PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-12-05, 20:56:27
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: A Simple Test for Large COP Claims in Pulsed Inductive Heater Circuits  (Read 49287 times)
Group: Guest
Well!  Personally I am waiting for some data to come in from PhysicsProf and any other testers before I express any definitive opinions about it!
   
Group: Guest
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.

Actually, electrons themselves don’t exactly move around the circuit at light speed as is often conceptualized wrongly.  They bump each other out of valence orbits in a sort of “musical chairs” game.  When there is a potential across a conductor, more electrons “bump” toward one end or the other, depending on polarity of the potential (voltage).  The net effect sends its message (current) down the conduction path at near light speed. Depending on the propagation velocity of the path..

If you look at a single given electron, it won’t make it around your circuit anywhere near as fast as the circuit is pulsing.  The “flow” is actually the chain of events that results from the billions of little adjacent-atom electrons jumping hopping out of orbit and replacing into the next or nearby atom’s orbit.  The rate of actual net total physical  travel of a given electron is remarkably slow, in fact.
Quote

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.  

This is a problem.  Since you are correctly relying on a thermal rise measurement of the load resistor for output power, you should not let the shunt for measuring input power also contain output currents.  You must learn to be “a good electron shepherd”.

Quote
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.

I agree with all but the last sentence, which, of course is the question at hand and the purpose of all this chat to establish a solid method to verify.  I’m assuming that “…from the power supply” means from the battery.

Quote
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.

No I'm not at all asking anything of the kind.  

Quote
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 meant to respond earlier to your post indicating your not understanding my “RC low-pass integration” method using a resistor and capacitor as shown in my test setup diagram.  That was in no way a suggestion, as you remarked, to “use a capacitor” as power supply (I think that what you thought I was suggesting).  It wis a simple hardware method of very precisely obtaining the integral of the shunt current over time.  It’s what removes the need, in my test procedure, for any high-speed scopes to integrate the current flowing in the shunt.  An input-only shunt with a resitor and capacitor added will completely and unequivocally show the net current flow regardless of whether it is into or out of the battery and this no matter what the instantaneous pulses are doing...positive, negative, wide or thin.  The result is easily measured across the small capacitor using only a DMM.

I did notice your claim several times that not only was the heater load super-hot but that the battery was actually charging up rather than discharging.  That would automatically and clearly show infinite COP.  I am among those “conventional thinkers that would be absolutely shocked and bewildered if this were truly the fact.  Box it all up in a sealed metal box and start selling them tomorrow as free heaters, Rosemary!  I see no obstacles.  I’ll help you get UL and CE compliance on the product.  It will be easy.  We’ll be rich in no time.  And you’ll be even more famous than you are now!

Quote

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

Rosemary

You may be right.  
« Last Edit: 2011-01-18, 14:30:49 by humbugger »
   
Group: Guest
Actually, electrons themselves don’t exactly move around the circuit at light speed as is often conceptualized wrongly.  They bump each other out of valence orbits in a sort of “musical chairs” game.  When there is a potential across a conductor, more electrons “bump” toward one end or the other, depending on polarity of the potential (voltage).  The net effect sends its message (current) down the conduction path at near light speed. Depending on the propagation velocity of the path..
What a load of doggy doo - if you don't mind my saying.  If that 'bumping of electrons' is happening at a given rate then how is the signal itself able to exceed that rate?  And the SIGNAL always EXCEEDS the rate of 'bumping electrons'. 

If you look at a single given electron, it won’t make it around your circuit anywhere near as fast as the circuit is pulsing.  The “flow” is actually the chain of events that results from the billions of little adjacent-atom electrons bumping and knocking out of orbit and replacing into the next or nearby atom’s orbit.  The rate of actual net total physical  travel of a given electron is remarkably slow, in fact.
And to say the same thing twice does not thereby make it twice as true.  Not even half has true again.  Just stays where it was.  In fantasy land.  Both statements are unsubstantiated - unproven and never experimentally verified.  The rate at which one electron can possibly influence another valence electron is KNOWN.  If one applied that 'rate of transfer' to the average electric appliance then - for about every 2 meters of wire, and after switching an appliance 'on', you'd need to wait about , 20 minutes before it would light that light or heat that pot or whatever.   In fact that transfer is instantaneous. It may be reasonably and theoretically argued that that - THEREAFTER - the rate of transfer will be continuous and uninterrupted.  But SOMETHING HAPPENS that allows that signal to reach the source in a timeframe that exceeds what is feasible from the known rate of transfer of anything at all in the exchange of valence electrons influencing other valence electrons.  The theory is therefore NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.

