COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Guest]

In case this works you want to show it to a qualified EE right? Where do you intend to verify the gadget and to whom? You can also send it to a 3rd party for testing. The ball is in your place wherever that might be.

Until I see a replicator disproving TK I am not inputting any time and money.

I am a M.SC of Engineering Physics.

Bye

Jibbguy - thank you for your welcome. I'm delighted to belong to the town hall of free energy. I'm not altogether sure that it's entirely free - but pretty close. I see you've scolded Gauss. Perhaps I've been too harsh? But I am not that familiar with any of the other threads and I find it particularly offesive that he should recommend that he get my addresses. Why?

Anyway - yet again - thanks for the welcome Jibguy. Hopefully the day will come when you'll find the time to do some testing. But I know, only too well, how life's demands are such we can't always indulge our real interests.

[witsend]

Gauss - that you don't want to waste time with proof is entirely your option. No-one can insist and I don't believe that anyone would presume to do so.

Now. If you had read the paper you would have seen that the test has, in fact, been replicated by ABB Research in North Caroloina - by BP (SA) - SASOL (SA) Spescom and others. The only companies I l referenced in that accreditation were public companies - those companies that are listed on our local bourse. And all of them conducted their own tests to validate these results. The object of that accreditation was to encourage our local universities to take the study further. They would not, notwithstanding the offer of a bursary award from SASOL. We then tried to get the paper published, NOT the quantum article - but the actual paper submitted to the IET. This was not even forwarded for review. In other words I did not even have an opportunity to discuss the results with the reviewers who, traditionally, give advice on varying the presentation.

As you well know, companies cannot invest public funds into research unless there is some sanction of the methodology. We could not get that required sanction and it was NOT from want of trying.

What I find extraordinary is that - notwithstanding these representations you prefer to believe the extraordinarilly irrelevant objection based on a possible problem with the 555 than either test it yourself or trust in the accreditation of those experts used by the companies mentioned. This, to my mind indicates a bias. That you have every right to believe these representations or not - is inalienable - and unquestionable. But what I do find strange is that you should systematically belittle the interest of anyone else in the project who, unlike you, are inclined to believe.

It is my experience that the only mind that can grasp these rather revolutionary ideas is a young mind. This does not necessarily relate to chronological age - but often does.

Whatever these efforts deserve it does not deserve some slanderous implications that the promoters of this circuit are simply trying to capitalise on it. If there were any fraudulent misrepresentations with the purpose of conning the public or getting their money, then your suspicions may well have been considered valid. But, on the contrary. We have all seen to it that there are no patent restrictions - through the simple expediency of first patenting the device and then allowing registration to lapse. This puts it in the public domain so it really does properly and in fact belong to anyone in the world who wants to use the methodology. But to exploit it and develop it and promote it - that's self funded - done with love - and in the hopes that we can systematically errode the suspicions of those such as you appear to be. Yet you appear to be determined to menace these objects, belittle the promoters and decry our best efforts. That implies a malice that is both inappropriate and disproportionate to the finer objects of this promotion which - of themselves - are already difficult enough.

And why do you need to know my address? I cannot get my mind around that question.

[TinselKoala]

Build the circuit as published and see how it behaves.

I did. And I reported what I found.

All the theorizing in the world, all the ignoring, all the trolling, can't change the FACTS:

The circuit as reported in the Quantum article turns the MOSFET ON nearly all the time.

That is a fact.

If the readers cannot see the significance of that FACT, I certainly won't be able to help them.

I only have one suggestion: build the damn circuit yourself and test it, before you start criticizing my work.

I repeat: either the circuit as published in the Quantum article is wrong, or it is not. If it is wrong, why hasn't it been retracted and corrected? If it is not wrong, then the calculations which depend on the 3.7 percent duty cycle claim are wrong and should be corrected or retracted.

Which is it, Rosemary?

Or, perhaps, you or someone else can show that I am full of crap and cannot even build a circuit properly--by BUILDING IT THEMSELVES and showing different performance than I got.

[Armagdn03]

I have a person very dear to me, really the love of my life, who spent several years of her life ill. Not from any one source, rather just seemed to be of bad health for a stint of time. She worked very hard to control her world, even aspects over which she had no control. For a while she microscopically tried to solve the problem with medication and other generally accepted "cures".

