COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Cloxxki]

Thank you for your response Rosemary, and I'll also add my thanks for joining in on this discussion .You bring a lot new insight and others are following your example. While discussions like these already educate hundreds of readers, there is a greater goal. In the case of over-unity I get the impression that the challenge to have a device independantly replicated is even greater than the inventing itself. For the world to benifit without delay, efficient distribution goes a long way. I'm a bit of an entrepreneur, thus I couldn't help to contribute here, no intention to hi-jack, my apologies.

I'll be sure to follow the rest of this thread.

Kind regards from The Netherlands,

Jan Gerrit Klok

[DrStiffler]

Hi Dr Stiffler, many many thanks for the explanation.

I undestand that the first point is that if anyone sees and anomaly they immediately change the material specs? How interesting is that! I can tell you that I very often speak to academics - none of whom would thank me to reference their names as they would be bracketed with my own eccentric reputation and thereby marginalised. However I've had quite a few admissions of seeing anomalies. I just wish they'd acknowledge that repeated evidence of a phenomenon disqualifies it as an anomaly.

And I've noted your own special expertise at testing calorimetric values. It's just such an unassailable and excellent measure of power. I'm afraid our own system of temperature measurement was not ideal. I excuse it on the basis that the gain was so extraordinary we could allow for a large margin for error. But I know that this would not pass your own high standards of measurement. Which is a really good thing.

I'm afraid I simply cannot see that picture you presented. Is there a way that I can enlarge it?

26.15'C -> 41.25'C in 10 minutes and the divergence is self evident. SO SO GOOD.

Yes, you can see it here at the bottom of the page;

http://67.76.235.52/Ainslie/ExHeatExp.htm

I to believed that if one could get orders of magnitude excess anything (over input) it made little difference the exact amount, yet sadly I am still pulling the tare and feathers off, let along never to recover credibility. I have also learned that give out a smaller number just to get them interested and want to prove you wrong, then when they can not deny and are so happy they found much more than you announced. What a shame we must play games.

[mklimesh]

Hi and Welcome

Hi and Welcome Rosemary (+_+)

Glad to see you here.

Mike Klimesh

[ren]

Dear Rosemary,


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



Eric
.

Hi Eric,

As you may know I have built the window motor several times (I believe you posted in my Window motor replication thread regarding getting hit by huge magnets in the head? ).

I am very familiar with the circuit, however I was unsure of whether you were tipping your circuit into self oscillation or using an IC to trigger each side of the (H bridge/Push-pull?) circuit.

Love to see a schematic if it is any different.

Regards

[henieck]

[B][I] The flow of current during the ON cycle would only go to the source battery's negative terminal - where there's least resistance. In any event - if you run the test you'll see that the current flow to the second battery is only in phase with the OFF cycle.

- that is correct – and I am writing about the situation before you even turn on the transistor (or during the off cycle) – that the current goes: primary battery -> coil ->diode D1-> secondary battery (if its voltage is lover then the primary’s (minus losses).

Regarding that anagram. Do you think TinselKoala was testing us?

I thing it doesn’t matter that much – let’s us concentrate on the main issue here, because the volume of material grows while we didn’t cover all the key questions yet…

Not sure how charges go from one terminal to the other but not through the battery itself?

- the whole point of the exercise with battery is to direct charge flow through the circuit/load - not through the battery. Thank to electrochemical reaction on one plate there is “too many” electrons – while on the other plate there are “too little” – so this way difference of potentials occurs an so on…

Whatever it does henieck - the questions persist. What happens when we recharge the battery? Do we add more electrons?

- during charging we just “pump” electrons from one plate to the other in opposite to discharging direction– so the total number of it in battery remains always the same. In the plates then they take part in further electrochemical reactions (for instance incoming electron combines with ion- so ion can go from the electrolyte and form atom on the plate… Rosemary – please ponder on this sentence: electrons only go from one plate to the other (through the circuit).

[amigo]

Hello Rosemary,

I figured I should (albeit late) welcome you - though I guess it's never too late...

I must say I am very happy you joined our board here, since there's no better way to find things out but from "the horses mouth," as they say.

Your posts are very eloquent and, the "no non-sense" attitude is one of the qualities I admire in people. I also applaud you for standing your ground firmly in defense of what you know and believe in.

