COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - your comments are now diluting what would otherwise be a really entertaining thread. Could you at least try and improve on the quality of your sad attempts at sacrasm if you must always be sarcastic. Otherwise perhaps you could just keep out of it until you've something interesting to post.

You are patently enjoying your contributions here but I'd like to point out that you're alone in that enjoyment. I'd prefer to spare our readers as well as the contributors. Like I say - improve on the quality of the comments - in whichever way you wish to present them - then we can all have some fun.

Apologies Rosemary, its sometimes difficult not to over react when discussing from a different perspectives. I'm sure Aaron will appreciate this. Anyway, I think the different perspectives on the operation and performance of your circuit have now been well and truly aired and points made on this thread. It now rests with the academic community to validate the conclusions made in any test report that emerges from the planned tests that I understand Peter and Aaron will be conducting on your behalf.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Thanks Hoppy

[witsend]

For Stefan - at OU.Com.

There are many comments from contributors that are addressed to me which I am unable to answer. Could you please lift the block on my access to your forum. I would like to join and am unable to register until this is done.

Kind regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

[Joit]

Looks like, its better to wait, till all this smart a. Guys are gone from this Thread, before this one, what are really interested in this Thread and work on replications can continue with some usefull Work, insted going through all that Hot Air, what is blowen out here.

[Aaron]

disconnect

For Stefan - at OU.Com.

There are many comments from contributors that are addressed to me which I am unable to answer. Could you please lift the block on my access to your forum. I would like to join and am unable to register until this is done.

Kind regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

TK is on record as saying that he recommended continuing the "disconnect" didn't he? That means you really are blocked.

[Harvey]

dv/dt or delta field intensity

Rosemary,
I have been thinking a bit with regards to how you envisage the photons being 'peeled' off from the atomic lattice of the inductive resistor. IIRC, I read that sharp (high delta voltage over delta time) transitions were expected to produce better results.

I had imagined that it was more related to the change in field intesity over time. Although the two are related by Ampere's Law, I am curious as to whether a moderate frequency sinusoidal waveform with high amperage would produce different results than a lower amperage, high frequency square waveform.

To put it simpler, I had imagined that dumping several hundred amps through a coil during a slower sinusoidal ringing would release the effect better than just a few tens of amps being spiked with nanosecond rise and fall times. But on reflecting, I am curious as to whether the sharp corners on the edge of a square wave where the transition abruptly stops (dv/dt = 0 at the top and bottom of the trace) may have a stronger jarring effect on the underlying materials.

I guess it depends on whether or not the photon release (which I would suspect would need to be ~740nm) are the result of an energy threshold or a subatomic shock. If it is the latter, then my earlier proposed test may not produce the effects as well as what you have now, and even more so with a push/pull square wave oscillator running at 150KHz.

Theoretically, if it is the dv/dt the fundamental frequency dependency melts away and the matter becomes one of simply choosing a strike rate that exceeds the materials ability to dissipate the energy thus raising its temperature for measurement.

Just thinking out loud here...

[Cloxxki]

You're damaging your credibility post by post.

The common sense is that ANY extra running time indicates BOTH - heat and charge.

Amp hour capacity is irrelevant!

If the SAME battery is used for experiment and control and the times are measured from a specific voltage to voltage, it does NOT matter the ah rating. It is using the SAME power source.

I agree with you, but only if a sceptic was allowed to excecute the control circuit. The sceptic would ensure it to run efficiently, and set the target high. This is required to make sure that that slightest improvement in of over the control circuit, is not immediately translated in a >1 COP rating.

Assuming COP 17 is correct, then it should be relatively easy to use convert this heat to a stirling engine, to produce electricity to run the circuit. Any current otherwise fed back to the battery might then, if at all necessary, be collected by a cap? A device running forever without a battery (rather than "multiple hours" with), THAT defies the question of the Amp hour rating of the battery that got it all kick-started.
If you mention the Ah rating of the battery, a fellow researcher may be able to share a greater amount of heat generated from that, without fancy circuitry.

Looking forward to seeing Rosemary's results, it promises to be most interesting!

thanks,
J

[mikehingle]

[QUOTE=Harvey;63432]Food for thought:

If I shine 1 Joule of light through a glass window, will the glass change temperature? If so why? Is any of the light lost in the process?
The amount depends on the angle of incidence, the transmissivity, reflectivity, emissivity & absorptivity of the glass. All this has been precisely characterized over the last century.

If I allow that same light to reflect off of highly polished mirrors, capable of reflecting 100% of the light, on each side of the glass, so that the same light penetrates the glass repeatedly, will the light eventually cease to exist?
That mirror doesn't exist. Thin-film 1/4 wavelength mirrors, Chirped mirror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia have, but not really, a "virtual" 100% reflectivity. There are also hollow glass microspheres which are massively being used as "perfect" retroreflectors, with "virtually" 100% reflectivity.