Later, we were reading a book together that dealt with some rather tough issues about factory farming. One Study in the book sought to find out what made animals happy, so that they could draw on some sort of baseline. They concluded that if they put the animals into a natural setting, and observed their nature they would discover what the animals naturally preferred.

The conclusion was based on countless hours of exhaustive study, many control groups, double blind experiments etc. They found out....animals kept from their natural setting are unhappy. Their unhappiness was a direct factor in their heath. While this is a really big DUH!!!, it explains a lot.

Many of us are unfortunately slave to a lifestyle we were told was normal, we live generally unhappy and unfulfilled lives. This is the source of statistics such as:

"By the year 2020, depression will be the 2nd most common health problem in the world"

I can understand negative thinking, and its source. It should be obvious to the astute that we live in an adolescent society. We have been duped into trying to attain ever higher heights in the very bottom rungs of the Hierarchy of Needs. We are perpetually stuck trying to attain material goods, shelter, and safety. As we grow and progress we will find socialism a very fitting solution, but we are not ready yet. If the needs of all are taken care of, they will be free to attain higher levels of self discovery. Wisdom will be cherished, and money an afterthought. Those of power will not be rich in the monetary sense, but will hold positions of power and respect because of their great knowledge and wisdom. Many argue saying socialism will let people skate by, no real reason to work if all is provided. Truth of the matter is such an argument stems from the mind of a person who only perceives growth and advancement on the materialistic side of the spectrum.


My companion is now a happy person. She learned to alter her mindset. She erased barriers that she realized were self imposed. She is healthy and full of energy and love, I have never met another person so in tune with animalia and life, I have learned a great deal from her now that she is firmly rooted in the purpose of her life.

We have been given the raw deal, and lied to. It is a shame. But it is up to us to rise above and realize our potential, and just as important, help others realize their full potential.

Please consider what each of you brings to the table each and every time you post. Each of our thoughts and actions sets forth a tension which reverberates through our world, it is up to us whether it adds or subtracts from the advancement of others. No matter what you have to say, people should walk away impressed by your humility and kindness.

[Armagdn03]

Armagdn03 - I love the ease with with you draw paralles to so many different aspects of energy. It really is a remarkable study - and done with such facility. I'm blown away.

Had never thought of the relationship between the battery and load as you've described it. It is, indeed, a symbiotic relationship - perfectly synchronised in that give and take. And that a battery could be compared to cold energy is spot on. I just hadn't seen the relationship between this and the heat on the resistor.

Well done Andrew. I love it when parallels are found - and you seem to have mastered a wide range from some really basic observations. That's really clever.

I'm also glad to see that we've restored reason to this thread. It's remarkable how disruptive negative thinking can be. Where does it come from?

Can I ask you a personal favour - if you're up for it. Could you or Allcanadian try and work out why the benefits of this circuit have eluded detection? I cannot understand how the gains could have been overlooked on this simple circuit and it's a question that is forever being put to me. I have no idea. I simply do not know enough about other circuits. Any input would be gratefully accepted.

And again - how nice it is to be with kindred spirits. I just keep smiling.

I will try my best. (Allcanadian is also very qualified to speak)

This really comes down to the various relationships in components. Inductors and capacitors being of the main interest.

We all know what time constants are, and if not, perhaps a refresher (of your own doing) is in order.

With your inductor, anything above 5 time constants is pure conduction without any EMF (electro-magnetic field) growth. This means that we never want to run our inductor past this time value, or we get less and less return for what we put in.

When the inductor relaxes, the capacitor charges. One can figure out how much it charges to, but figuring out the joules in the inductor, and applying it to the energy in a capacitor equation.

This example will be greatly exaggerated to only illustrate a point:

Say you have a source of 10v. Your switch on time takes 30 seconds, before the inductor is fully charged to its max current per ohms law (this takes 5 time constants, so each time constant is 6 (5X6=30)). The inductor relaxes and fills a capacitor to 100 volts. Because the cap is rather small, but has a high voltage, it will discharge quickly (again time constants). It will bring the voltage and current of the inductor in the second cycle to 10v (battery level) in only 5 seconds. But the switch is still open for another 25. The other 25 seconds are completely wasted in conduction from the battery. Nothing is returned from this period.

