COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

Rosemary Ainslie Replication

I repositioned my circuit so the connections are even closer and straighter than before.

The only thing I have to do is put the inductive resistor on stands on each side to elevate it off the wood.

I changed my 0.05 ohm shunt to a 0.25 ohm shunt to match Rosemary's.

The inductance of the coil you see is about 23uH, which is almost 3 times what Rosemary used. It is 10ohm and 100watts and is about the same length but is about 1/2 the diameter.

[Aaron]

Inductive Resistors

A local professional EE that is highly trained in conventional EE but is also aware there are many flaws in conventional EE training has graciously let me borrow these resistors to experiment with as well as tuning pots and other goodies.

Here is an example of the selection:

[Aaron]

@MH

I am basically waiting for the results, but let me make a few comments. I think that you are being overly hostile towards dissenting opinions. Advancing science is all about having a debate and defending your opinion.

I'm not reading your entire post and you are being hypocritical. TKs slander, insults, mistakes in his "hypothesis" over and over... YOU defended them all. YOU said he knows what he is doing. YOU are quick to jump to every single conclusion. He shows a flatline when the mosfet goes into oscillation. That is all FRAUD. You pointed to that as being a "smoking gun" type of evidence to show this circuit doesn't do what is claimed.

YOU have ZERO credibility and have NEVER posted one message to keep TK accountable to his claims.

ANY HONEST SCIENTIFICALLY-MINDED PERSON WILL KEEP HIS OWN PEERS IN CHECK BY KEEPING THEM ACCOUNTABLE - THIS MUST HAPPEN AS MUCH AS DEBATING ANY OPPOSING VIEWOPINTS. If not, it is nothing more than an exercise in hipocracy.

He says he made mistakes testing his hypothesis, but he blamed all of us for his own incompetance. Did you ever make him accountable for all his mistakes? 100% of the time NO. All you did was get on the soapbox and beat the drum to his each and every one of his actions.

You are obviously NOT qualified to give your opinion on this circuit (IN THIS THREAD) and you are NOT qualified to give any kind of non-biased analysis of what this is about. You have already shown your true colors countless times.

You back poynt99 on the opinion that AC has nothing to do with ANY part of this circuit. You both were wrong.

You back TK on his opinion that the oscillation claim is a red herring. You were wrong.

You back TK shouting about how fake and obvious the oscillation is if it simply flatlines on the scope. You were wrong.

I could go on but so far your batting average is about .000

Your comments are no longer welcome here. Please leave. Go start a thread with Hoppy and express your opinions there.

Any more disruptions with your comments here will NOT be tolerated.

[Aaron]

@hoppy

Now that you have made it abundantly clear to everyone that this is only a development thread and you do not wish classicists to express their views, I will honour your wish and from now on stay out of the debate. Perhaps you could make this even clearer by posting a 'sticky' to this effect at the start of the thread.

Hoppy

According to all the feedback you got on your posts throughout this entire thread, you know exactly the purpose.

This is to duplicate Rosemary's circuit with the same results.

Do not insinuate that it means the idea of more out than in under development. It is a fact of nature.

Thank you.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

I am basically waiting for the results, but let me make a few comments. I think that you are being overly hostile towards dissenting opinions. Advancing science is all about having a debate and defending your opinion. You can allege that "It will go by the way side as did the crackpot science that said the earth was flat, planes and bees can't fly, etc..." but something tells me that you have been saying that every year for the six or seven years that you have had your web site and the status quo still stands firm. The other really ironic thing is that it's actually the enlightened minds that said the earth was a sphere, and powered flight would become a reality, etc. What you are stating is a cliche straw man argument.

It is readilly aparent that you and Rosemary are ready to take any leap and embrace any form of unscrutinized suspect data if you think it advances Rosemary's proposition. Look at the example of the ringing at the end of your annoted scope shot. I think several times that you have stated that this represents charging of the battery. I pointed out a few times that this can't be so because the MOSFET is switched off when the ringing is taking place and I speculated that it was simply ringing in the wire connection between the shunt resistor and the battery ground terminal. You have ignored my statement that the MOSFET is switched off during this time period and have never addressed this point. How about this: I can suggest another test: Just add a second shunt resistor between the battery positive terminal and the circuit load and connect your scope probe across this shunt resostor and refun the test and recreate your annotated waveform by adjusting the gate resistance.

