0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I would like her to show the data. Then we can bring the positive voltage level upward by bringing the minus voltage upward to zero. In this way we can produce the correct readings. JerryGG38 I'm here. Why do you refer to 'her' and talk over my head?
jg38, what you are saying is probably somewhere near what actually happened. By your reasonable reasoning, the measurements show that the AC component of average power is a small fraction of the total power delivered to the load. That was interpreted as over unity.
Look in any e/m theory textbook and all of that stuff has been dealt with back to front and sideways. SophiecentaurHad I done this I would never have tried that circuit. It strikes me that people go to extraordinary lengths to refute those very Laws that are irrefutable. I think the idea is to try and keep the efficiency at less than 1. I can think of no other reason. But that's science for you.EDIT - The difference being that I did not need to 'lose energy' as a result of the induced current flow. I only needed to lose charge. And there again, I could not understand why the boffins could not see that benefit. Fortunately, also at the start, I had only read Zukov and Dyson and they both stated that current flow does not comprise a flow of electrons. But I had no idea that ACTUALLY electrical engineers, to a man, seem insist that it does.EDIT yet again. My model was pretty well developed by the time I proposed current flow was magnetic fields. But I actually thought that no-one knew what it was. That's why I felt brave enough to come forward with my explanation. The first time I tried to wrap my mind around how you guys thought of it was this year. Before that the question never came up. If it did it certainly wasn't in discussion with me.
Sophiecentaur. Could you please define your definition of charge. Otherwise we will be missing each other forever. When I have got this I will then I hope to be able to explain what I mean. Clearly my use of the term is not conventional. I apologise.And JerryGG38 - please could you read my earlier post. You are arguing the same thing that I tried to cover. I have NO authority to say that it is wrong to average the two cycles. But I do have the authority of those academics who have been associated with this exercise. While I am very happy to acknowledge your understanding in the field, I will not do so at the expense of their's.The post is dated 08.06.2009.
jerryGG38 - Are you saying, in simple terms that we must average the voltage during both periods of the duty cycle? Please just say yes or no. If it's No, then explain what you mean, if you don't mind. Thanks.
So. Is it reasonable to assume that the voltage measured above zero comes from the battery? And, in the same way is it also for some reason unreasonable to assume that the Negative voltage comes from the inductance on the load resistor?
So why then is it very unreasonable to assume, in line with well known circuit theory, that this counter electromotive force comes from the inductor?
It is very unreasonable to assume that the negative voltage (flat level) comes from the inductor. jerryGG38Ok. Let me try this again. When the battery is disconnected - courtesy the switch and the MOSFET - then we find that there is a very large voltage. This is evident on the oscilloscope. I'm sure you will agree with me that it does not come from the battery. It is generally known as Back EMF - in motor driven circuits. We don't have a motor - so here it is, apparently and correctly referred to as counter electromotive force. This counter electromotive force is known to be caused by the field collapsing in inductive components in the circuit. The only outrageously inductive component in our circuit is the resistor. So why then is it very unreasonable to assume, in line with well known circuit theory, that this counter electromotive force comes from the inductor? EDIT: Just ignore, for now, whether it is above or below zero. Don't even think of measuring it. Let's establish where this 'spike' comes from.
Quote from: witsendSo why then is it very unreasonable to assume, in line with well known circuit theory, that this counter electromotive force comes from the inductor?It is not unreasonable to assume. In fact the counter electromotive force does come from the inductor. It was put there in the on cycle. It comes back in the off cycle. But you never get as much back as you put in. []Keep in mind that it is power that is conserved. Voltage is only potential. Power is voltage times current.Vern you answered this too quickly. Energy is conserved. Voltage times current times time.Also nothing is coming back in that circuit. The inductor charges up and diode D1 conducts. This causes the inductor energy to flow around a circle. It discharges unto itself and not the battery. The mosfet is open after the spike and the battery has no part of the discharge through the diode D1 and inductor.
JerryGG38 - I've just heard from my co-author. He asked me to point out the following. He conducted his own tests on a TK TEKTRONIX TDS 3054B 4 channel 500Mhz with a sample rate of 5GS probes. Measurements on attenuation by 10. Also used a spectrum analysr LG rated at 5 x 4 GHtz. I think I've got that right. He's been following this thread but has no spare time to join in.He duplicated the tests to determine the validity of the initial claim. We used the quantum test publication because it had the written permission of the accreditors.