COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Mark]

WOW, that sounds like a challenge to me! What do you say 99, have you got what it takes?

Well, that was short winded!

[Joit]

then you've won this argument hands down.

Only partially, if any. Noone has actually a Proof of, that her 'Solid based measurements' are correct.
They can actually measure 'something', but there is no warranty that it really do measure all.
Even the Dmms have problems to measure Spikes, and suddenly, its the World most accurate Measurement.. ridiculous.

And see, someone like you did try to bring them the Fact BEMF closer,
and they start crying around like Childs, as when you touch some once with a bit cold Water.
And shows again, that they are far not ready for it yet,
Either they deny it again, or their Knowledge is way to small, to proper think about it.

And same with J. Bedini, he showed, that you can charge normal Batteries,
what the whole Bunch of lousy EE's did deny.
When you charge a Batterie or Akkumulator at the normal Way, they boil, yes boil them,
With J. Bedinis Method, they stay cool, and even sometimes cooler, as before you start charging it.

But maybe thats her stomachache, that he showed them something,
what they didnt know before, and maybe never had investigated by her own,
and thats probatly a part of, why they are mad at him, but never really agree with it.
But well, finally, they did figure it out too, and agree, that you can 'refresh' them.
Bit late anyhow, how old are Batteries? 200 Years or even 2000? How ridicoulus.
What i ve seen so far(again) from the EE's, when you 'Proove them wrong' once, they ignore you, or run away, thats all what they can do, but never really commit how much flaws are in her Theories. Cowards.

Ant btw, what i did play around once with collecting the BEMF from a Coil,
and attached a Capacitor, the Effect was totally gone.
I only could connect the Cap with one Leg, what gaves some improvement,
but not worth to let it in.

Shows only, how worse Caps are made, and furthermore
They dont have the Capacity from a Batterie, and
when you feed the Circuit with different Voltage, as a Capacitor supports.
you would need to adjust the Circuit all time fast as the Cap loose the Energy,
because it act different with different Voltages from the Source.
Shows only again, what a Fraud her Suggestions are.

Why anyone thinks, that Hendershot did make his own Caps, and didnt use the regular one.
Because he was bored and had to much Time? For sure not.

And btw, i did play a bit around with a Cap as Source in this Circuit from the Quentum Article,
and you Dont Even Need To Fire It Up, and the Cap still loose Voltage. What a Hoax.

And at last, you are right too, that measurements at last, noone needs them really.
Actually, all will look for, what the Heat is, and how much Energy you need for it, and give a damn at the Voltage over a Shunt.

And btw, coming back to the Point.
The Calculations been done over the Heat what is emitted over the Values,
what you do need to create Heat.
That is clear defined and archieved and therefor, the Results are based on this Values.
But i dont see this anywhere at her Deliberations.

Its more like, need to calibrate the Scope before and after, because... uuuh uuh, they get soo easy damaged, use 5 different, and dont trust any Results,
just pike the one, what do serve you at the Moment.

Anyhow, that reminds on tuning a Car for 2 Days over and over for a Trip, only to come faster there. But 2 Days lost? nooo.
Others just jump in and simple drive.

[witsend]

Hi Joit. All I can say is that I agree with all of the above. Thanks for that.

[Harvey]

Here is a 20 minute, 2 part video of the Aperiodic Oscillation I get with my 'Proposed Changes' circuit running off of a single supply battery. Also included is an ammeter on the negative rail, some temperature readings and a demonstration of the gate 'punch through'.

RA Gate Oscillations One and Two Playlist

Cheers,

[witsend]

Once again you are reading incorrectly into my posts Rosemary.

The contention here with Jibbguy et al is that my proposed DC voltmeter test is invalid and/or inaccurate.

The video demonstration would be to validate the use of a simple conventional DC voltage meter set on DC volts to determine the net polarity of a high frequency low amplitude AC voltage (any wave form) applied to its input terminals. I trust that is clear enough.

.99

Why stop there? Why not do it all? That would give you a really convincing argument. Come on Poynt. Surely you're equal to it? Alternatively take a look at the symmetry over Aaron's load resistor and see if you can find this in one of your simulator programmes from a DC input at a 50% duty cycle. I'd settle for either. But a simple test showing the DC average over a regular meter? That's too easy. I'm sure even Aaron could do that.

