COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

just speculation,

But it seems like here, the strict replication is what people are interested in and after. Really, I haven't done many, if any replications, only experiments. But maybe a discussion on why this circuit works, how it should best be built if no component values were provided etc.

What's wrong with my replication, other than the MOSFET, and why should that make a difference, since the problem I identified has nothing to do with the mosfet?

And the circuit under discussion is fully specified in the Quantum article. All component values are provided there.

Oh, I know what's wrong with my replication: I didn't get the results you wanted. Sorry--take that up with whoever put the "wrong" circuit diagram into Rosemary's paper.

[Armagdn03]

What's wrong with my replication, other than the MOSFET, and why should that make a difference, since the problem I identified has nothing to do with the mosfet?

And the circuit under discussion is fully specified in the Quantum article. All component values are provided there.

Oh, I know what's wrong with my replication: I didn't get the results you wanted. Sorry--take that up with whoever put the "wrong" circuit diagram into Rosemary's paper.

Absolutely nothing is wrong with your replication. Please do not take such comments personally. You have identified an inaccuracy in the material provided. Please realize, such progress was not made in a vacuum. Mrs. Ainsley did not come to this circuit on the first run through, the same "101" mistake has not been made by....(and here goes the geneology)...Tesla, Bob Teal, John Bedini, Peter Lindemann, and many others.

Please take a step back from the replication. Understand what it is she is trying to accomplish. How would you solve it knowing what you know?

Fact is there are more aspects to be considered, Dr Stiffler has identified one that is very obvious, yet has profound implications, and missed by most, (change in ohmic resistance due to heating), there are others. This cannot be solved trying to mimic another persons work, unless you know what they are getting at, otherwise you would be crying foul at alot more than just the duty cycle!

For instance, say you have your inductive charge from a source at 12v , it relaxes, charging the capacitor to 120v. This will raise the inductive state in the next switch open to the 12 v point very quickly, but after this, the battery is just spending charge with no more inductive rise. This means that in order to get the max out of the cycle, you would need to change the duty cycle, to where it reaches 12 MAX, then cuts off. In other words, you have the wrong cap chosen. I spoke with an knowledgeable person the other day, who knew Mr Bedini, The same problem is plaguing many would be OU motor builders for years and years. What does work here? Voltage? Amperage?

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I will put my 2 penny worth in here on this arguement. I think you are both right in each others sence. As I pointed out before, the goal posts move:- one is the resistance changes as the thing heats up and two the mosfet does make a difference and three the component set up also makes a difference. Now I have experimented with this, not the exact circuit as she showed but as I showed in an earlier post I set up a tracking circuit. What did I find is this, when the circuit is tuned perfectly I had a 50% duty cycle which is to be expected but by off tuning the pickup coil I could get this down to 1% or less. Now when this is tuned down to around 4% on cycle I found that the cap was discharging into the coil and giving high amps as can be expected. I was using a 120mf 400v photo cap. Now doing this I created the low duty cycle, not the mosfet, but my idea was to see if there was a benifit in a faster temp rise of the heating coil. My results showed NO, it was the same, so on her results something else must have been happening. All I have done is exclude one avenue.

Mike

[DrStiffler]

I will put my 2 penny worth in here on this arguement. I think you are both right in each others sence. As I pointed out before, the goal posts move:- one is the resistance changes as the thing heats up and two the mosfet does make a difference and three the component set up also makes a difference. Now I have experimented with this, not the exact circuit as she showed but as I showed in an earlier post I set up a tracking circuit. What did I find is this, when the circuit is tuned perfectly I had a 50% duty cycle which is to be expected but by off tuning the pickup coil I could get this down to 1% or less. Now when this is tuned down to around 4% on cycle I found that the cap was discharging into the coil and giving high amps as can be expected. I was using a 120mf 400v photo cap. Now doing this I created the low duty cycle, not the mosfet, but my idea was to see if there was a benifit in a faster temp rise of the heating coil. My results showed NO, it was the same, so on her results something else must have been happening. All I have done is exclude one avenue.

