COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[TinselKoala]

It has been made abundantly clear that YOUR posts are no longer welcome in this thread.

The experiment discusses a self-oscillating effect, which you and TK have not shown. To claim that is a "replication" is not true and the same parts were not used.

Gauss - do NOT post in this thread again. I started this thread and I'm asking you to leave. You are combative and have been attacking members of this forum. If you cannot contain yourself, go post in some other forum and in threads where your misunderstanding and bad attitude is appropriate. This thread and forum is not appropriate for that.

Until we can either reproduce Rosemary's claim to "self-oscillation" or see a screenshot from her illustrating what she's claiming, it must logically remain just that: a claim, without evidence.

And she has herself said that the particular MOSFET isn't critical. But then she's said a lot of things that have turned out to be, well, less than factual. And she published a circuit which people have been trying to build for SEVEN YEARS now, that is wrong, without correcting or retracting it.

Aaron, why aren't you concerned about these things?

[witsend]

And, I would also add, TinselKoala that I have never seen how you compute your wattage values. It intrigues me that you simply refer to them as 'standard'. There is nothing standard in the way wattage analysis on this circuit is required. It MUST take in the energy from the battery and the energy delivered back to the system by the resistor itself. My very first post pointed this out.

So, as you insist the system does not work - then show us those spreadsheets with that analysis.

And if you really want to find the 'sweet spot' the point at which you can get an optimal return - then just look at the values on you Fluke. It displays the dc average together with the ac. That difference - is the difference between the actual energy dissipated and the energy supplied. And the dc average invariably relates to the sum that is determined in the waveform dump that you may wish to prove on a spreadsheet. In other words the digital display function will be a quick guide to the best frequency and duty cycle.

And whatever your circuit - there will invariably be differences between wiring - induction on the resistor et al. Therefore you need to find that point by varying the frequency and the duty cycle to find that point. Just sweep through the duty cycle, check the displayed ac and dc values on your fluke and I'd say that within minutes you should find that gain.

To get the system to oscillate will - at its least - require a more comprehensive sweep of those duty cycles. There is no need to be fixated on our precise values. As mentioned your circuit components will never exactly replicate ours.

[TinselKoala]

Is the circuit in the Quantum paper correct or not?

What circuit was actually used to generate the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, since they describe the same experiment?

What are the links to your actual GRANTED PATENTS?

These are very simple questions. Yet you dodge them like a politician.

Still dodging the simple questions, I see.

And once again, your post reveals that you aren't reading my posts. I clearly describe how my power calculations are made--more clearly than you do, that's for sure.

And I suggest to you, Rosemary, that you (or a colleague who knows how to read circuit diagrams) build your circuit and test it just as you have described above--the sweeping of duty cycles and freqs--and show us some scope shots. You just may learn something.

One thing you really should know is that DSOs like the FLUKE 199 are subject to some well-known errors, particularly with complex and spiky signals, and you should not always trust their readouts.

[Aaron]

concerns

Aaron, why aren't you concerned about these things?

If the magazine article needs correcting, it should be corrected but for a "replication" attempt, Rosemary said to focus on the paper, etc... and she is the authority on her own experiment.

I'm here to learn like everyone else or like most everyone else I would imagine and find the concept fascinating.

Even if the exact mosfet part isn't critical - because in concept others should act the same, it is in my opinion a good idea to get the exact one. On ebay, there are a few for about $5 each and $5 shipping so $10 for 1 if you buy just one. So, they are available.

Personally, I think it is important to use the same one. Even 2 identical components of the same part # will have differences. 2n2222 transistor, some will go negative and some won't. Two "identical" 680 ohm resistors may have a couple ohms different, etc... Many of us have seen this. There may be something to that exact mosfet that is required like the "anomalous" 2n2222 and a few other transistors.

TK, I enjoyed your videos and am looking forward to more and hope you are able to use the same part #'s. If you do or not is up to you.

[witsend]

The following questions from TinselKoala's post.

Is the circuit in the Quantum paper correct or not?
I've answered this.

What circuit was actually used to generate the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, since they describe the same experiment?
I've answered this.

What are the links to your actual GRANTED PATENTS?
I've answered this.

These are very simple questions. Yet you dodge them like a politician.
I do not dodge them. But nor am I obliged to continually answer then.