This means that values chosen are incorrect for the proper functioning. You want to have the capacitor supply 90+ percent of the charge in each cycle, with your battery only covering losses. If you were to use a larger capacitor, it might only charge to 15v, but it would take 25 seconds to bring the inductor to the correct level.

This is all about relationships between the variables. Mainly:

Source voltage,
Inductance and resistance of your inductor
Capacitance of your condenser,
and of course timing.

Ignore any one of these and you will be playing blindly, You may stumble onto a configuration which works, and well, but you will not understand it.

the last thing on the list to worry about is the model number of your mosfet.

Hope this helps,

[witsend]

Armagdn03 - what a remarkable story. And all the better for its happy conclusion. I've read it over and over. Really charming and so well told. We've all had our different struggles. But struggle is probably a good thing. I often quote an adage. Hardship is inevitable. Misery is optional.

But what is particularly heart warming is that your partner managed to overcome difficulties without forfeiture of her vulnerability or empathy. Both qualities are so often compromised as one comes into confrontation with the daily struggles. It makes me think that those early struggles are possibly needed. It seems to strengthen the soul - somehow. That's got to be a good thing on both an individual and general basis.

Thank you for sharing that. It was, as I said most poignant and moving.
With much love to you both,
Rosie

[RAMSET]

Test data

Hi Rosemary
Are the tests that were performed at ABB laboratory in North Carolina available for viewing?[to assist in learning]
That would be great.
Thanks Chet
PS Armagdn03 GREAT STUFF!!

[ren]

I have a person very dear to me, really the love of my life, who spent several years of her life ill. Not from any one source, rather just seemed to be of bad health for a stint of time. She worked very hard to control her world, even aspects over which she had no control. For a while she microscopically tried to solve the problem with medication and other generally accepted "cures".

Later, we were reading a book together that dealt with some rather tough issues about factory farming. One Study in the book sought to find out what made animals happy, so that they could draw on some sort of baseline. They concluded that if they put the animals into a natural setting, and observed their nature they would discover what the animals naturally preferred.

The conclusion was based on countless hours of exhaustive study, many control groups, double blind experiments etc. They found out....animals kept from their natural setting are unhappy. Their unhappiness was a direct factor in their heath. While this is a really big DUH!!!, it explains a lot.

Many of us are unfortunately slave to a lifestyle we were told was normal, we live generally unhappy and unfulfilled lives. This is the source of statistics such as:

"By the year 2020, depression will be the 2nd most common health problem in the world"

I can understand negative thinking, and its source. It should be obvious to the astute that we live in an adolescent society. We have been duped into trying to attain ever higher heights in the very bottom rungs of the Hierarchy of Needs. We are perpetually stuck trying to attain material goods, shelter, and safety. As we grow and progress we will find socialism a very fitting solution, but we are not ready yet. If the needs of all are taken care of, they will be free to attain higher levels of self discovery. Wisdom will be cherished, and money an afterthought. Those of power will not be rich in the monetary sense, but will hold positions of power and respect because of their great knowledge and wisdom. Many argue saying socialism will let people skate by, no real reason to work if all is provided. Truth of the matter is such an argument stems from the mind of a person who only perceives growth and advancement on the materialistic side of the spectrum.


My companion is now a happy person. She learned to alter her mindset. She erased barriers that she realized were self imposed. She is healthy and full of energy and love, I have never met another person so in tune with animalia and life, I have learned a great deal from her now that she is firmly rooted in the purpose of her life.

We have been given the raw deal, and lied to. It is a shame. But it is up to us to rise above and realize our potential, and just as important, help others realize their full potential.

Please consider what each of you brings to the table each and every time you post. Each of our thoughts and actions sets forth a tension which reverberates through our world, it is up to us whether it adds or subtracts from the advancement of others. No matter what you have to say, people should walk away impressed by your humility and kindness.

Andrew, I have just recently gone through a similar experience with someone close to me. They were caught up in the daily struggle to conform to societies standards and "accepted" norms. It very nearly smashed us both on the rocks many times, until she accepted help from an outside source.

The difference now is staggering. And it all boiled down to her mindset, and her understanding.

Every word you typed there rang true with me, perhaps because I have shared a similar experience, or perhaps because I view the world in a similar way. It, in my opinion, is worth its own *Sticky* thread ten times over.