This is a problem.  Since you are correctly relying on a thermal rise measurement of the load resistor for output power, you should not let the shunt for measuring input power also contain output currents.  You must learn to be “a good electron shepherd”.
And you must learn some measurement protocol.  If the battery is ouputting - as you put it - energy then do you seriously propose to ignore that quotient?  And why? Is it not relevant to assess how much power the battery is delivering in the first instance?  This thread is now getting to be a fiasco. 

I agree with all but the last sentence, which, of course is the question at hand and the purpose of all this chat to establish a solid method to verify.  I’m assuming that “…from the power supply” means from the battery.
NO.  It means from the power supply.

I meant to respond earlier to your post indicating your not understanding my “RC low-pass integration” method using a resistor and capacitor as shown in my test setup diagram.  That was in no way a suggestion, as you remarked, to “use a capacitor” as power supply (I think that what you thought I was suggesting).  It wis a simple hardware method of very precisely obtaining the integral of the shunt current over time.  It’s what makes the need, in my test procedure, for any high-speed scopes to integrate the current flowing in the shunt.
Still don't get it.  Once we've got a capacitor in series with the current flow either to or from the battery - then we've got something that will entirely interrupt that resonating frequency.

I did notice your claim several times that not only was the heater load super-hot but that the battery was actually charging up rather than discharging.  That would automatically and clearly show infinite COP.  I am among those “conventional thinkers that would be absolutely shocked and bewildered if this were truly the fact.  Box it all up in a sealed metal box and start selling them tomorrow as free heaters, Rosemary!  I see no obstacles.  I’ll help you get UL and CE compliance on the product.  It will be easy.  We’ll be rich in no time.  And you’ll be even more famous than you are now!
If I, at any time, gave you to undestand that I would get into a business relationship with you - of any nature at all - then I sincerely apologise.  I would sooner get into a business relationship with TK himself than with someone on these forums. And YES THERE IS EVIDENCE OF BATTERY RECHARGE.  That was ALWAYS EVIDENT - ON EVERY PAPER EVER WRITTEN BY ME OR BY ME AND OTHERS.

   
Group: Guest
Rosemary,

I think I am beginning to understand why it has taken you ten years so far and no one will even accept a paper for publication.  Your statements are typically contradictory to themselves and often patently false.  This is my opinion based on your few posts here.  You agree with things you immediately admit you don't understand.  You say that most tenets of "conventional current flow" are wild speculation, incorrect and unproven emperically.  that is absolute hogwash, my dear.

So I guess I'm also tired of playing this tennis match with you.  You return the ball out of bounds every time and then assert that the marked and accepted boundaries are really not important.  I guess you win, but the prize is a ticket to endless delusion.

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/electric.htm  Maybe a better explanation here.  This is well-proven time and time again and is not "an opinion".
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary,

I think I am beginning to understand why it has taken you ten years so far and no one will even accept a paper for publication.  Your statements are typically contradictory to themselves and often patently false.  This is my opinion based on your few posts here.  You agree with things you immediately admit you don't understand.  You say that most tenets of "conventional current flow" are wild speculation, incorrect and unproven emperically.  that is absolute hogwash, my dear.

So I guess I'm also tired of playing this tennis match with you.  You return the ball out of bounds every time and then assert that the marked and accepted boundaries are really not important.  I guess you win, but the prize is a ticket to endless delusion.