Now, I am not sure exactly what would happen when you run this test but suppose that you see ringing on the original shunt resistor and no significant activity, or compeletely unrelated ringing across the new shunt resistor. In my opinion, if the new shunt resistor shows little or no activity, that shows that the battery is not recharging during the ringing and the ringing is just ringing in the wire itself, and has nothing to do with the battery. If the new shunt resistor shows ringing with a different frequency, the conclusion is essentially the same. Note that my comments are "builder's comments", they are about investigating your build and trying to figure out what is really going on. And again, to beat an old horse to death, the MOSFET is off during the ringing, and by "classical" logic, zero current can flow through the battery.

In a similar fashion, I suggested that you try putting different resistors in series with the flyback diode while you monitor the voltage across the coil-resistor (same as diode + extra resistor) while the circuit runs. The intent here is to see if the coil-resistor will discharge through the diode + extra resistor as per the inductive laws. The coil-resistor is 10 ohms. I said in the past that when the coil-resistor discharges you will only see 0.6 volts across it when it discharges. That was confirmed in one of your earlier clips. Now if you add a 10-ohm resistor in series with the diode, the initial voltage you should see when the coil-resistor discharges will likely be (24 + 0.6) volts. Why would this be? Without the extra resistor the the resistive part of the coil-resistor will cause a 24-volt drop when the MOSFET initially switches off. This happens inside the coil-resistor itself, and so you only see the 0.6 volt drop across the diode in the "outside world." We know when the MOSFET switches off, the coil-resistor will generate the same amount of current as when the MOSFET was on, therefore if you add an extra 10-ohm resistor in series with the diode-resistorm, then it must also sustain a 24-volt drop, and then you add the 0.6 volt voltage drop for the diode. Following this logic, if you add a 20-ohm resistor in series with the diode, the initial voltage across the coil-resistor when the MOSFET switches off should be approximately 48.6 volts.

I am quite confident that this is what you will observe if you run the test. Again, this is a builders suggestion, exactly in line with what you want this thread to be about. However, if you see this across your scope (Always keeping you second channel of the scope on your display across the shunt resistor to get a nice clean trigger on and act as a timing reference. You MUST do this.) then this would indicate that the coil part of the coil-resistor is discharging across the diode. If I recall you and Rosemary have been very resistant to this concept. Somehow both of you are convinced that the coil discharges across the source battery in some unexplained miraculous display of electron gymnastics. I challenge you to do that test, it is a builder's investigation.

With all due respect Aaron, it is very evident you only possess basic electronics and oscilloscope skills. You do not posess the skill set to dig into the circuit and develop your own extra tests to give yourself and your audience a deeper level of understanding for what is going on. Nor do you posess the electroncis knowledge and skill set to make definitive statements about what this circuit is doing. That also applies to Rosemary. You should be open to input from myself and others about how to go about investigating this circuit further. You can't simply just look at a schematic and build it and make the "final result" measurements and leave it at that. You and Rosemary are all excited about all of the resonances that you see in the wires, when in fact all of that is a layer of noise dropped on top of the actual operation of the circuit. All of the ringings are secondary effects that are unrelated to what you are looking for, and are clouding the picture for you with your untrained eye. I will repeat again, this curcuit does not resonate at all, period. I don't buy into Bedini's battery resonance pitch at all. The inductor charges and discharges with exponential-type waveforms which are clearly evident in just about every clip made and this has nothing to do with resonance.

Incidentialy, did you notice the curves in TK's temp vs. time graph that show COP < 1. It is exactly the same exponential waveform again. This is Nature in action, where the exponential waveform is unique in that the rate of change of the variable at a given instant in time is proportonal to the value of the variable at that instant in time. The rate of change of an exponential waveform is another exponential waveform. And the rate of the rate of change of an exponential waveform is another exponential waveformm, and that extends on to infininty. Again, it's how Nature works, whether it be an inductor discharging, a capacitor discharging, or a water tower emptying, or the temperature of a resistor heating. All of this beautiful natural symmetry that we observe in the real world, then we figured out how to make mathematical models for what we see. Then we confirmed that the mathematical models show exactly what we predict will happen by experimantal measurement. It represents a measure of enlightenment that we have acheived as the human race and seemingly you are convinced that it is all garbage and everything has to be reinvented all over again.

To me it appears that you don't have this level of enlightenment, and have created a belief system of "short cuts" that you believe are the "real truth" and all of the scientists and engineers are blind dummys that have been "programmed." I am saying to you that Rosemary's circuit is yet another demonstration of all of the beauty and symmetry that is everywhere in the Nature, in the natural world. Rosemery's circuit will operate in a way that is harmonious to all that is around it, just as everything else exhibits this wondrous property. Her circuit is simply an elegant demonstration of exponential increasing and decreasing curves for electrical variables as they function in Nature. Even the ringing, which is a mixture of a sine wave with an exponential decay envelope, is fundamentally yet another manifestation of this "exponential harmony" that is all around us. Sine waves and cosine waves themselves are another manifestaton of an exponential function in action.