Rosemary, it is awesome to see you here with other great minds. I am keenly following this thread, while trying not to rush into building the first thing I see. That has been a fault of mine in the past, and will probably continue somewhat. With patience and contemplation I hope to gain a higher understanding of your design, along with resonance itself, of which Armagdn has already contributed to via other threads/links etc.

And you are spot on with your quote, "Hardship is inevitable. Misery is optional." So true.

Best regards to all involved.

[witsend]

ren - I did not see your name in this thread before. So nice to find new personalities. It fascinates me that the readership of these threads is so much greater than its contributors. One forgets.

I think the 'hold back' to testing these circuits is a psychological barrier. Those who are constitutionally unable to believe in overunity dare not prove it lest its true. And conversely those who are inclined to believe dare not prove it lest its false. Between both these claims are those who, indeed, have tested - and from what I see with TinselKoala's contribution - there are both detractors and promotors but I'm not sure if they're in equal proportion.

Hopefully this is where I may be able to help. I just need to point to classical physics that has already given us the tools to measure electric energy - the logic to generate electricity in the first instance and the wide range of technical knowhow as to how it can be applied.

Then, through these threads, my overriding object is to point out that electric energy is not constrained to unity any more than nuclear energy is constrained to unity. Nuclear energy - in the 3rd Law of thermodynamics - only requires a conservation of charge. In the same way - electric energy also only requires the conservation of charge.

My hope is manifold. Because I also hope to hold your interest - while I plod through the logic that, at its least, requires a redefinition of unity. Then, when you guys see the logic, hopefully, like me your question will be - not how can one exceed unity - but how indeed, can one avoid it? It is that inevitable - and I may add, that exciting.

[witsend]

Hello RAMSET - I was never given the results of any of the tests conducted by those accreditors. It was not from want of trying. But I was given their permission to use their names as accreditors in the Quantum article. The reason we simply used that precise experiment for the paper submitted to the IET was to reference their names. I do have the report for BP because we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration. But the context of that report is just on the effect as it relates to battery delivery - and it has got to be the single most boring exercise in all of history. It's object impeccable - but the testing exhausting.

I think the truth is that these companies allocate a certain amount of funding to research. And having found their answers they do not make it public. Presumbaly having paid for their own lab time they rightly regard the results as being their property - or their company's property. We did try and get the results - but failed - miserably.

[ren]

ren - I did not see your name in this thread before. So nice to find new personalities. It fascinates me that the readership of these threads is so much greater than its contributors. One forgets.

I think the 'hold back' to testing these circuits is a psychological barrier. Those who are constitutionally unable to believe in overunity dare not prove it lest its true. And conversely those who are inclined to believe dare not prove it lest its false. Between both these claims are those who, indeed, have tested - and from what I see with TinselKoala's contribution - there are both detractors and promotors but I'm not sure if they're in equal proportion.

Hopefully this is where I may be able to help. I just need to point to classical physics that has already given us the tools to measure electric energy - the logic to generate electricity in the first instance and the wide range of technical knowhow as to how it can be applied.

Then, through these threads, my overriding object is to point out that electric energy is not contrained to unity any more than nuclear energy is constrained to unity. Nuclear energy - in the 3rd Law of thermodynamics - only requires a conservation of charge. In the same way - electric energy also only requires the conservation of charge.

My hope is manifold. Because I also hope to hold your interest - while I plod through the logic that, at its least, requires a redefinition of unity. Then, when you guys see the logic, hopefully, like me your question will be - not how can one exceed unity - but how indeed, can one avoid it? It is that inevitable - and I may add, that exciting.

Well put Rosemary.

My hesitation may indeed be psychological in some sense, but I assure you, you dont need to "hope" to hold my interest. Ever since I built my first bedini replication I have been fascinated with all things pertaining to oscillatory phenomena.

I have bumped into and conversed briefly with Armagdn on another forum and I have two open ears for anything he has to say/add/teach. I am still trying to replicate one of his youtube videos regarding resonance. Unfortunately its progress had been put on hold, but just yesterday I scored a break through (hopefully) in the form of a second hand signal generator. This will assist me in a more indepth study of the relationships of inductance and capacitance and, of course, frequency. From what I have read so far on your circuit, this step will be crucial to me, and will most likely open a whole new world to explore.