I don't see this as a tennis match Humbugger.  On the contrary.  It's way more important.  And if I based my thesis on any 'tenets' of faith or understanding - then indeed I'd have wasted my time.  I don't.  It is entirely UNRESOLVED as to what is the true nature of current flow.  And the evidence is that this CANNOT be the flow of electrons as is wildly and widely ASSUMED.  That you find this point a matter of such contention that you cannot therefore continue with this discussion is understandable.  You are in very good company.  And your closing of the eyes and blocking of the ears is also the way most experts in electrical engineering have met with this point.  Fortunately it is not shared by ALL physicists - but only by the most of them.  But then too - there was a time when consensus was that the world was flat.  And that too was an OPINION held by an esteemed majority.  Fortunately time gets factored into our history and that consensus changes.  It's just a bit awkward belonging to the minority that see the truth for what it is.  But it's not that awkward that it matters too much.  That majority rather lose any rights to respect when they endorse such flagrant contradictions.

I confidently predict that there will be a paper written on this point - in the near future - and that this paper will be published.  And it will not be by me.  And when those manifold contradictions are finally addressed - then you too will belong to that minority.  But hopefully that minority will then also be a majority.  One hopes that one won't also have to wait too long.  That paper will be just as contentious as our claim.

And ten years is nothing.  Look how long it took for the church to acknowledge that Gallileo was right.  Many such examples.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
I am less interested in discussion with you not because of the disagreement on the speed a given electron moves down a wire.   I am objecting to your contrqadictions and your assertions that you agree or disagree with things stated that you immediately later indicate that you do not even understand what was said.

You revert to your own set of undefined jargon constsntly.  This is okay with me, but it definitely makes communicating with you extremely difficult, tedious and frustrating. :-X

Nighty night now, Rosemary.  And Godspeed you to your dreams of being acknowledged and your theory being accepted by the "mainstream majority".  I truly wish you well.  I'm merely suggesting that you work on your communication skills so as not to frustrate so terribly when speaking with people about your ideas and theirs.

Personally, if I was as confident as you are in your theory and device performance, I'd care less about academic or mainstream acceptance gaiined via published papers in scientific journals.  I'd build a ton of them and get rich while providing a great solution to the energy crisis and winning the admiration, awe and respect you clearly desire by doing a great service to mankind.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-17, 10:38:30 by humbugger »
   
Group: Guest
For anyone interested, there are plenty of references on the speed of an electron down a wire (drift speed of a single specified elrectron is millimeters per second), as opposed to the speed at which the electrons dance around from atom to atom (million meters per second but not always in the same direction or even close) and the speed of transmission of an electrical signal down a wire (near to 300 million meters per second).

Here is another, complete with the math:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html

Here is a small excerpt attached below from the above link and here is another source, the U.S. Department of Energy site:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99488.htm

I do not believe there is any argument among physicists even far out minority types on this question.
   
Group: Guest
That last graphic shows the key point:  The electrons in a wire will move under the influence of an electric field that can exist in the wire.  The electric field itself travels at nearly the speed of light inside the wire.  Therefore for all practical intents and purposes, all of the electrons start to move at the same time, it has nothing to do with them bumping into each other.  An electron in an electric field experiences a force exerted on it due to the electric field.

I don't know why there is this fetish in free energy circles about the denial of the existence of current itself and current as the flow of electrons.  Rosemary might claim that nothing like this can be or has been proven but in all likelihood there are thousands of experiments that have been done to investigate the nature of the electron and electric current and prove that both exist.  NP and PN semiconductor junctions work based on our understanding of how electrons flow through a lattice and how they act under the influence of an electric field.  The whole electron/current denial fetish is preposterous.

A charged capacitor has a lack of electrons on one plate and an excess of electrons on another plate.  I can envision some kind of experiment where the charged capacitor discharges through a cathode ray tube and you see the spray of electrons on the phosphor surface of the tube.  Those electrons came from the negatively charged plate of the capacitor.  I bet an experiment similar to that was done more than 100 years ago.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
"Bump" was agreeably a poor choice of words.  I did not say or mean they bumped into each other.  What I said exactly is:

"They bump each other out of valence orbits" and what I meant was when one electron pops out of orbit in a given atom and hops to a nearby atom lacking a valence electron.  I suppose I should have used "hops", "jumps", "leaps" or some other term that does not imply an actual collision as in pool balls.  I have never thought there were collisions involved and I should have thought better about my words.  Thanks for clarifying this, MH.