Unfortunately, I am remaining an observer in this thread, for now, as I have other engagements at the moment (some Tesla replications and Dr.Stiffler's SEC, among others) though I hope to be able to replicate your findings as well in the near future. Time is always working against me...

I'm looking forward reading more of your posts in this and other threads here, in our little HQ for World liberation from corporate fascists. Ok, I admit I just made that up, but the fact remains, we badly need the liberation, soon.

Coincidently, you asked why the main stream science is not looking at this and other findings, and in my humble opinion it's because they are not driven anymore by wonder of scientific discovery and fact finding, but by the mighty dollar (or whatever equivalent currency in their region of the World is).

Nobody wants to "shake the boat" as that might cut the cash cow keeping the precious research funds and tenure seats they all occupy. And besides, it's so much easier to regurgitate someone else's lies as it takes less effort (less energy is expended than seeking the truth). After awhile you become complacent, while the status quo remains, and all is well.

The reality has been so distored that a normal person does not know what's true and what's not anymore...

[witsend]

The following quotes from henieck's post.
- that is correct – and I am writing about the situation before you even turn on the transistor (or during the off cycle) – that the current goes: primary battery -> coil ->diode D1-> secondary battery (if its voltage is lover then the primary’s (minus losses).
I get it. Finally. And you're absolutely right. It'll charge until the batteries at at equilibrium. So. For purposes of proof - make sure the second battery is better charged than the first. Thanks henieck.

I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.

I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped. I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes. If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels. And the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern. I would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team. And I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum. I can never work out the motives of such people. The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded. Seems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123. His compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch. I just don't know. Also at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery. It needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle. If he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong. I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive. I think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate.

- the whole point of the exercise with battery is to direct charge flow through the circuit/load - not through the battery. Thanks to electrochemical reaction on one plate there are “too many” electrons – while on the other plate there are “too little” – so this way difference of potentials occurs and so on…

henieck, if there were more electrons on the one plate than the other as a result of current flow - then the potential difference measured across the battery would be greater? Surely? Is this describing a fully charged battery? In which case - when the electrons are transferred then it would still be imbalanced? Or does this mean that the when 50% of the electrons are transferred then the battery is 'flat'? If this is so then it is, at its least, a reasonable description of currrent as the flow of electrons. Presumably then the actual application of a battery recharger is to somehow redistribute that charge. I can still buy into it. In effect these 'free flowing' electrons on the metal of the circuit material, and as described by the classicists - are simply transferred from one terminal to the other until they achieve that balance. This is certainly logical. However current flow also requires an interaction of the electrons with the actual battery acid as this measurably changes as a result of current flow. That's where the 'free flow' of extraneous electrons comes into question.

So, indeed, your request that I 'please ponder on this sentence: electrons only go from one plate to the other (through the circuit)'. Indeed henieck - this is logical. There are STILL intrinsic problems, as you yourself have pointed out - but - with or without resolution of this problem - there is not need to change your view on this. As I repeatedly say - current, seen as a flow of electrons - has literally launched us into our technological age. And I get it. You're a pragmatist and quite simply want to MOVE ON. The fact is that I need to address this again but will do so under a separate post and its relevance is only for the purists who may, hopefully, want to tackle this problem. It is entirely irrelevant to the results on a switching circuit. It is only relevant as it relates to the explanation of the gain.

[witsend]

mklimesh and amigo - thanks to you both for your greetings. I might tell you I've spent two months on the Naked Scientist Forum and now suspect that my time was wasted. I should have been here - long ago. It's been an absolute pleasure. Not only talent but the open mind. It's a rare and special combination.

amigo - your post was delightful. I really do get it that the 'wonder' has gone out of research. But if you ever follow Michio Kaku's extraordinary work - then the future promises exponential advancement. One just hopes that it will be grounded in less expensive energy. Apparently come 2030 - we should have our first working fusion plants. That is just so exciting.

But with or without this progress - which clearly is not inconsiderable - it does require the leg work of us all. The real challenge is to allow the concept of overunity to permeate through our collective consciousness. It's been outlawed - historically. And this preclusion needs to be confronted and, at its least, justified by the classicists. Certainly there is more than enough evidence to refute that electric energy is constrained to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It really worries me though that academics will not yet openly entertain this possibility. How much evidence is needed? Our own accreditors must be asking themselves the same question. Either that - or doubting the evidence of their senses.