[poynt99]

Why stop there? Why not do it all? That would give you a really convincing argument. Come on Poynt. Surely you're equal to it? Alternatively take a look at the symmetry over Aaron's load resistor and see if you can find this in one of your simulator programmes from a DC input at a 50% duty cycle. I'd settle for either. But a simple test showing the DC average over a regular meter? That's too easy. I'm sure even Aaron could do that.

Indeed Rosemary. I could design, build, test, measure, document, and present circles around Aaron if I wanted to. That is not my goal, and to tell the truth, it's unlikely anyone here would believe my results based on how I've seen Hoppy and TK get crucified. I'm not afraid, I just don't need the grief.

I'm not sure what you mean about showing a symmetrical wave form on the load in a simulation. Do you mean resonance? If so, that's not too difficult. I'm currently working on a circuit to accomplish this for Luc's resonance testing.

Regarding the DC average on a regular meter, then let Aaron show it.

.99

[witsend]

Indeed Rosemary. I could design, build, test, measure, document, and present circles around Aaron if I wanted to. That is not my goal, and to tell the truth, it's unlikely anyone here would believe my results based on how I've seen Hoppy and TK get crucified. I'm not afraid, I just don't need the grief.

I'm not sure what you mean about showing a symmetrical wave form on the load in a simulation. Do you mean resonance? If so, that's not too difficult. I'm currently working on a circuit to accomplish this for Luc's resonance testing.

Regarding the DC average on a regular meter, then let Aaron show it.

.99

Poynt - who's getting crucified here? Surely we're the victims. I grant you you're the only lonely voice on this forum but you've got an echo register from across the road.

By symmetry - I'm referring to Aaron's waveform across the load resistor at the postive rail. (10 Ohm 100 watt). It's like a sine wave - running above and below zero.

Please do the the simultor thing. It's got to be interesting.

And I have no doubt that you could do these replications. So do it. It'll put paid to our argument if your findings conflict. And I am entirely satisfied that you've got too much integrity to distort values here.

Aaron's off line. But I very much doubt he'll want to conform to yet another demand of yours. It's like I say. I had 4 years of conforming to different tests required by different experts - and at the end of it they did nothing. I think you'll need to commit to the significance of the evidence first before he does another test specifically for you.

[witsend]

Hi Harvey - I watched both videos and had the pleasure of rating them 5 star - yet again. I'm not sure I understood the significance of the switch. Are you saying the the oscillations come from the timer?

The only thing I know about these oscillations is that it needs the smallest pressure to get rid of them. But I think Aaron's found a way to make them more stable.

[poynt99]

By symmetry - I'm referring to Aaron's waveform across the load resistor at the postive rail. (10 Ohm 100 watt). It's like a sine wave - running above and below zero.

Aaron's resistor is most likely in resonance, and there is nothing too special or difficult about it. I won't spend any time simulating this when I've already done it with Luc's circuit. I'll post a scope shot just for you.

And I have no doubt that you could do these replications. So do it. It'll put paid to our argument if your findings conflict. And I am entirely satisfied that you've got too much integrity to distort values here.

Looks like Harvey is doing a sufficient job sinking the boat already. It won't be long if he continues along similar lines. Best get your life-preservers on.

Aaron's off line. But I very much doubt he'll want to conform to yet another demand of yours.

This shouldn't be viewed as "doing things for me". The big picture is that we all grow by sharing and discussing.

If Aaron is wise, he would heed the advice from the Tek application engineer and calibrate the scope and re-run the test. He should also verify the net current reading against an additional instrument. I've suggested a method, but it seems to have been universally rejected. No problem, but it would be wise to verify the scope's net negative reading by some method y'all deem reliable.

.99

[poynt99]

For Rosemary

Voltage across a coil being pulsed at its resonant frequency. Frequency = 400kHz. Period = 2.5us. Pulse width = 0.6us. Supply = 150VDC. L = 50uH. Rinductor = 10 Ohm:

.99

[Harvey]

What is stated in the manual makes perfect sense. Please explain your point and what thunder?

Are you presuming that the scope has been SPC calibrated recently by someone before Aaron received it?

Are you presuming that the scope was previously SPC calibrated in an environment that was within the specified 10ºC window compared to Aaron's environment?

Are you presuming that a temperature drift of less than 10ºC doesn't affect the scopes accuracy?

Are you presuming that Aaron SPC calibrated the scope prior to his measurements?

Are you presuming that taking measurements down in the fractional mV range does not call for an accurate instrument?

Edit: Are you suggesting that the scope's SPC routine does not need to be run and Aaron's test redone?