(But Zipons are a whole nuther thing.  They bump.  They grind.  They crash and collide fiercly, creating huge amounts of extra heat and then go on to charge any batteries in the circuit.)   ::)
   
Group: Guest
By the way, MH, I found one Tektronix current probe that covers DC to 120MHz.  It's the TCP0030 running a mere $3,110.00

Gift wrap a dozen, please. :o
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Good grief!

I gave Rose a part number a few days ago....TCP202, DC-50MHz, roughly $1200.

LeCroy certainly makes a number of current probes as well, and that's the brand of scope Rose is using right now.

I don't believe I can muster any further argument in this. It's plain as day for those knowledgeable in the art, and no justification is required for their use when dealing with these type of circuits. Similar goes for the use of differential voltage probes. I've provided more than ample references for anyone to investigate and learn on their own what the merits are of these probes.

.99
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Rose,

As usual, you are really pushing the envelope of tolerance here. Humbugger is experiencing first hand what a few of us have dealt with for some time.

I'll state these points, then I'm done for now:

1) The LeCroy current probes are available for your scope, i.e. see this page. LeCroy differential probes (high voltage) can be found here.

2) You may test your circuit however you wish. Keep in mind however, if your data is anything like that of previous tests, it is unlikely to be accepted at OUR as valid and credible. The reasons have been adequately explained several times.

3) Any claims will be vetted against the OUR guidelines.

4) Your slander towards me is deplorable, and your presumption to know more about scopes and probes and testing than I is laughable, if not insulting. Continuing in that vein may result in you being set to read only.

.99
   
Group: Guest
Poynt:

The Tektronix you mention is 50MHz, which explains the extra cost of the fancier 120MHz Tek unit (I guess).

Here's one on eBay (more expensive than your estimate , but in the ballpark):

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tektronix-DC-Coupled-Current-Probe-TCP202-/320636936917?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aa77362d5

I agree that using the right probes for the job is essential if (and this is a big if, in my mind) the approach is to gather all the high-speed transient data into a scope for analysis.  I'm convinced that for Rosemary Ainslee device testing, at least to qualify the super-high COP claims and claims that the net power flow at the battery is a charging flow predominantly (COP=Infinity), the test method described in this thread is entirely adequate.  JM2C.


She's a real firecracker, all right!  Tough to talk with and not go crazy with frustration though, that's for sure.

For a light refrain, check your Lee Crock thread  ;D
« Last Edit: 2011-01-17, 17:20:37 by humbugger »
   
Group: Guest
What a load of doggy doo ... If one applied that 'rate of transfer' to the average electric appliance then - for about every 2 meters of wire, and after switching an appliance 'on', you'd need to wait about , 20 minutes before it would light that light or heat that pot or whatever.   In fact that transfer is instantaneous...

Actually, Rosemary, in a 50/60Hz AC appliance, if you had to wait for even one single individual electron to move from one end of your two meter wire to the other, you'd be in the dark forever (if you were switching on a light bulb anyway...In your case, no matter what the appliance was, apparently   ;) ).

The electric field "chain of events" happens nearly instantaneously, but the actual "electrons individual" in a50/60 Hz AC circuit have no net movement around the wires.  They just stay within millimeters (more like micrometers, in truth) of where they were when the switch closed, believe it or not!  Reversing their slow and tiny migration 50 or 60 times per second limits their range of actual travel to a tiny bit of copper "turf".