I think it was Jibbguy pointed this out. The burden, for some reason fall on us all. But if we're still in a minority - I'm entirely satisfied that our number is growing - exponentially. Peter, I know believes that the sheer force of growing awareness will eventually topple those ivory towers. But I do think our academics should at least confront these claims - else they'll entirely forfeit their moral ground to comment at all. We look to the academic for guidance and he blocks his ears and closes his eyes. If he says anything officially - its dismissive at best, and searingly scornful at worst.

I fondly believe that my field model shows ways of defeating gravity itself. But I can, unfortunately only point. To put those ideas together on an experimental basis is way beyond my own budget constraints. The worst of it is that I grow ever older. I just so hope that the ideas in that model will be eventually understood more widely than just me and my co-author.



In any event I'm rambling. Indeed - thank you - both of you, for your welcome. As I keep saying - it's so nice. I feel I've come home.

[witsend]

I was going to edit my post to mklimesh and amigo and then decided not to lest I get the same problem. I've managed to delete a previously duplicated post. Hopefully I'm getting the hang of this. So. Just to add to that. In terms of the evidence on our circuit - utility supply costs should, at its least, be halved. Not sure how many appliances can tolerate high frequencies - but those that can - it should be run at a fraction of current costs. And - where people can supplement their supplies with battery energy - it should reduce the cost of electricity to some very small fraction of current costs. That has got to be of benefit to the pocket - and more importantly relieve the strain on our environment. Not sure though how viable those utility supply companies will remain. That could be problematic.

[henieck]

I'm hoping Donovan will be able to help regarding the sheer volume of questions. Not only is he highly qualified but he's an absolute authority on alternative energy. If I'm a scholar he's my professor.

- that would be nice of him if he could answer some more technical questions. Still it is not clear to me how you operate the circuit and what exactly do you mean by resonance. Let’s suppose we have our circuits in front of us and we want to do exactly the same things like you do. If you were to instruct us how to be yourself for a while during this experiment – what would it be? I turn on the transistor’s gate, see the ordinary pulses from the timer, everything is pulsating, I write down the parameters, see the spikes form collapsing magnetic field– but then what next? How specifically do you tune for the resonance, how do you know you have reached this objective, what you see, what changes and what does not. How do you know it is operating in the range of anomaly. This way we will not only get the ingredients list- but also manual how to mix them together. It may be critically important to the outcome to mix ingredient first in certain sequence and then bake – than the other way around. This is very important to get into your position, because we will be able to replicate this phenomenon - or thanks to our temporary meta-perspective see where you make the mistake – in which case you will benefit the most

I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped.

- of course not, you have to keep open mind as well...

henieck, if there were more electrons on the one plate than the other as a result of current flow- then the potential difference measured across the battery would be greater

- my dear Rosemary, electrons further take part in electrochemical reaction so they don’t accumulate on a plate in an eclectically active form. They meet complementary ions (from electrolyte). If electrically positive ion meets negative electron then together they turn into solid state, electrically neutral atom sitting on the plate (in form of chemical compound). Correspondingly on the other plate negative ion gives back electron(s) and by the same token it also turns into neutral atom. This process (discharging) results in less and less number of ions in the electrolyte - that is why this solution becomes of less density when battery is discharged. There is less and less concentration of ions near the plate – so their overall capability to deliver their excessive electrons is less and less (correspondingly near the other plate there is less positive ions capable to accept electrons from the other plate coming through the circuit). There is no room for any “extraneous electrons”. The energy is ultimately stored in chemical bonding. Just take one look at the chemical reactions inside a battery from any book - and all it will become quite clear…

However, if I didn’t give any chance that in certain circumstances there may exist massless charges without electron, or some other form of electricity or energy – I wouldn’t be on this forum… There is no room for any extra electrons in a battery, because battery as a whole object would became eclectically charged comparing to other objects. The difference of potential is only between its plates, not between the battery and the table. So there is only room for extra energy which is necessary to separate the ions again (charging). Electron can be absorbed from the plate by atom, atom will go into solution again in the form of negative ion. On the other plate corresponding process gives positive ion and together, and globally, both ions taken together are neutral (but still dissociated into positive and negative locally). This is just my point of view, the ordinary mainstream theory which is well thought over.