Mike

@Michael John Nunnerley

Forgive me for seeming lazy, but for reasons I do not want to touch here I can't go back in the thread to be sure, but didn't you state that you did some temperature measurement in a calorimeter? I may have you confused with someone else, I also seem to recall mention of a heat transfer fluid from someone.

Here is what its all about. I have searched for many years for the right calorimeter and it seems there is not one, at least an item that is advertised and not a special in house unit. My problem with SEC and this circuit is that it is difficult (near impossible) to take into account total heat, the mosfet in this circuit and the transistor in SEC all release heat and have a significant heat gradient. One does not want the drivers enclosed in a chamber where you have a high buildup (dynamics change so much), what is needed is a way to measure the load and the driver in separate chambers and in the case of the driver move the heat out reducing build while measuring the transfer. This would involve a unique calorimeter which I have not yet locate.

I assume such a device would run in the 10's of k$ if it does exist.

If I got it wrong and it was not you, maybe the right person will respond.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Yes there is a way

@Michael John Nunnerley

Forgive me for seeming lazy, but for reasons I do not want to touch here I can't go back in the thread to be sure, but didn't you state that you did some temperature measurement in a calorimeter? I may have you confused with someone else, I also seem to recall mention of a heat transfer fluid from someone.

Here is what its all about. I have searched for many years for the right calorimeter and it seems there is not one, at least an item that is advertised and not a special in house unit. My problem with SEC and this circuit is that it is difficult (near impossible) to take into account total heat, the mosfet in this circuit and the transistor in SEC all release heat and have a significant heat gradient. One does not want the drivers enclosed in a chamber where you have a high buildup (dynamics change so much), what is needed is a way to measure the load and the driver in separate chambers and in the case of the driver move the heat out reducing build while measuring the transfer. This would involve a unique calorimeter which I have not yet locate.

I assume such a device would run in the 10's of k$ if it does exist.

If I got it wrong and it was not you, maybe the right person will respond.

Yes there is a way and not too complicated. If you want, so as to not take up space here, give me an e-mail address in my box here so as I can explain with a diagram.

Mike

[DrStiffler]

Yes there is a way and not too complicated. If you want, so as to not take up space here, give me an e-mail address in my box here so as I can explain with a diagram.

Mike

@Michael John Nunnerley

You should have the address as a local PM

[ShamanSaid]

@Michael John Nunnerley

Forgive me for seeming lazy, but for reasons I do not want to touch here I can't go back in the thread to be sure, but didn't you state that you did some temperature measurement in a calorimeter? I may have you confused with someone else, I also seem to recall mention of a heat transfer fluid from someone.

Here is what its all about. I have searched for many years for the right calorimeter and it seems there is not one, at least an item that is advertised and not a special in house unit. My problem with SEC and this circuit is that it is difficult (near impossible) to take into account total heat, the mosfet in this circuit and the transistor in SEC all release heat and have a significant heat gradient. One does not want the drivers enclosed in a chamber where you have a high buildup (dynamics change so much), what is needed is a way to measure the load and the driver in separate chambers and in the case of the driver move the heat out reducing build while measuring the transfer. This would involve a unique calorimeter which I have not yet locate.

I assume such a device would run in the 10's of k$ if it does exist.

Perhaps you can measure by putting your circuit into a hermetically sealed chamber (glass jug over circuit on a rubber mat) with an accurate thermometer inside and calculate it off the change.

[witsend]

Hello everyone. Am delighted to be made a member of the energetic forum and blown away at the interest in our circuit. I've joined in the hopes that I can answer questions. For those that have replicated the test, many, many thanks indeed. And for those that are having problems duplicating results - hopefully we'll get to the root cause. Meanwhile, just to let you known, I live in Africa. So for all American posters, I'm probably seven hours out of synch and it may take a day before I can get back to you on any particular question.

Yet again, lots of thanks. It is wonderful to be part of such an extraordinary group of open minded people. You have no idea how rare you are - or maybe you do. For me it's an entirely new experience to see such ready acceptance of some really challenging concepts. I've been out there for some time now trying to promote these ideas and it's been bruising. Am pleased to report, however, that I think we're slowly winning acceptance.