Admittedly, this is non-intuitive.  I had designed many successful commercial products before I learned this somewhat trivial fact that is of little or no importance in understanding how circuits behave.  Let us not spend any more time following the penchant for trivial argument exemplified by Thomas Aquinas, who is said to have spent significant time arguing about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin
« Last Edit: 2011-01-18, 15:38:31 by humbugger »
   
Group: Guest
Back to the subject at hand.  There has always, as far as I can tell, been a terrible flaw in the placement of the current measuring shunt in the Ainslee-based circuits being evaluated.

Rosemarie admits that the shunt measured both input and output currents.  Given a reasonably constant input voltage, this means that the entire measurement approach, whether based on ultra-precise DSOs and expensive probes and mathematical integrations or on simple RC hardware integration IS BOUND TO BE HORRIBLY FLAWED!

The fact is that the output power is being measured by temperature rise in the load.  Period.  This leaves only the input power to be measured accurately.  With a constnat supply voltage, the input current is the only variable in the input power equation.  Polluting this current measurement with output currents makes absolutely no sense and will invariably lead to falsely high or low input power measurements.  How is it that this simple observation has not led to a complete rejection of all testing done to date?

The simple test I have laid forth herein allows for measuring only the input current flow.  It accounts completely for any claimed power being returned to the battery by the circuit and automatically integrates that into its measurement, even if it is greater, as Rosemary claims, than the power drawn out of the battery.

The whole discussion around all the fancy 'scopes and probes and making sure to accurately capture and tediously analyze the mixed input and output currents is just folly, in my opinion.  That is, as long as that shunt is where it is in her circuit.

Can anyone else see this glaring flaw or is it just me?

Even if the MOSFET never avalanches or never has its intrinsic diode turn on, the Coss (Drain-to-Source capacitance of a large MOSFET like this is a significant current path when the MOSFET turns off and the inductance discharges.  If the circuit is "resonating" or "oscillating" or exhibiting "aperiodic frequency ringing" or aany large fast voltage excursions, these will show up in the shunt.  These are not part of the input current.  What more can be said?  Well, one more thing, actually.  The Ciss of the MOSFET (input gate capacitance) will also allow all current associated with driving the MOSFET into the shunt.

http://www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/an-1001.pdf
« Last Edit: 2011-01-18, 19:02:39 by humbugger »
   
Group: Guest

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.  


Does that make sense?  Measuring both input and output currents mixed together and saying that's the input power measurement basis in the same paragraph as saying the thermal test is the only test used to measure output power?  NO!

Furthermore, looking at the temperature rise of the load is in no way translatable to any kind of "absolute" measure of the power in the load unless the load is in a complete vacuum and all infrared energy is not allowed to escape the load.  It is only a relative indication of the power and must be compared to the known power fed into the identical load in the identical environment but driven directly from the DC power supply in the control test.  When the temperature rises match, and only then, can you compare the unadulterated input power of the two setups to find COP.  

If a given power always raised the temperature of any resistor the same amount and at the same rate, then a 1/4 watt tiny resistor would get only as hot and equally fast as a big 50W resistor when each had 2W fed in.  Is this born out bt doing that experiment?  NO!  The small resistor glows red hot and burns out in seconds; the big one isn't even warm.  It all depends on the thermal mass of the physical resistor and how well it is coupled (by surface area) to the ambient surrounding.

You cannot determine the power in watts being dissipated by a resistor by looking only at its rate in time per degree of rise or the temperature at which it stops rising.  These are only relative indicators and must be compared and matched to those reactions in the same resistor when a known power is dissipated.

Then this:
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

Look at the diagram, below.
 
It shows Rint and Cint, the integrating components (RC filter number).  It shows a shunt that is only sensing battery current flow (input current).  None of these components will in any way effect the operation of your circuit.  PERIOD.  IT IS NOT ONLY "DOABLE" but is is far more doable than any other bunch of procedures and fancy equipment used to measure your circuit so far, with its shunt in the wrong place.  And it is accurate.  What's not DOABLE?

