COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[quantumuppercut]

I have an idea.

Why don't all the skeptics get together and write down a list of criterial that would satisfy you. Post the list up, the believers will edit the list and update it. This go back and forth until the list is perfect. Then the testing begins. The list needs to be as simple and specific as possible to get to the main point.

[Mark]

I dont think both sides will ever totally agree. I think the methods of testing has been hammered to death by now. If your not in agreement as to the methods why not replicate your own and do your own testing and report the results?

[Hoppy]

Milehigh

What a great idea! Wait to see the results, I couldn't have said it better myself. Lets just wait to see some results.

If your so sure that the claim is completely false why do you insist on posting or even viewing this thread? Why are you wasting your time? You don't have anything better to do?

Don't waste anymore of your time here, find something constructive to do like some research, or maybe some experiments.

Yes, but unless 'both sides' can agree on a method and procedure for the 'official' experiment, what good are the results. Rosemary has already stated that this has already been set down in her original document, that myself and others maintain is badly flawed. Its no good ignoring the classicists opinions and advice and then expecting to claim the upper ground on the strength of the results. Getting to the stage where the experiment can be conducted with confidence from 'both sides' so that at least the protocol is fit for purpose, will take time and may never happen. Competence to carry out the experiment is another issue.

Hoppy

[quantumuppercut]

[QUOTE=Mark;63663]

What a great idea! Wait to see the results, I couldn't have said it better myself. Lets just wait to see some results.

QUOTE]


If people don't agree with the method of measuring currents/power/voltage, then it doesn't matter what the test result is. They will still debate. We must establish some agreement lines and the result is the final go/no go.

[witsend]

Thanks jas and Mark. Just seen your posts. Much appreciated.

[witsend]

I don't buy your claim that you have no interest in my opinion. The fear that I am referring to is not the same fear that you are discussing and I think that we both know that. I can't wait to see what the results are.
MileHigh

I am not a liar. I have no interest in your opinion regarding the test - it's possible outcome - or indeed, as time will show, it's actual outcome. This is because I have lost all the residual respect that I held for you. I will not be answering any more of your posts.

[jas_bir77]

hi best of luck rose

hi rose.
ALL THE BEST
(for standing against the world)
conserve some energy for the celebrations of successful test results also.
jasbir

[Mark]

Milehigh

What a great idea! Wait to see the results, I couldn't have said it better myself. Lets just wait to see some results.

If your so sure that the claim is completely false why do you insist on posting or even viewing this thread? Why are you wasting your time? You don't have anything better to do?

Don't waste anymore of your time here, find something constructive to do like some research, or maybe some experiments.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary, hard to reply to all of that. Suffice to say that Aaron's incorrect way of measuring the power dissipated in the coil-resistor would show slight over unity, perhaps a COP of 1.1, certainly not a COP of 17. That would be more than enough to claim victory and the conclusion might be that if you could "tune" it better and find just the right layout and components you could achieve a COP of 17, so time to do more replications. The assumption being that somehow one of your original setups had the "magic" configuration that the replicators are missing. Meanwhile the "classicists" would expect to see a COP of somewhere between 0.8 and 0.9.

If the results of the test are under unity, then just about everything that the "classicists" stated was correct. The thread dies, people learned something and can move on to try other things. The "classicists" would say that any circuit that consists of passive components and powered semiconductor components can not achieve over unity by definition.

You have qualified me by my postings just as I have qualified you by your postings. I don't buy your claim that you have no interest in my opinion. The fear that I am referring to is not the same fear that you are discussing and I think that we both know that. I can't wait to see what the results are.

MileHigh

[witsend]

Following quotes from MileHigh

Aaron's proposed methodology for measuring the output power by measuring the voltage across the coil-resistor and using v-squared/R was wrong.
MileHigh - as I say - you insist on parading an unqualified statement as proof of ignorance.

I recall you making the same types of statements about measuring the power across a coil-resostor a few weeks ago. You clearly demonstrated that you had no understanding of how the current and voltage were related and kept on insisting that it was (to paraphrase) "just like a resistor." There is nothing wrong with commenting on things like that that correct erroneous assumptions.
Kindly give actual reference here. To the best of my knowledge I'm reasonably au fait with elementary power analysis and we are only dealing with elementary power analysis. And I have no recollection of saying "just like a resistor" or any thing approximating this statement. This is another example of a paraded ignorance - but this time not even based on fact.