All right, we better don’t discuss battery chemistry too much – it can be found extensively explained in any book. It was interesting to see how you look at this. First of all we want to learn from you how to manifest excessive energy in our circuits – because this is difficult to find anywhere else. Let us see it first, and then it will be easier and more entertaining to speculate about theories, because the theory derives from an experiment...

Thanks for your time and interesting perspective.

[witsend]

henieck - check out post 169. If you've read that then I don't have to repeat those arguments. And if I am stating the obvious, remember that I am an amateur and I hardly know what is obvious and what is not. So make every allowance.

The first MOST important thing that I need to point to is there are two phases in each cycle. The first phase is the energy applied by the battery when the switch is open. The second phase is the energy applied by the resistor itself when the switch is closed and the battery no longer delivers energy.

In phase 1 which is that part of the waveform above zero. The battery is delivering energy. And the amount of energy delivered equals battery voltage, say 24 volts divided by the resistor value, say 10 ohms, times time, say 10 percent. Therefore 24/10x10% = 0.24 amps. Then multiply this value by the battery voltage for vi, being 24 times 0.24 = 5.76 watts. That's the amount of energy delivered by the battery in the first phase of the cycle.

Now to calculate the value of the energy in the spike that manifests during the off period of the duty cycle is more difficult. This is because it happens in a very short space of time. To accurately gauge the power delivered by that spike would need a scope meter that is able to take a relatively large sample range of the entire waveform and then calculate its average over time, as in the previous sum. Hence the need to access a good scopemeter. However, I have done this repeatedly. The point is that the value of the spike is always some small percentage of the energy delivered during the on period of the duty cycle. So. If the on period measures 5.76 watts, then the off period will probably be some value upwards of 3.5 watts. But lets assume for the purposes of this argument that it is, in fact 3.5 watts. Then the actual energy delivered by the battery is 5.76 minus 3.5 being a total of 2.26 watts. In order to calculate the power dissipated at the resistor, however, over both cycles you would add 5.76 and 3.5 - 9.26 watts. Therefore at the cost of 2.26 watts you have dissipated 9.26 watts.

Now those numbers are ONLY AN EXAMPLE. In point of fact the correct way to measure the energy delivered by the battery is to take those same measurements across the 0.5 or 0.25 Ohm carbon shunt. There's less inductance and a better chance at getting accurate amperage values. And if you do a v^2/r analysis of the energy over the load resistor you also have to factor in the resistor's inductance. So its actual power dissipated would be somewhat less than suggested in this example.

But here's the thing. Provided you generate counter electromotive force and provided that you get this spike back to the battery to replenish it or to recharge it - then the product of the two cycles will exceed the sum of the two cycles. Which means that - invariably - there will be a gain. And, on periodic waveforms we have found that this is upwards of 100% and depends on the applied frequency. The faster the frequency the better the return.

To check this principle out - you do not need to duplicate our exact waveform. You simply need to access a really good scope meter - ideally a tektronix as they've got the highest sampling range - and then do a dump on the numbers and caculate them. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no short cut to that requirement. But it will put paid to the overunity barrier. But there is no other way to prove this other than by looking at battery draw down rates. And quite frankly the time it takes to monitor those batteries is exhausting. So, you need to find a lab that will give you an hour or so on that equipment. The resistor to use in this test need only be inductive. And most resistors are inductive. If they're wire wound they're inductive. Is this any clearer?

The resonance or oscillation in the test example - as per the paper is pointing to another effect. It's got a name, not sure of it at the moment but will look it up. It's a well know effect that interfers with signalling. As a rule this is invariably clamped out as it is not required. One only needs to apply a small amount of pressure to the wire to dampen it. But we USE that effect. It exponentially increases the gains that are evident in the principle that is described above.

[henieck]

The point is that the value of the spike is always some small percentage of the energy delivered during the on period of the duty cycle. So. If the on period measures 5.76 watts, then the off period will probably be some value upwards of 3.5 watts. But lets assume for the purposes of this argument that it is, in fact 3.5 watts. Then the actual energy delivered by the battery is 5.76 minus 3.5 being a total of 2.26 watts. In order to calculate the power dissipated at the resistor, however, over both cycles you would add 5.76 and 3.5 - 9.26 watts. Therefore at the cost of 2.26 watts you have dissipated 9.26 watts.

