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.
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”. 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. 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. 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!
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 »
|
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: A Simple Test for Large COP Claims in Pulsed Inductive Heater Circuits (Read 58819 times)