What a pleasure.
Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie

[Armagdn03]

Welcome,

[Peter Lindemann]

Rosemary, Welcome!!

Rosemary,

Thanks for jumping through all the hoops to join the forum. So many people are trying to join the Forum these days that the moderators are overwhelmed just disapproving people.

I know there are some folks here who are eager to have a discussion with you about your discoveries. I'm really glad you are here, now.

Peter

[DrStiffler]

Perhaps you can measure by putting your circuit into a hermetically sealed chamber (glass jug over circuit on a rubber mat) with an accurate thermometer inside and calculate it off the change.

@ShamanSaid
Thank you for the information.

As far as measuring a device that can stand and not change specific parameters from heat build up I have many different sizes and styles of calorimeters, although one does not want the solid states to get to hot as they do indeed change operational points. Ideally a fluid heat sink that could wrap around components and carry off the heat while doing a quantitative measurement is where I am at a loss.

If one can see a CEC>1 from the specified radiator then it can only be better if the 'Total' heat for the entire circuit is known.

Thanks again for the suggestion.

[DrStiffler]

Hello everyone. Am delighted to be made a member of the energetic forum and blown away at the interest in our circuit. I've joined in the hopes that I can answer questions. For those that have replicated the test, many, many thanks indeed. And for those that are having problems duplicating results - hopefully we'll get to the root cause. Meanwhile, just to let you known, I live in Africa. So for all American posters, I'm probably seven hours out of synch and it may take a day before I can get back to you on any particular question.

Yet again, lots of thanks. It is wonderful to be part of such an extraordinary group of open minded people. You have no idea how rare you are - or maybe you do. For me it's an entirely new experience to see such ready acceptance of some really challenging concepts. I've been out there for some time now trying to promote these ideas and it's been bruising. Am pleased to report, however, that I think we're slowly winning acceptance.

What a pleasure.
Kindest regards
Rosemary Ainslie

@witsend
Happy to see you are with us and I hope the 'Moderators' will patrol the thread closely so that you are not bruised here. There are many interested professionals waiting to replicate and substantiate your very interesting circuit.

[TinselKoala]

Hello Rosemary and thank you for communicating.
As you probably know by now I have put together what I consider to be a fairly accurate build of the circuit published in the Quantum article, and which is described in lesser detail in the EIT pdf paper.
I haven't been able to get the correct IRFPG50 MOSFET that you used, so I have been using primarily a 2SK1548 which has similar parameters. I have also tried 3 other MOSFETS in the circuit with substantially similar results--except that the IRFP450, like the IRFPG50, has considerably longer turn-off time than the others. This has implications when considered together with my main finding below.
My adventures are detailed in a couple of videos on YouTube, that have been linked earlier in this thread. I have since done some more work, hardwiring (instead of breadboarding) the 555 timer portion of the circuit, and also I have obtained a Fluke 199 ScopeMeter to compare its behaviour with that of my 2 analog oscilloscopes on your circuit.

In brief, I found that the circuit published in the Quantum article does indeed produce heating of the load--but there is a problem.

In my build of the circuit, the duty cycle is in the range of 3.7 percent OFF, not 3.7 percent ON as you state in the article and paper. That is, with the oscilloscope hooked up as per your diagrams, the voltage at the load goes HIGH 3.7 percent of the time---which means the MOSFET is OFF and the load is not conducting current for 3.7 percent of the time. The Fluke 199 scopemeter reports this as an ON duty cycle because the voltage is high. But in actuality the MOSFET is OFF so there's no current through the load.
So the gist of the matter is that the circuit as published actually turns the MOSFET ON 96.3 percent of the time.

When the circuit is driven by a function generator making a true 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, there is no heating of the load evident.

There are also some problems specific to the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter that I noticed. First, at really short (or long) duty cycles, triggering is not as precise as I would like; the unit does not report frequency or duty cycle accurately below about 5 percent or above about 95 percent, at least at 2.4 kHz. (Yes, my unit is in calibration.) Second, it is sensitive to the high-frequency inductive ringdown at the end (or beginning, depending on duty cycle) of the pulses, and can falsely trigger on these pulses.

