OR BELOW the frequencies used by Lawrence's set up.  Our dissipated wattages are significantly higher.  Notwithstanding which our energy from the supply source is MUCH MUCH LOWER.  And our measurements are done to a FAR GREATER LEVEL OF ACCURACY precisely because of this.  So.  Go figger.  Personally I'm inclined to suspect that our own experimental evidence is unequivocal.  It's bothersome.  One might be inclined to suspect that  Poynty does not want DUE RECORD on hs forum.  I know that STefan doesn't. 

Rosemary

[MileHigh]

For the record Rosemary:

I think that by any reasonable standards - then right now our experimental evidence is unequivocal.

My pet theory is that when you hook up your DSO to try to make the measurements for how much power the battery is providing to the circuit you run into some problems. The signals the DSO is recording across your current sensing resistor and the related small spikes you are seeing on your battery voltage recording are probably too high in bandwidth for your probes to pick up all of the information in the signals.  Also, there may be a skew of a few tens or hundreds of nanoseconds between the two probe signals and at those very high frequencies you cannot afford that.

The net result from these two sources of error is that the DSO data dump from the two channels and subsequent analysis makes it appear like there is no power or almost no power being consumed from the battery yet the inductive resistor remains too hot to touch and is obviously dissipating power.

You unfortunately are clinging to this false data and will not budge from it.  All you can do is say that the "instrument cannot be wrong."

The solution to this is to substitute the battery for a large capacitor/low pass filter configuration where you can make accurate power consumption measurements the good old fashioned analog way.   A capacitor is a far superior integrator as compared to any DSO.

So you refuse double-check your measurements with an alternate procedure and cling to the farcical notion that your system sometimes demonstrates "COP infinity" when the whole thing can be explained away by measurement error.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

MileHigh

[humbugger]

The current probe does measure DC current also.  I believe that it is based on a sophisticated Hall-effect sensor that senses the cylindrical magnetic flux around the wire.  So it senses the absolute magnitude of the magnetic field and does not rely on a form of inductive coupling which could only sense changes in magnetic flux.

Rosemary:

The most likely reason is that your setup has signals with much higher bandwidth than Lawrence's Joule Thief setup.  The bandwidth is too high for ordinary scope probes but that's not the case for Lawrence's setup.

MileHigh

MH:

So I guess it was a dumb question.  I must have missed the posts where this Hall Effect current probe was identified specifically.  I've never seen one.  The Tektronix and Agilent wideband current probes I'm familiar with have all been strictly AC and based on current transformer technology.

Could you point out a post where this rather special wideband Hall Effect probe was specified?  Who makes?  What are the HF limits, model number and cost.  I might like to get one if they are reasonable.

Humby

[aetherevarising]

Humbugger - let me see if I can explain this better.  You see.  The assumption is made that current is somehow sourced from the supply and then used and reused around the circuit.  Some of it dissipates as heat - some of it can be routed back to recharge the battery supply.  Always the thing that is being taken from and returned to the supply are electrons that somehow materialise or are already in that material - depending on which school of thought anyone belongs to.  Mainstream provide for both.

Now.  My own thesis proposes that the current flow has a material property in and of itself.  What is passing through the circuit is the flow of this material.  When it flows to the battery it is returned to the battery in tact.  When it flows from the copper wire then, depending on the material - it will return to that material - in tact.  BUT.  When it comes from the resistor - then things change.  There's a radical change in the type of current flow.  In the first instance it results in a disturbance of the bound state of that material.  Some of the fields can indeed remain as a field and then flow as current.  But a remaining half of that material simply cannot 'flow' anywhere at all.  The disturbance is a consequence of the valence condition of that resistive material.  It loosens an atomic bonding and simultaneously gets hot and big and slow.  It expands the material of the resistor.  And it renders the resistive material HOT to the touch.  It's now in a usable form.  What we do is apply a switching condition that prevents those fields from ever flowing anywhere at all.  You see this?  The resulting resonating frequency can induce a condition that does not allow that 'return'.  Those two halves of one field cannot get together in that resistive material.  Now.  You want me to put a capacitor in series with that supply.  The capacitor is certainly going to change that resonating frequency.  Then we've lost that benefit of resonance.  What is needed is an intimate relationship between the supply and the work station to sustain that oscillation.