In the face of these simple, straightforward, clear and technically sound observations, will you curl up in a ball and hide?  Refuse to answer?  Walk away in a huff?  Probably.  You have based outrageous claims on wishful thinking, grossly flawed test methods and assumptions that are blatantly incorrect.  You have gained notoriety all over the forums and become the center of attention at many.  If you have any personal integrity, you will now acknowledge your errors and procede to face the truth by doing actual fair testing.  Let the chips fall where they may, Rosemary.  But stop cheating and finding ways to fool yourself and others, please!
« Last Edit: 2011-01-18, 22:48:47 by humbugger »
   
Group: Guest
TK made this great little U-tube and Poynt posted it in his Oscilloscope power measurement thread.  Because it so nicely illustrates the kinds of errors that simple variations in probe/ground placement can induce, I thought it should be linked in this thread and possibly others as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ&feature=player_embedded#!

It would have been even more striking had he continued to re-configure the ground until the trace from the current probe looked exactly like that of the shunt/voltage probe.  Probably not possible with the length of the ground clip wire he was using.

In the RF power work I've done, you quickly find out that using any length at all on your probe ground wire is a no-no.  We always used little tiny short spring-wire grounds that attach right to the tip of the probe and always built our circuits compactly (using the shortest leads possible or surface mount parts soldered to each other) on a ground plane.  Even that was insufficient in many cases.  

If you really want to know what your circuit is doing, and you use a high bandwidth scope, you MUST use impeccable methods.  If the object is to ooo and aah and play with the mystical spiky waves all day, attributing magical properties to them, then by all means, put your circuit together with clip-leads and long wires over a large area and use real long ground leads on your scope probes!  

All of this is why I highly recommend using simple RC integration techniques close to the shunt itself when measuring current to derive power in pulsing circuits.  Especially if you are not an experienced expert in scope probing or don't have a wideband AC/DC current probe.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-19, 10:50:55 by humbugger »
   
Group: Guest

[to Rosemary Ainslee]
Personally, if I was as confident as you are in your theory and device performance, I'd care less about academic or mainstream acceptance gaiined via published papers in scientific journals.  I'd build a ton of them and get rich while providing a great solution to the energy crisis and winning the admiration, awe and respect you clearly desire by doing a great service to mankind.

It seems like Andrea Rossi (see COLD FUSION thread) has the right approach and agrees with my sentiments, above.  He says, regarding his claimed cold fusion breakthrough:

"We have passed already the phase to convince somebody. We are arrived to a product that is ready for the market. Our judge is the market.  In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing."

This is the bottom line regarding claims of cheap (or free) energy devices.  Can you build it?  Will it sell?

   
Group: Guest
Poynty and Humbugger - thanks for your offers to test - but I'll pass.  I'd prefer this to first be done by local experts for a variety of reasons - not least of which is the real and present danger of dedicated objectors that lurk these forums.  All over the place.   :o


Do you really consider me to be a “dangerous lurking dedicated objector”?  I assure you, the only danger I represent to those claiming to have achieved amazing breakthroughs is that I try to see and point out errors they might have made in reaching their conclusions.  That’s it, no other “danger” or “objection”.


...Our own device showed an unarguable result at COP >17.  Glen's device showed COP>7.  Those two facts I KNOW.  I have all the empirical evidence that I or any reasonable scientist requires.  I KNOW that both Glen's and my device showed repeated performance levels where more energy was returned to the battery than was ever supplied....


…Have only now determined the feasibility of doing a public demo.  I'll first need to see if this is ever likely to happen.  And even before then - I'll need to establish some reliable results.  Right now the circuit is in sulk mode and all I can get from it is resonance with absolutely no heat.  Hopefully this is correctible.  Otherwise you'll all be hearing some reluctant retractions to earlier claims.  God forbid.

 :'(

Rosie

 :)

These two quotations, from posts only a couple of months apart, seem to say that your confidence is no longer overshadowing your true desire to arrive at the facts.  That is great.  I hope you can get your circuit out of “sulk mode” soon and that you can do an unbiased evaluation using the techniques I’ve offered here.  It should be easy as pie.  It must be something simple wrong if it puts out no heat at all.  Is it still recharging its own supply battery?

Humbugger
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-12-05, 20:56:27