I am still forming my understanding of it all, and this is one reason I am "waiting" to replicate. It is not because I am a disbeliever, or skeptical. I believe that all things are functioning at unity, one must simply take into account all so called "losses." The trick is taking something that most people discard or consider unrecoverable and making it part of your system, either by collecting it for reuse or using it to perform work. A simple example is the turbocharger installed on a ICE (internal combustion engine). At some point some fella thought to himself, "why am I expelling exhaust gasses (and tremendous amounts of heat) straight out of my system? I worked hard to get it all in there and I am just chucking it out. Cant it be harnessed in some way and be additive to the whole?" And volia, the turbocharger was born. Perhaps a bad example, I no longer have the love for combustion engines I once did, but it illustrates the point.

Having no formal training in either physics or electrical engineering I am sometimes lost when it comes to the nitty gritties, but then I think IF I had been trained, I would most likely react negatively to the information above. So I guess I can take that as a blessing, that and the fact those above are willing to put their time and effort into educating and challenging us. Without your help I would have been hopelessly lost.

I take my hat of to each and every one of you.

[Tecstatic]

Dear Rosemary,

Welcome to our forum, and thank you for sticking to your ideas despite the opposition.

I have worked a nice amount of hours with DrStiffler's SEC exiter, and also the Bedini window motor driver.

Having seen the the many posts here, I took a lazy approach and used my window motor driver instead of your circuit. I did this because Bedini says that you have to have an open circuit for cop > 1, and the window driver is suited for that, and I had an assembled PCB ready for testing.

The circuit can be considered identical to the circuit published by Bedini for the window motor, just it has no rotor mounted and has different coil material for one of the two wires

Note this circuit is almost the same topology as Peters diagram in the first post. D2 moved to the shunt position and replaced with a PNP transistor (NPN bottom resistor).

The "resistor" I made this way:

1. Three konstantan (resistor wire) 0.3mm wires were twisted to form a litz wire, 10 ohms.
2. A one layer bifilar was wound with the litz wire and a 0.5mm magnet wire on a 32mm PVC tube, the coil length is 105mm. the magnet wire and the litz wire are not twisted.

A diode is inserted in each supply lead to the window driver.

With a bit of tuning of the self oscillating circuit, I got it oscillating around 30 MHz, no square wave, more like DrStifflers SEC.

I have made a single led AV plug and a 8-LED AV plug handy for test, like Stiffler has shown in his videos.

The one led AV plug shows one coil end so "hot" it is half lit. With a small coil connected to the hot coil end the other end of the small coil lights the 8-LED AV plug to 3/4 intensity.

With my laser IR pistol I measured the resistor coil to be 2 degrees Celsius above room temperature (5.0 m individual wire length). The PCB being vertical positioned on the long side.

The double side driver PCB measures 50 x100 mm = 50cm2. The ground plane upper side is 4 degrees above room temp, the upper transistor is 7,5 degrees above, the copper "heat sink" area is 8 cm2.

The lower transistor is 13 degrees above room temp, 3 cm2 copper area.

The transistors are surface mounted SOT223 case.

The two diodes transferring energy to the capacitor are the 15ETX06, 15A/600V, trr=18ns, TO220 case being 3 degrees above room temp.

I guess the Trr=19ns diodes I have can make the oscillation better. I have to order some 14ns diodes to try in the circuit.

Note the two supply diodes consume 2 x 0,7V x 0.135A, approx 0,2W, leaving 1.2W for the remaining circuit.

I have used no calorimeter, but it seems to me I get more heat than the 1.2W I feed the circuit. More work is needed to confirm this, tuning is a big part in this, and I have seen several modes of oscillation.

I would also like a new PCB with MOSFETs instead of bipolar transistors.

So oscillation is possible, and if not that easy, what about a parallel capacitor simulating the inner winding capacity in the originally shown power resistor.

Sorry for this insufficient report, but it's time for bed.

Eric
.

[henieck]

The positioning of the battery is badly explained perhaps

- it was very clearly explained. I just unnecessarily digressed and mentioned that secondary battery could be differently configured as well. Actually it is important to notice that in your way of hooking up the secondary battery – if it is of lower voltage than primary – it will get charged even without running the transistor at all- but in Bedini’s way I described - you may connect discharged battery or empty capacitor which will get charge only from the coil and only when mosfet is operating.