Our shunt resistor is placed in the direct path of the current flow.  It can be on the negative or the positive rail or both.  The voltage readings are identical.  It is directly measuring both the input and the output of each on and off cycle.  We IGNORE the voltage readings across the load.  They don't matter.  We only need to establish the wattage as it relates to its rate of temperature rise.  That is an ABSOLUTE value of wattage dissipated.  The two values NEVER agree.  The output from the resistor is INVARIABLY GREATER than the output from the power supply in the first instance.  

If there are stray inductances that are not measurable by our DSO's, bearing in mind that not only does their bandwidth more than acommodate our frequencies - but there are one million samples taken of multiple or single waveforms - then NOTHING will ever prove this point.  We also have a situation where the battery outperforms a control battery with tests run concurrently.  We ALSO have NEVER recharged our batteries.  But you see this?  That evidence will not be considered conclusive until the tests are run for 1 week.  Then someone will required 1 month.  Then someone will require 1 year.  And then someone will require it first be run for infinity if we are going to argue infinite COP.  And all such comments are valid.  The acid test is quite simply in the measurements.  And right now you are asking me to take the measurements off a system that will obviate the benefits of resonance.

Like I said.  There is nothing in these forums that will ever satisfy anyone.  Sad but true.

Rosemary

[humbugger]

Rosemary, Oh Rosemary...

Maybe it's just me.  Maybe I don't read or parse well enough.  But it seems to me that you are a lady full of rather abrupt and stark contradictions.  In the past three posts of yours, I see these pairs of seemingly "at-odds" statements:

Hello Humbugger.  What a PLEASURE ARE YOUR POSTS.  Yes,  What you propose [ed: which includes no scopes at all] is EXACTLY what we do.  Well done.

Versus:

Humbugger - we use very sophisticated DSO's...

Then, on the personal side, you post this:

For the record.  I do not answer or even read MileHigh's posts. 

Immediately followed by this, which sure seems to show that you both read and responded to MH's preceeding post.

FOR THE RECORD.

The frequencies required for our tests are all both the same as OR BELOW the frequencies used by Lawrence's set up.  Our dissipated wattages are significantly higher.  Notwithstanding which our energy from the supply source is MUCH MUCH LOWER.  And our measurements are done to a FAR GREATER LEVEL OF ACCURACY precisely because of this.  So.  Go figger.  Personally I'm inclined to suspect that our own experimental evidence is unequivocal.  It's bothersome.  One might be inclined to suspect that  Poynty does not want DUE RECORD on hs forum.  I know that STefan doesn't. 

Rosemary

Even within this single post, the sentence "Personally I'm inclined to suspect that our own experimental evidence is unequivocal" seems conflicted to me in the sense that "inclined to suspect" seems out of place with "unequivocal".  Okay...this one is nit-picking.

But this group of three contiguous sentences in one post is really confusing and seems outrageously contradictory to me:

...I was advised by both suppliers that they DO NOT HAVE THOSE CURRENT PROBES AVAILABLE.  I can't comment on whether or not they're manufactured.  However. What I do know is that we've used a current probe - very expensive number...

This kind of confusion-inducing contradiction makes it hard for me to take anything you say too seriously sometimes.  I hope you understand that my goal is not to belittle you, discount you or start a fight.  I'm just trying to actually communicate and, for me, this stuff makes it frustrating.

Bryan

[MileHigh]

Could you point out a post where this rather special wideband Hall Effect probe was specified?  Who makes?  What are the HF limits, model number and cost.  I might like to get one if they are reasonable.