Precisely who is your "expert advisement?" It is a term that you often use. Do you mean Aaron and Peter or someone else? I am not looking for a name or names, but what are you really talking about?
I am under no obligation to disclose this. But certainly I include Peter and Aaron under that general description of expertise.

You should not be proud or your statements wanting to censor me.
Not proud MileHigh. Embarrassed - that I have to say it all. And I am not censoring you. I am telling you to withhold your opinion until it is appropriate. You're like the jury who reach a decision before the trial.

Forget about the bruised egos,
If I cared about my ego I would hardly still be addressing this thread - or for that matter - your post.

I think that the root motivation behind your statement is fear.
Indeed. I'm scared that I may be right and I'm scared that I may be wrong. Either way. I am indeed scared. The implications of the former are terrifying. By contrast the implications of the latter are almost comforting.

Fear on your and Aaron's part to open up and sometimes say, "Hey I didn't know that, thanks for clarifying that, I would like to understand more."
What nonsense. I take very real pleasure in pointing out what little I know and how much there is to learn.

That would put a fissure (can't use the other word) in your armor and you can't deal with that idea.
What armour? I have none. The minute one shows one's identity and stands up to a claim - then one is entirely vulnerable. I wish I had some armour. I have NONE.

There have been many many "pregnant pauses" during this thread where there are way-off assumptions or processes that are suggested by "your team"
I absolutely will not accept this statement without direct reference - chapter and verse - to the examples you are suggesting are evident. I know of none such. I have even admitted fault when there was none. No embarrassment in admitting what one does not know. But I've also recommended that there be some acknowledgement of what little I do know.


The recent craziness over the avalanche breakdown failure mode for a MOSFET comes to mind.
Again - I have no idea what you are talking about. There have been many references to MOSFETs and I think I can honestly say that I've never understood any of the points made here. Certainly I was never embarrassed - and certainly I did not care about what anyone thought would or would not work. My only concern as expressed is that I do not care what causes the resonance - just as long as there is resonance. Nor do I. I have no idea how classicists see this. I only know how I see this. And I've yet to read where anyone else see the moment as I do. So what could I care? I simply don't.

I have a feeling that we are not going to hear about that one anymore.
MileHigh - discuss this to your heart's content. I do not mind. And I do not think that anything was proposed here that caused anyone that I know of, any kind of embarrassment.

Nobody on "your team" has the guts to say, "Hey, we were wrong and didn't know that, thanks for helping."
If we've overlooked something here - give me an example - I will see to it that this oversight is amended.

In my opinion, it never happens because you are paralyzed by fear.
Yes I'm scared. Let me explain something of that fear. I am scared for my personal safety. I am even more scared of my family's safety. I am scared of the hatred that my claim seems to evoke. I am scared when OU.Com refuse me the right to challenge TK's unrestrained attack on my name, my abilities and my knowledge. I am scared when such as you can publicly challenge me to account for myself in these petty exchanges that add nothing to my self-respect. I am scared when I find that my private emails are being read and publicly referenced. Indeed I am scared. What I am not scared of is the truth. I am only scared of the consequences of that truth.

It is the same thing when you cherry pick a mistake by somebody on the "opposing team" and say (to paraphrase), "You are an idiot and obviously don't know anything so take a hike." It is the worst form of propagandizing that even Joseph Goebbels would be proud of.
I suggest you look in a mirror. I have only defended myself and, to the best of my knowledge I have never said nor implied that anyone is an idiot. Ever.

So in my opinion right now, Aaron and Peter should be willing to be open and up front with their test methodology because I don't have enough confidence in either of them to get it right all by themselves.
I assure you that I have no interest whatsoever in your opinion. Not on the test protocol and not on the outcome of the test. I personally do not give a tuppeny damn what you think. But I am sure you will, nonetheless give us ample evidence of your opinion. It seems to be an untrammled compulsion of yours.

I have to assume that there are others that would share my opinion. That is the reality from my perspective, sorry if that offends anyone.
Are you some sort of spokesperson here? In which case is this why you give yourself this extraordinary license to critise our efforts? Try equalling them. That will be a test of caliber.

If the Tektroniks DSO is being loaned out because it is not being rented at this time, it could easily be snatched back after just one day if Tektronics finds a paying customer. That means that Aaron and Peter could be limited to just one or two days of use with it. That makes it that much more important to get it right the first time.
I am not sure what code of ethics you live by. But I assure you that reputable companies are not inclined to breach undertakings even when they are gratuitous.