…measurements as I detailed in my post to TinselKoala. That's an anagram of Nikola Tesla.

- I think this was quick IQ test : )

Regarding your concerns re the 'flow of electrons' as current flow. That's your choice. It's just if you do buy into it then you must somehow explain how those electrons flow through the material of the battery itself.

- I think it is like analogy to a pipe with balls in it – when you put one ball at one end of the pipe – the other ball have to come out from another end – but it is just my childish imagination and I didn’t give much attention to this. My point just was that the main theory on charging batteries doesn’t pump electrons in a sense that there is a possibility to collect them in the battery in excessive amounts, because the same amount is extracted form the other electrode. How exactly it travels – is another story. Charges go from one battery plate to the other through the circuit (not directly inside the battery).

I also gave another example of different electrochemical phenomenon which incorporates transfer of charges in ionic solutions which many people find somewhat problematic to fully explain by mainstream theories – so we both agree that there are some problems with some explanations.

Good luck on those experiments. I'd love to see your analysis of the power delivered/dissipated.

- well, I made my circuit from slightly different components which I have already had and swept through some “freakuency” and duty cycle - and haven’t found any easily distinctive anomalies yet. Unfortunately I am not in the best position to evaluate any technology because I am not an active electric engineer and I don’t have advanced measurement equipment. My approach is straight forward – I don’t care about measuring single high voltage spikes from collapsing coil because beside of lack of specialized equipment in my opinion they can very easily trick many things – batteries, equipment. My bottom line would be if this circuit could “trick” home power meter – not the oscilloscope

I have questions to you –

- I am not sure how important is it to cause self- oscillation of some sort (by lowering base voltage of transistor)? In other material you mentioned another two-coil circuit generating smaller anomalies only when powered by duty cycle much over 50% which is powered from AC grid I think – and there was just grid oscillation enough to manifest anomalies– right?
- Could you please elaborate some more about the resistive wire – have you checked results with entirely different wires? (any correlations?) Are there any wires which are definitively inadequate? (so far I have no idea what kind of resistive wire I have). I simply wonder which parameters are not critical at all and which must be exactly as specified to replicate your circuit. You probably have made many experiments so you have wide knowledge about what is most critical so we don’t overlook any important parameters. For example I have coils: 30 mm diameter, 17cm long, 5 Ohms, 115 turns of wire, and the other – 30mm diameter, 9,5cm long, 35 Ohms , 63 turns – unknown wire. Do you think it could work?
- How big is the window of anomaly in terms of frequency and duty cycle, once you find the sweet spot? Is it for example at 2.3kHz but at 2.4 kHz there is no such a phenomenon – or is it all over the wide spectrum but smaller?

Thanks.

[witsend]

ren - I'm continually surprised to see how much physics appeals to those that are untrained as well as to those that are trained. It's extraordinary. But I suppose it is not that different to appreciating good art without necessarily being an artist, or a good book without being a writer. It's just so nice to be reminded that physics belongs to the layman as much as to the expert. It's just that the latter are so much better at applying it. And hopefully through the simple use of simple language we'll be able to make its foundational concepts more readily understood by all.

Thanks for sharing that about your own experiences. Andrew's experiences seem to have resonated with us all both personal and as it relates to physics. But there does seem to be an interconnectedness between all of us - on this forum. Perhaps that extends universally? I just don't know. The question is way to big to get my head around it. What I do know, in a strange and esoteric sense - is that I seem to have 'come home' in joining the forum. It's an enormous relief after the attack that the world offers an independant thinker. Quite scarey really. Just look at Gauss' reaction.

Always a pleasure to find a new kindred spirt.
With much love and all that is good.
Rosie

[henieck]

... we had to conduct those experiments on battey duration.

- does it mean that except scope measurements you have also done battery measurements which confirmed the phenomenon as well?

I must tell you that I really admire your approach. Assuming that you really have the technology (since I haven’t confirmed it yet in my model I can only assume you do) – you are really doing the right think with it. Most inventors are withholding the full technology. I believe that there may be dark forces which want to suppress some inventions good for humanity, and paradoxically every inventor who doesn’t want to widely publicize is doing exactly what these dark forces want him to do. Thank you for open sharing.