Humby

I believe that the higher the bandwidth the more expensive the probe, and they are all expensive.  The high-end stuff is a few thousand dollars.

Poynt is the right person for real-word info like model numbers and pricing.  I suppose you can try looking around on the Aligent and Tektronix web sites also.  Ebay may be a good route to get one at a fair price.

That's all I can give you.  Personally I have never used one.

MileHigh

[aetherevarising]

Indeed, Rose Ainslie is a special case, and stealing a phrase from our good friend TK, I can scarcely believe that I am still trying to teach her the finer points of challenging scope measurements.  

This from a man who suggests that a mean average is sufficient and one does not need integrated analysis of power.  

Last night I almost lost my mind when after arguing with her for an hour or so about how a current probe will give the same, but better results than a CSR measurement, I finally got out of her the fact that she assumed the current probe would have to be connected to a separate oscilloscope from the one taking the voltage samples, and hence her "objection" to the current probe approach!

I'm afraid that my objection holds.  I CANNOT USE A CURRENT PROBE THAT IS OF A DIFFERENT MAKE AS THE RESULTS WILL NOT BE AUTHORISED BY THE DSO MANUFACTURERS.  

I have hopes that the testing of Lawrence's device will have a much better and quicker outcome, and this will pave the way for more objectivity regarding testing of these devices in the future.

Have some faith Maestro  

The joke will be this.  That measurment will be at a faster frequency than our own - will be forever rendered dubious as a result of the low 'noise' values of the wattages that are being measured - with instruments that are not as accurate as are required - at a wattage dissipated that cannot be evidenced as heat in any reasonable control - and then it will be APPROVED?  Where our own test is diametrically able to evidence this so much more conclusively?  Where is the capacitor to measure discharge of energy from the battery supply?  Where is the requirement for the differential probe?  Where is the requirement for higher than 'noise' level voltages?  Required by you for our tests and not required for Lawrence's tests.  And this preferred?  You don't think that your own endorsement here may rather conflict with mainstream?  And you don't think that any discerning reader here may pick up on a bias where the evidence is preferred to come from Lawrence rather than our own team?  LOL.  Poynty.  Bias is evidenced in every single point that you make.  I'm still waiting for that 'standardised' proof requirement.  And while it is not forthcoming then I put it to you that you're deliberately holding back on this precisely because you know that we both have complied and can comply and can now comply at even better levels of return?  And do you really think that your readers here are not aware of this bias?  History rewritten to align with your preference.  The problem will always be this.  In the end you will have to apply EXACTLY the same standards as you apply to Lawrence's test - or show where ours has varied.  And that's going to prove to be a bit of problem.  

Not that I mind.  I'm glad of it.  It is the kind of fact that will be highlighted when our own system is finally and fully reported in the public domain.  Bigotry or bias or personal preference DOES NOT constitute scientific proof.  

Rosemary

[aetherevarising]

Rosemary, Oh Rosemary...

Maybe it's just me.  Maybe I don't read or parse well enough.  But it seems to me that you are a lady full of rather abrupt and stark contradictions.  In the past three posts of yours, I see these pairs of seemingly "at-odds" statements:
Versus:
Then, on the personal side, you post this:

Immediately followed by this, which sure seems to show that you both read and responded to MH's preceeding post.

Even within this single post, the sentence "Personally I'm inclined to suspect that our own experimental evidence is unequivocal" seems conflicted to me in the sense that "inclined to suspect" seems out of place with "unequivocal".  Okay...this one is nit-picking.

But this group of three contiguous sentences in one post is really confusing and seems outrageously contradictory to me:

This kind of confusion-inducing contradiction makes it hard for me to take anything you say too seriously sometimes.  I hope you understand that my goal is not to belittle you, discount you or start a fight.  I'm just trying to actually communicate and, for me, this stuff makes it frustrating.

Bryan

Humbugger?  Have fun.  I'm out of this.  I rather hoped we'd be talking science and nothing else.

Rosemary.