Please clarify your statement.

.99

I'm sorry, but isn't it you who has assumed that Lisa would provide this equipment without explaining some of its key features?

Haven't you assumed that Aaron did not run the calibration prior to use?

Pardon me for giving these individuals the respect they deserve for the experience they have and expecting that they would use a $10,000 piece of equipment in the most accurate way possible.

It is you who is out of line with your dogmatic inference that somehow the rest of the world is not up to your level of expertise in evaluating a circuit you haven't even touched.

18°F is a big spread. I have not seen anything in Aarons videos that would lead me to believe that the TDS3054C has experienced deviations beyond those limits. And even if it had, do you really think it would skew the results by that much?

Your chasing your own hot air around in circles because you don't want to admit that its possible for an open system to extract energy from another source - and you are willing to accuse Tektronix of providing equipment that is less reliable than a hardware store DMM.

Now - what exactly do you need clarified, the fact that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill or that you are too biased to accept realize how little you know?

I'm sure this post is clear to all of us with half your brain power.

[poynt99]

My own analysis of Aaron's data

I took the .csv file data and performed an average on the CH2 column data. This is the load shunt voltage. The resistance of the shunt is assumed to be unchanging, therefore the net mean voltage on the shunt is an indication of the polarity of the current.

By taking the sum of all the samples and dividing by 5880 (the number of samples), the resulting net mean voltage on the shunt is -5.4mV (rounded up slightly).

Not a single sample was ever 0.0000V. The closest to zero in all 5880 samples was at row 4892 of 1.25mV (0.00125).

If you study the samples of Ch2 you soon see that many many samples deviate a significant amount from the adjacent samples and they skew away from the general trend of the wave form.

There are several ways the data can be displayed on these digital Tek scopes, and the default is just called "samples mode" or something to that effect. This means it is essentially the raw data with no processing. Another mode that can be used is "averaging". This not only smooths out the fuzzy/spiky display of the trace, but it would also smooth out the data samples and get rid of this odd sample problem. This in itself could have a marked effect on the final number-crunched net mean current. This should be reviewed and it's use explored.

Also, -5.4mV is not very significant compared to the smallest sample taken in all 5880, and that was 1.25mV. The peak value in this sample range is about 1.4V. I'm afraid -5.4mV is practically "noise" when viewed against all other factors, and could probably be produced by an ant fart.

This just isn't convincing enough for me to believe that the net current on this shunt was negative. It does seem to indicate however that very little net current is being used in the circuit, and that is somewhat supported by Hoppy's findings of 1uA or so in his circuit.

It should also be re-iterated that the displayed scope readings of negative mean voltage (-30.2mV) are skewed because the displayed wave form is not an even cycle. That's why Aaron only used a certain range of values in the spreadsheet, which is correct.

.99

[poynt99]

Keep chirping (or is that chipping away) Harvey.

At least when you finally do break through the bottom you'll have plenty of water to wash down that boot leather you've been trying to swallow.

.99

[Aaron]

negative voltage at shunt on voltmeter

I also stated that if the reading does indicate 0.000 (+ or -) then the meter reading needs to be dismissed or thrown out. At least that is how I and most folks would treat it. "0.000" whether + or - is not a reliable means to determine the polarity of the signal being measured. A properly calibrated or "zeroed" meter will toggle between + and - when "0" input is applied. Unless at least a 0.001 or -0.001 can be displayed, the meter reading is not useful.

Since the DC voltage input of your meter probably works, I would encourage you to use the voltage setting and measure across the same shunt the scope was on when it was indicating a -34mV mean voltage. This also introduces no extra components in series and stays with the circuit as is and largely unchanged.

YouTube - Ainslie circuit with negative voltage on voltmeter across shunt.
Showing negative readings on voltmeter across shunt.

The video I showed you on the meter - well, the gel cell battery CLIMBED IN VOLTAGE OVERNIGHT. As of about 3am this morning, it was at 11.59 and it is now as of noon 11.61! So obviously on the smaller 7ah batt is it able to get charged up better than the bigger flooded cell at these low negative wattage levels. The flooded cell will give extended running time on draw downs compared to the gel but this shows even more in favor that I have shown accurate data - THE BATTERY VOLTAGE INCREASED 0.02 VOLTS OVER 9 HOURS!!!

yOU SAY: "At least that is how I and most folks would treat it." Really? WHILE THE CIRCUIT IS RUNNING SHOWING THE WAVFORM ON THE LOAD OF THE FLUKE? Anyone that believes that is showing different from what I say it is is simply fooling themselves.