Now, some have said that the diagram in the article is in error. So that's the question from me: Is the circuit diagram as published in the Quantum article in error? If so, what is the correct circuit used? If not, well...that has further implications.

Thanks--
--TK

[witsend]

TinselKoala - I viewed your Utube on our circuit. It was interesting but my first point is that the waveform on both the first and the second are nothing like our own. It did not go into resonance and it is nowhere near as complex as the one's we generate across the load. Something between your circuit and ours is out of synch.

I'm so sorry I can't get a picture of our waveform. I'll ask my co-author if he can perhaps organise something but suspect that it will take a little time. Michael John Nunnerley was bang on in pointing out that we were probably using a resonating frequency. Indeed we are. We sweep the duty cycle until it first goes into oscillation. That is the point that we usually get the best results. The waveform is not periodic - which makes for some tricky calculations of power - hence the need for that Fluke scopemeter and for those calorimetric values.

The other thing I did not see was the diode return to the positive teminal of the battery? I presume this was included? But I have a real problem in watching the battery voltage collapse on the second video. The load is light - and with the best will in the world, even with a 90% on duty cycle, I cannot understand how a fully charged 24 volt lead acid battery can deplete within the first 10 minutes of running. Were you using a flat battery? Certainly one would expect that it's capacity would enable a current flow of a resistor at 10 ohms (was it?) - therefore not more than 2.4 amps for longer than 10 or even twenty minutes even without any applied switching cycle. I also noticed at one stage that the battery seemed to lose it's voltage entirely - then go into a negative voltage value and then spring back to 24 volts. I can only say that such is really strange and in the years that I've been testing our circuit have never seen the like. I am reasonably certain that your battery was nearly flat or that its rated capacity may be somewhat questionable.

I am also concerned that you used a different mosfet. Not that it needs to be identical to the one that we used - but I am just not sure of the properties of the one that you used.

Regarding the 555 switch as opposed to the function's generator. There really should be no real difference between the two. However it is easier to adjust the 555 switch to enable that resonance which is both the object of the circuit and the main object of the thesis. Why you are not able to get the circuit into oscillation I do not know. Perhaps you must vary the frequency better. Incidentally I could not make out the frequency you applied on that demo.

The niceties regarding the actual published switch and the one that you built - here I cannot comment. What I do know is that if the switch is set at 5% on and the load shows 5% on then it cannot default to 90% on. It is that simple. I could not make out the positioning of the probes in relation to the load resistor. Again. Your questions seem earnest - but your references not so easily detected on that video.

In any event, the other problem I have is with the value of that spike which your referenced in the second video - I think it was. Our spike is generally far higher, upwards on 120v but is largely dependant on the applied duty cycle. In any event the amount of energy in the on cycle is always marginally more than the amount delivered by the spike. The value to the energy gain is in that this energy is repeatedly returned to the battery and to the load. This can be seen if you use 2 x 12 volt batteries as we did. If you run the test on the one battery and connect the second to the first with a common negative rail - then feed the diode to the positive of the second battery, you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. That test was done to prove that the returning energy does, in fact recharge the energy source.

So it is that we justify the value of the energy delivered by the battery as the sum of the on and off cycles. The energy dissipated is the product of both cycles. Therefore is there a gain. And at this fast resonating frequency the gain is really substantial.

I do hope this addresses those points that you repeatedly refer to through these threads.

[witsend]

Incidentally, TinselKoala - there's another point. We actually ran our tests with a control. The reason the published article and the paper deal with a test period of 10. something hours is because that is how long it takes the control battery to deplete its energy. For some reason, both in the quantum article and the paper I was specifically advised that any reference to battery duration was essentially irrelevant. Apparently battery draw down rates are subject to too many vagaries?

In any event, the actual draw down rate of the tested batteries is consistent with the energy measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the energy measured and calculated from the two cycles of each waveform being above and below zero. At the end of that test period the test batteries are more or less the same as at the start of the test period. The control is entirely flat.

We then recharged both battery sets (always used typical 12 volt car batteries) and swapped the control with the test. Variations of this was called for by BP to enable their accreditation of the tests. It was exhaustive and painfully repetitive.