Let me just raise another "big picture" issue for your consideration. With all respect to Luc, he is posting results of his experiments on batteries, looking at the start and end-run voltages. This is an exapmple of a "reality distortion field" that just about every Bedini experimenter, Luc, and yourself happily buy into with no questions asked. The simple fact is that the voltage across the open-circut or loaded terminals of a battery is NOT any kind of reliable indicator of the state of charge in a battery. This is FACT, I am not even going to debate it. I'm sure the Luc has been told this many times, recently .99 mentioned it to him. In your case Aaron, I have to assume that you have been told this thousands of times. Yet, for some unknown "reality distortion field" reason, you, Luc, thousands of others happily run battery charging and discharging tests and exchange notes on start and end voltages, etc. This is MEANINGLESS GARBAGE data, as simple as that. It is not fun or easy to run battery charge and discharge cycles measureing kilo-Joules in and kilo-Joules out and trying to establish a reference baseline, etc, but that is the ONLY WAY TO GET MEANINGFUL DATA. All of the before/after battery voltage comparisons are a COMPLETE FARCE Aaron, this is FACT, and you can't escape it. I am fully aware that what I just stated is going to ruffle your feathers, and have zero impact on anyone, and when Luc gets back he will continue doing meaningles battery voltage measurements, like thousands of others. Sorry to be so harsh, buy sometimes the truth is harsh.

Okay, I will get off of my soap box and wait for the results to come in.

Bringing it all back home, you should be open to debate from people in this thread from people that disagree with you and Rosemary, as long as it is civil. Like .99, I have already said my piece in previous postings. I have tried to explain how this circuit really works, with examples and analogies, etc. Hopefully some people got something from it, but I am done. I challenge you and every replicator to present your data in coherent summary form and post it. Do how many YouTube clips as you want but do not leave the relevant data spread out in bits and pieces spanned across two or three video clips and then make a vague posting on here referencing your clips as "proof." Get all of your data together and present it in simple, easily undertsandable text format and let's see what happens. I posted a suggestion that somebody log all of the replicator's results in a spreadsheet or something but nobody bit. If no one is going to do that at least every replicator should post a two-line summary of their results, that's not too much to ask for.

MileHigh

[RonL]

[QUOTE=mikehingle;63007]

New to the forum, hello to all.
I discovered the terms Tank Circuit and Flywheel Effect, in a text book about electronic engineering, I'm more into mechanics of things and have considered for many years how to improve on efficiency and not leave the wasted energy that has become such an accepted standard. ...
- - - - - - - - - - -
Hi RonL !

On Richie's Tesla Coil Web Page, he has a new link to RF Induction Heating which covers many bases & will probably help answer questions you/we have regarding tank circuits & flywheel effects. Here's the link :

High Frequency Induction Heating - High Frequency Induction Heating

We all should peruse Richie's excellent recent report on Induction Heating. Richie would probably be an excellent adviser to steer us in the right direction. I'll email him to see if he would be interested in participating in discussions to evaluate the Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 Heater .

Mike Hingle

Thanks Mike,
I had crossed his web site in the past, he has added a lot. I will hang around to see if he will have anyting to say.

Did you pick up on what I'm asking ? a mechanical movement and not induction heating. Because of cycle time it might be a little of both ?

I'll try to go into more detail if the need is requested.

Ron

[Harvey]

IRFPG 50 Datasheet

This sheet mentions what Harvey said about the Repetitive Avalanche Rating and a few specs on it.

Thanx Aaron, that sheet from Vishay looks like scanned images from the manual I have, but slightly rearranged. My manual has the same info on 6 pages, but both contain the same complete information.

As regards the 143KHz, the term "documentation" that I used was referring to Rosemary's documentation, not the documentation of the HEXFET

[Gre]

Why even bother with theory at this point? Let's see a self running circuit, or a true OU circuit, then worry about theory later. If this circuit can really achieve a 17 COP, like the topic of this thread states.. self runner should be no problem... Right?

[mikehingle]

[QUOTE=RonL;62982]New to the forum, hello to all.
I discovered the terms Tank Circuit and Flywheel Effect, in a text book about electronic engineering, I'm more into mechanics of things and have considered for many years how to improve on efficiency and not leave the wasted energy that has become such an accepted standard. ...
- - - - - - - - - - -
Hi RonL !