"Virtually" 100% transmissive glasses or lenses, (really only 99.99%+ transmissivity) which also utilize thin-film 1/2 wavelength thick materials have been available for @ 40 years. Optical coating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, the light would rather rapidly loose it's energy through each successive interaction with both the mirrors and the glass. But, nature has provided us with materials that cooly stores light (no measurable temperature rise) for easily 100 years with "virtually" no loss of energy, which we can release upon demand !

What if I chose a frequency of light with a wavelength of say 750nm. Would that change anything?
Every wavelength of light has unique performance charactistics interacting with specificic materials, which allows us to measure & identify the world around us with unprecedented accuracy. I've seen the light, the truth, & the way !!!

If UV light becomes visible when reflecting off of Fluorescent Paint, is it possible to convert other photons into Infra Red by passing them through a ceramic material?
see : Stokes Law & Anti-Stokes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes'_law

I don't understand why you consider these light questions food for thought.

But on the other hand, magnetic fields can have superconducting-like properties, transmitting easily through a lot more materials than can electricity, light, heat, radio waves, xrays, & even gamma & cosmic rays. And these values have been precisely measured & characterized over the last 100 years. The only things that block or shield magnet fields are materials that magnets stick to & counter-propagating magnetic fields.

Magnetic energy is very unique in our universe, compared to all the other energies. Especially Plasmatic Magnetic Energy, which can be derived from rapidly switching off currents in coils, & hence, "opening the gate" to allow to pass through, nature's provided (not man-made) Karate Chop-like forcefull, collapsing magnetic fields. Directory:Keshe Foundation - PESWiki

Cheers !
Mike Hingle

[Harvey]

I like the CloxxI approach to this. The only prevention from this actually working would be if the combined mechanical and energy conversion losses exceed the gains.

Are there more efficient means of converting heat to electricity that may not involve moving parts? There always seems to be some entropic stranglehold where heat is concerned - otherwise we would have put the 300°K ambient heat to work long ago.

Good thinking there CloxxI

[Aaron]

Rosemary Ainslie Schematic update

I know why my first circuit caused oscillation easy. Anyway, make not of the updated notes in red.

[Harvey]

@MH,
Thank you for your consideration of those questions I posted.

The underlying purpose was to get the thought processes of the readers here thinking on original reason Rosemary had this circuit built and how it can lead to COP > 17. Remember, light is electromagnetic radiation. So we can learn much about how a magnetic field interacts with matter by observing the way light interacts with matter. Ask yourself if the light emitting from your light bulb is any different than the radio waves emitting from your cell phone apart from its frequency. And then analyze the transparency of various materials to that energy.

Magnetic fields are rerouted through high permeability materials, and this is the primary concept of 'magnetic shielding' - the shunting of the flux back to the secondary dipole. Currently, HY-Mu80 is one of the best alloys for that. X-ray rooms are lined with Lead-Board to absorb radiation which is in the elctromagnetic spectrum.

Can you think of any examples where passing a magnetic field through a material results in Infra Radiation being produced?

Cheers,

[Aaron]

Fluke DC Shunt

Hi everyone,

Here is a picture of a scope shot from a Fluke 123 Scopemeter showing the DC voltage across the shunt.

This is the picture TK does not want you to see because it shows over 1.0 COP immediately - when you compare to AC RMS across load.

The ac rms across load squared divided by load resistance (10 ohm) is the wattage dissipated there.

The dc across shunt divided by shunt resistance is amps X battery voltage is watts leaving battery.

If he shows that, there is more watts being dissipated at load than is leaving battery. It is clearly over 1.0 COP.

Ask TK to show this as well as the wattage at load!

[witsend]

Aaron - looking GREAT.

Just still very periodic. But definitely EN ROUTE. So nice to see this.

[witsend]

Sorry everyone - yet another note for TK

You're right. I have various neighbours who've sorted out an intermittent access. But it does not enable registration.

Come on TK. You've got a monologue going there - a really long winded one sided argument. And I can't accuse you of impartiality, moderation, fair mindedness, objectivity, or accurate data presentation. And if you look at our posts you'll see Aaron's got a cogent argument as to why we need you to use that Fluke. I'd like to advance that other face of the argument that you persistently refuse to address.

Aaron, Sorry to impose. Please post this as well. And general apologies all round for this tedious and circuitous method of reply.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

I have been watching in the backgrond, and I have a legitimate question for you about your shunt waveform using the Fluke 123 Scopemeter in your post #1663.

Please work out the math for all of us for the COP > 1 calculation in the form of a posting.

Thank you,

MileHigh