To me, with respect, it seems that you cannot open your mouth or exercise your efforts on that key board, without parading another quality of pettiness and pride that I personally, find offensive.

[Hoppy]

Did you mean:"... so it now needs to be proved that the energy radiating from the inductive resistor in the form of heat is many times greater than the energy being taken by the shunt(battery)."?

Taken by the circuit from the battery.

Hoppy

[quantumuppercut]

... so it now needs to be proved that the energy radiating from the resistor in the form of heat is many times greater than the energy being taken by the circuit.

Hoppy

Did you mean:"... so it now needs to be proved that the energy radiating from the inductive resistor in the form of heat is many times greater than the energy being taken by the shunt(battery)."?

[Hoppy]

I think it highly unlikely that Peter would risk his reputation and take the lead with Aaron as lab assistant to produce a test method, procedure and set of results for this particular circuit, to a standard that would stand up to detailed analysis by academics / other interested parties.

Hoppy

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

Aaron's proposed methodology for measuring the output power by measuring the voltage across the coil-resistor and using v-squared/R was wrong. I recall you making the same types of statements about measuring the power across a coil-resistor a few weeks ago. You clearly demonstrated that you had no understanding of how the current and voltage were related and kept on insisting that it was (to paraphrase) "just like a resistor." There is nothing wrong with commenting on things like that that correct erroneous assumptions.

Precisely who is your "expert advisement?" It is a term that you often use. Do you mean Aaron and Peter or someone else? I am not looking for a name or names, but what are you really talking about?

You should not be proud of your statements wanting to censor me. Forget about the bruised egos, I think that the root motivation behind your statement is fear. Fear on your and Aaron's part to open up and sometimes say, "Hey I didn't know that, thanks for clarifying that, I would like to understand more." That would put a fissure (can't use the other word) in your armor and you can't deal with that idea. There have been many many "pregnant pauses" during this thread where there are way-off assumptions or processes that are suggested by "your team" and then somebody makes a point that corrects the assumption. The response is stony silence, where fear is getting the better of you. The recent craziness over the avalanche breakdown failure mode for a MOSFET comes to mind. I have a feeling that we are not going to hear about that one anymore. Nobody on "your team" has the guts to say, "Hey, we were wrong and didn't know that, thanks for helping." In my opinion, it never happens because you are paralyzed by fear. It is the same thing when you cherry pick a mistake by somebody on the "opposing team" and say (to paraphrase), "You are an idiot and obviously don't know anything so take a hike." It is the worst form of propagandizing that even Joseph Goebbels would be proud of.

So in my opinion right now, Aaron and Peter should be willing to be open and up front with their test methodology because I don't have enough confidence in either of them to get it right all by themselves. I have to assume that there are others that would share my opinion. That is the reality from my perspective, sorry if that offends anyone.

If the Tektroniks DSO is being loaned out because it is not being rented at this time, it could easily be snatched back after just one day if Tektronics finds a paying customer. That means that Aaron and Peter could be limited to just one or two days of use with it. That makes it that much more important to get it right the first time.

MileHigh

[witsend]

Aaron:

About your statement about the output power measurement:...I think that you would agree that the thermal route would be a lot easier...I hope that you don't freak out and instead argue the merits of what I said. I am willing to listen...

...There is no need to be like that, it's like Peter trying to claim that .99 and Cloxxki were useless because of a statement they made about pulse charger effeciency. You know that I could say a lot of things about resonance if I wanted to.

MileHigh - The experimental requirements are well in hand and under expert advisement. Relax. And no-one objects to valid comments. But look back. You'll maybe acknowledge that some of the requirements by our contributors were not exactly valid and certainly not classical. And many questions remain unanswered.

Until you find, in due course that our numbers are being misrepresented - then please refrain from advising. Until the data is actually put on the table I'd prefer it that you keep your concerns to yourself as they are both premature and inappropriate. You take a generalised statement out of context and use it to parade an ignorance on the part of the experimentalists here that is positively insulting - whether intended or not. I've said it before. We've enjoyed the general sense of being underrated in terms of the team's abilities which has - for some reason - helped rather than hindered us. But I would ask that you now look around you. I think there is sufficient evidence that there are talents this side of this argument that are also equal to that argument.