On Richie's Tesla Coil Web Page, he has a new link to RF Induction Heating which covers many bases & will probably help answer questions you/we have regarding tank circuits & flywheel effects. Here's the link :

High Frequency Induction Heating - High Frequency Induction Heating

We all should peruse Richie's excellent recent report on Induction Heating. Richie would probably be an excellent adviser to steer us in the right direction. I'll email him to see if he would be interested in participating in discussions to evaluate the Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 Heater .

Mike Hingle

[Hoppy]

The classical argument has already been made by you, MH, 99, TK, etc... There is nothing more that can be added to make the point of what the classical opinion is. It is well known by all of us.

Continuing to stab needles of "Its all about making the circuit as electrically efficient as possible to best suit a specific application and nothing about getting more energy out than is put in." is unacceptable.

First, it doesn't matter what Mike's own belief is according to your comment. You have simply put words in his mouth and framed his point of view as one that doesn't include more out than in.

Maybe he does or maybe he doesn't but don't put words in others mouths. Please don't deny it either. I'm not interested in a battle only progress and I will confront it each and every time.

I understand the psychology of your sentence and it is misleading. You state it from a stance of your arm around his shoulder in mutual agreement about your whole sentence. I can probably write up a boring 10 page detailed essay on the psychology invovled in that one single sentence as well as the psychology of the person that CRAFTED it, but I'll spare everyone of this nonsense.

You are subtle in your ways and your motives are very questionable by me. I'm not going to stop you from voicing your opinion but I find it offensive and OFF TOPIC to this thread.

There will be criticism on claims like this and you know what? There are other threads, other people, other forums and other classicists that will forever debate it even when they look it dead in the eyes and see it work. This is a development thread and is not subject to debate. I allowed enough of that and enough is enough. No more.

You want to criticize it? Leave us alone, let us do our work and post real results. AFTER we publish what we publish. Then criticize it. Until then, it is only a disrespectful annoyance.

Like I said, we don't need saving from our heretical viewpoints. The classical viewpoint is already dead, you just haven't realized it yet. It will go by the way side as did the crackpot science that said the earth was flat, planes and bees can't fly, etc...

Non-equilibrium thermodynamcis is has already been established in the future as being the only accepted thermodynamics that ever accurately describes natural open systems. Many people are already shaking their heads in shame that they ever believed such nonsense as the classical viewpoint.

This scientific dissent is the CAPSTONE of progress in science. Anything else is a ball and chain.

There will be criticism on claims like this and you know what? There are other threads, other people, other forums and other classicists that will forever debate it even when they look it dead in the eyes and see it work. This is a development thread and is not subject to debate. I allowed enough of that and enough is enough. No more.

Now that you have made it abundantly clear to everyone that this is only a development thread and you do not wish classicists to express their views, I will honour your wish and from now on stay out of the debate. Perhaps you could make this even clearer by posting a 'sticky' to this effect at the start of the thread.

Hoppy

[Aaron]

13th amendment

The "Missing 13th Amendment" to the US Constitution barred attorneys from obtaining public office.
The Missing 13th Amendment

That's right and I've seen copies from an original copy that got away unburned.

As a note, there are MANY missing "13th amendments" in science.

All the math that showed extra potential, etc... have all been bastardized and equalized - to get rid of evidence of excess from nature - so the entire classical argument is a house of cards. The real scientific "13th amendment" is in the process of becoming known by the masses.

The house of cards fell long ago. Both politically and scientifically. Just a matter of time until everyone is reminded of it. Rosemary's work is surely contributing to this revolution.

[Aaron]

@scientific dissent

Aaron

If threads are started dealing with highly contentious issues such as the claims for this circuit, then you should expect lively and forceful arguments. The only thing barred should be rudeness between individuals. If you cannot hack this, then I suggest you delete a few more people from your forum, starting with me!

Hoppy

The classical argument has already been made by you, MH, 99, TK, etc... There is nothing more that can be added to make the point of what the classical opinion is. It is well known by all of us.

Continuing to stab needles of "Its all about making the circuit as electrically efficient as possible to best suit a specific application and nothing about getting more energy out than is put in." is unacceptable.

First, it doesn't matter what Mike's own belief is according to your comment. You have simply put words in his mouth and framed his point of view as one that doesn't include more out than in.

Maybe he does or maybe he doesn't but don't put words in others mouths. Please don't deny it either. I'm not interested in a battle only progress and I will confront it each and every time.

I understand the psychology of your sentence and it is misleading. You state it from a stance of your arm around his shoulder in mutual agreement about your whole sentence. I can probably write up a boring 10 page detailed essay on the psychology invovled in that one single sentence as well as the psychology of the person that CRAFTED it, but I'll spare everyone of this nonsense.