- Question: Is this 3.5W from magnetic field collapse going back to the battery - or is it dissipated as heat in the resistor?

[Armagdn03]

The diagram is self explanatory, It goes back to the capacitor not battery.

What is not self explanatory is the fact that nothing is "dissipated" as heat ever. A voltage drop does not mean dissipation, it means we have set the ratio of voltage to amperage.

- Question: Is this 3.5W form magnetic field collapse going back to the battery - or is it dissipated as heat in the resistor?

[TinselKoala]

"I'm not sure that the question of TinselKoala can be entirely dropped. I remain deeply concerned that the representation of a 90% duty cycle is only achieved through the inverted position of his probes. "

My probes are not inverted. They are positioned exactly as in your publications.

"If so, then he is laughing at us from many, many different levels. "

Nobody's laughing, Rosemary. We are trying to get to the truth.

"And the fact that he shows this in conjunction with the entire depletion of two x 24 volt batteries in the space of 10 minutes from the current flow at it's max of 2 amps - simply adds to that concern. "

Clearly you haven't bothered to read my "huge chapters."

"I would also add that Oppenheimer would not allow a single sceptic on his team. "

Are you comparing yourself to Oppenheimer?

"And I would also point out that he is posting huge chapters from his previous forum. "

For the record. Which, evidently, nobody bothers to read before they begin criticizing.

"I can never work out the motives of such people. The idea of an actual conspiracy still seems a little bazaar. One would assume that he would then be richly rewarded."

This is not even worthy of comment.

" Seems that he even has difficulty getting hold of a Fluke 123."

Fluke 123? Your papers that I am addressing say you are using a Fluke 199 ScopeMeter, which I have sitting right next to my Philips and Tek analog scopes. And I also have available to me at least 12 other sophisticated oscilloscopes, as well as a lot of other instrumentation. I have barely begun my analysis of your work, Rosemary. I am prepared to put the whole circuit inside the world's most sophisticated civilian calorimeter system if I have to.

" His compensations for killing this thread should then, at its least, deserve a tektronix or somesuch. I just don't know. "

Yes, you just don't know.

"Also at issue is the fact that he never explains how he establishes, or actually measures, the energy delivered by the battery. It needs to be done with some transparent reference to the waveform across the shunt including the sum of both parts of that duty cycle."

I am using standard techniques: I compute the instantaneous power waveform using the instantaneous voltage and current signals, and then I integrate that power waveform over an appropriate time period."

" If he is using a simple current meter then it is also - quite simply - wrong. I'm afraid I really do need to address this point - over and over - as his contributions are likely to become highly counter productive. "

Straw man. Do you see a simple current meter in my experimental setup?

"I think Armagdn03's final challenge to let him build his own 555 is appropriate."

Which "him?" What "challenge?" The circuit that you published is right there in black and white. Certainly anybody can build it. When I first did, and discovered that the timer portion behaves as it does, the first thing I suspected was that I had made a mistake, so I built the circuit again, twice, and I asked others to build it--over and over I asked for others to build it. I'm still asking...
But if you would bother to read what you are criticizing, you will see that I have abandoned your published 555 circuit and am using my function generator exclusively.

[henieck]

- Question: Is this 3.5W from magnetic field collapse going back to the battery - or is it dissipated as heat in the resistor?

The diagram is self explanatory, It goes back to the capacitor not battery.

-we were talking last time about the circuit with one battery and one external diode. There is no capacitor in this circuit. If possible, I would like to see how Rosemary will address this question as well.

What is not self explanatory is the fact that nothing is "dissipated" as heat ever.

- I thought that in general every form of energy "ends up" dissipated as heat sooner or later.

A voltage drop does not mean dissipation, it means we have set the ratio of voltage to amperage.

- we were talking about 3.5 Watts coming from the magnetic field collapse - which "have to" go somewhere. What happens to all these amperes (multiplied by voltage) measured by this expensive and highly sophisticated equipment? Amperes by definition are "going" somewhere. We know how many Watts and where from (3.5W from the coil during the second half of the cycle), but my question is: where is it going?