Data matches the fact of the BATTERY RECHARGE while BOTH multimeters have shown me -0.000 while the circuit runs AND putting the volt meter across the shunt shows a negative value back and forth with positives but according to you if any negative voltage is shown on it then it must be negative current. We'll see how you backpeddle once again on your word...which has shown to be lacking much integrity so far.

You aren't even prepared to accept or deal results that defeat your own belief system and apparently neither do any of the cynical/skeptics.

This is my last post to you as an anonymous nobody that doesn't have the courage or confidence to put your name or face behind what you think you are talking about. If you post one more message anonymous here, I'll put you on the ignore list and you can simply type messages to yourself - as if there has ever been communication from you anyway - never admittnig anything as all anonymous cynics do.

THERE IS NO VOLTMETER THAT WILL GIVE AS CLEAN OF RESULTS AS THE TEKTRONIX 3054C PERIOD END OF STORY.

Do you have enough sense to put these together? battery recharge on gel cell, drop in temp on load, increase in temp on 555 timer and 555 power pot, data from scope that matches the current visible at least in positive values on the amp meters, negative voltage readings on the multimeter, waveforms that correlete to what the circuit doing, etc...

And you appear to have totally been incapable of multiplying 0.001 amps by the battery voltage, lets just say 12.50 for simplicity that equals = 0.0125 watts. I want to see you produce 10C above ambient on a 10 turn 1k pot PLUS up to 8C above ambient on the timer chip, PLUS 1 degree on a mosfet above ambient, PLUS 0.02 incrase in voltage on a battery ALL AT THE EXACT SAME TIME - while ALL the data and visible readings on the multimaters amps and voltages match! CAN YOU DO THIS POYNT99? I think not!

And hoppy's claim of running the circuit too low to be measurable by the amp meter but is still positive! LOL... then if it doesn't show 0.000 then the most postive the amperage could be is 0.0009 amps and that at 12.5 volts about is : 0.01125. MAKE THE HEAT I DID WITH THAT - PLUS RUN A 555 TIMER ON THAT AT 1/100TH OF A WATT PLUS SWITCH THE MOSFEST AND MAKE ALL THAT HEAT!!!

You would accept a multimeter volt reading across the shunt but not what the scope shows. That is so totally amateurish and shows how much of a wannabe debunker you really are with no qualifications to know anything about this circuit operation.

And you have PROVEN THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOISE ON A SCOPE AND A REAL SIGNAL! You, from the beginning of this thread, have been wrong almost 100% of the time so far!

You have PROVEN THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT A AMP METER IS SUPPOSED TO SHOW IF THERE IS NEGATIVE CURRENT!

Your claim that the Tektronix is not calibrated is WRONG. The dc average I showed even matches the amp meter indication on the positive side!

You try to cover up one thing after another each time you are obviously wrong you go like a little frog from one thing to another never admitting you never knew what you were talking about.

Again, you are on the fast track to becoming the laughing stock of the free energy world - especially by suggesting the use of a volt meter across a shunt! lol Go tell that to any professional that actually knows what they're talking about and they will simply laugh in your face.

According to you, you wouldn't even expect that the volt meter can ever show a negative voltage at all. It can and YOU ARE WRONG.

Also, you said if the amp meters shows 0.000 which I ALRADY SHOWED - even without the negative side, YOU SAID IT WOULD BE THERE IS A NET ZERO CURRENT meaning the machine is running at unity. Then you change your story. How can you honestly look at your own face in the mirror knowing that you aren't honest enough to stick by what you say??? It is far beyond my comprehension.

And you can't even explain my waveforms that are not only at around zero dc voltage but are also symmetrical above and below the ground line. I have shown symmetrical sin above and below and symmetrical triangles, etc... WHAT DOES THAT IN AND OF ITSELF SHOW ABOUT INDUCTIVE LAWS, CHARGING A COIL - ITS IMPEDANCES - RATE OF CHANGE IN THE COLLAPSE AND WHY IS THE COLLAPSE AS SLOW AS THE ON TIME? THAT IN AND OF ITSELF - YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN.

[Aaron]

Showing negative readings on voltmeter across shunt.

YouTube - Ainslie circuit with negative voltage on voltmeter across shunt.
Showing negative readings on voltmeter across shunt.