You are subtle in your ways and your motives are very questionable by me. I'm not going to stop you from voicing your opinion but I find it offensive and OFF TOPIC to this thread.

There will be criticism on claims like this and you know what? There are other threads, other people, other forums and other classicists that will forever debate it even when they look it dead in the eyes and see it work. This is a development thread and is not subject to debate. I allowed enough of that and enough is enough. No more.

You want to criticize it? Leave us alone, let us do our work and post real results. AFTER we publish what we publish. Then criticize it. Until then, it is only a disrespectful annoyance.

Like I said, we don't need saving from our heretical viewpoints. The classical viewpoint is already dead, you just haven't realized it yet. It will go by the way side as did the crackpot science that said the earth was flat, planes and bees can't fly, etc...

Non-equilibrium thermodynamcis is has already been established in the future as being the only accepted thermodynamics that ever accurately describes natural open systems. Many people are already shaking their heads in shame that they ever believed such nonsense as the classical viewpoint.

This scientific dissent is the CAPSTONE of progress in science. Anything else is a ball and chain.

[Aaron]

Rosemary's principle

Rosemary sees the basic principle here:

For the record. The question at the heart of my modest experiment goes to a simple
known law in physics - the well known inductive laws. You will notice that all OU claims
are related to switching circuits that generate a second cycle of back electromotive or
counter electromotive force, back to the system. The argument for the classicist has
always been that this energy is first delivered by the supply and then stored. The switch
is closed. The stored energy then gets used. The result therefore is zero extra being
introduced.

The 'new age' physics claims that the energy is delivered from the source. It generates
an extruded magnetic field throughout the circuit components. When the switch is
closed, these stored fields re-generate a second cycle of energy that is then used in the
system. The only way to prove this conclusively is to apply all tests to an independent
supply source. The most reliable is a battery supply source as there is no need for any
contact to any extraneous grid supply which then confuses the argument.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see what is happening a bit different from Rosemary.

But the classical concept that there is no new energy being introduced into the circuit, well, it does happen.

Anyone can look at the waveform from the time the on pulse happens until the ringing stops. There is work done during the applied charge and if we just get back out what we put in, that means work was done in the first place but it didn't cost anything - according to the classical view. Because if we are able to simply get back out what we put in, the heat generated on in the ON pulse didn't cost any energy at all - according to the classical viewpoint.

[Hoppy]

It isn't a harsh response. It is a very rational response to the fact that your comments of no more out than in continuously is a deterrent to the purpose and mission of this thread.

Would you go to a football game, sit in the crowd of Dallas Cowboy fans or any other team and start cheering for the other team? How long do you think you'll last there? Not very long, they'll pick you up and carry you out.

If you went to someone's church and sat amongst the people and started telling them their belief system is wrong. You'll also be carried out.

I think you get the point that is is incredibly disrespectful and very irrational.

What is the point of joining a Over 17 COP thread to point out how it is impossible? If you don't believe it is impossible, how are you contributing anything that moves us forward?

If you want to comment on FACTS, that is fine but keep your opinions of over 1.0 COP systems to yourself (in this thread). And opinions about not being able to get over 1.0 COP in this system is an opinion. Not only does this circuit have the ability to have over 1.0 COP, it is REQUIRED.

This may help you understand what a non-equilibrium system is:
http://www.energeticforum.com/62991-post139.html

Aaron

If threads are started dealing with highly contentious issues such as the claims for this circuit, then you should expect lively and forceful arguments. The only thing barred should be rudeness between individuals. If you cannot hack this, then I suggest you delete a few more people from your forum, starting with me!

Hoppy

[Aaron]

rational response

why this has invoked such a harsh response from you.

It isn't a harsh response. It is a very rational response to the fact that your comments of no more out than in continuously is a deterrent to the purpose and mission of this thread.

Would you go to a football game, sit in the crowd of Dallas Cowboy fans or any other team and start cheering for the other team? How long do you think you'll last there? Not very long, they'll pick you up and carry you out.

If you went to someone's church and sat amongst the people and started telling them their belief system is wrong. You'll also be carried out.

I think you get the point that is is incredibly disrespectful and very irrational.

What is the point of joining a Over 17 COP thread to point out how it is impossible? If you don't believe it is possible, how are you contributing anything that moves us forward?

If you want to comment on FACTS, that is fine but keep your opinions of over 1.0 COP systems to yourself (in this thread). And opinions about not being able to get over 1.0 COP in this system is an opinion. Not only does this circuit have the ability to have over 1.0 COP, it is REQUIRED.

This may help you understand what a non-equilibrium system is:
http://www.energeticforum.com/62991-post139.html