[witsend]

One thing you really should know is that DSOs like the FLUKE 199 are subject to some well-known errors, particularly with complex and spiky signals, and you should not always trust their readouts. TinselKoala

Spescom - one of our accreditors - got fluke to write a letter to guarantee that the results on our meter were accurate within the frequency range tested. That's in the paper. But the point is that the more accurate the instrument the greater the evident gain. We've tested on Tektronix which in SA costs upwards of R250 000.00 and got the same results. We also went to the trouble of getting a calibration certificate for all the instruments that we used.

But the actual final proof of the pudding is in comparing the draw down rate in controls. The control - in the test result depleted within the time that the test batteries hardly showed a drop.

The other thing is that you do not need that oscillating frequency to prove a gain. The point about that oscillation is that it is well known. It is a problem when used for signalling. It is clamped out through the simple means of applying pressure to the wire. We show - through the published test - that that effect exponentially improves the efficiencies - well above any other frequency tested.

But the paper refers to various other circuits, using nfets, inductors, resistors at different points in the circuit. Whichever way the circuit is configured - provided that there is a switching cycle and that the counter electromotive force is able to be applied back to the battery supply source - the gain is inevitable.

Therefore do I wonder at your measurement of the power from the battery. If you indeed take a series of waveforms and multiple samples of each waveform - you need do nothing more than sum the voltages, divide it by the number of samples, and then do the analysis as mentioned. There is always a clear and evident gain.

[witsend]

Guys, I think the need to at least display our waveform is taken on board. I have no idea how to do this and will have to impose on my co-author's time which is already massively constrained. So don't hold your breath but I will try and get this.

I will also, subject to my son's return - try and get some video information our on our own circuit. It is the same as the box that was sent to ABB for their replication purposes. Some years after their tests, they contacted me and asked what they were to do with that box. I was in correspondence with someone - can't remember who - and asked them to ship it to him. But it is feasible to replicate the circuitry. I'm just not sure who will do this. I certainly can't. But I could, at least, ask around. It's just that the guys who worked on the circuit are now drowning in other work and one of them has left for Durban - so is not easily reached.

But, as I see it, all that is needed is some accurate assessment of the energy returned to the battery. Is it that difficult to get hold of the correct measuring instruments? Perhaps Aaron you could advise me here. I can't see any other way of working out the energy in that 'spike' without the meter that can tell the difference between the two current cycles.

[witsend]

Mark - thanks for your support. It was squeezed in betwen the head butts - but always nice to know that there are those who help the cause, so to speak.

Am not sure of TinselKoala's actual motives as his aggression seems excessive. But time will tell.

In any event - thank you again. It did not go unnoticed nor unappreciated.

[RAMSET]

Motive

Rosemary
TK has been asking for your help since 6/17 post#84 regarding his replication
of the circuit
He joined the forum to get your feedback on 6/23 post #99

He does things at a fast pace ,perhaps the time factor of the last few weeks
[since his replication with accompanying video's[by the way not typical here or elsewhere]has made him appear aggressive
He's a good guy a GREAT guy, seeking the truth[not inferring anything here!! ]

Chet

[henieck]

kHz MHz

digression - it is curious why is it that countless people on forums like this one cannot properly write the units they are using? It is understood that this forum attracts many amateurs, and uneducated people as well, but guys there are some limits to the ignorance. "h" means hour (or prefix hecto). "Hz" means Hertz. Others can get what you are trying to say only because of the context- otherwise it is often complete nonsense. I see many times "mhz", "a", or another idiotic abbr like hrz. "m" means milli, "M" means mega, "k"-kilo, "K"- Kelvin, "A" -Amperes, "V"-Volts, "s"-second. There are no other options.

some more units: Essentials of the SI: Base & derived units

[TinselKoala]

The following questions from TinselKoala's post.

Is the circuit in the Quantum paper correct or not?
I've answered this.

So the circuit in the Quantum paper is incorrect. Why don't you correct it?

What circuit was actually used to generate the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, since they describe the same experiment?
I've answered this.

So the Quantum circuit is incorrect, doesn't mention the diode at all, but the EIT circuit with diode is correct and was used to generate the data in the paper. Yes?

What are the links to your actual GRANTED PATENTS?
I've answered this.

Where? I've been reading the thread and I don't see the links to the granted patents. All I recall is you saying that you allowed the "patents" to lapse, which doesn't make sense as they aren't old enough to lapse, if they were granted patents. But it does make sense if they were only applications. So could you please give the links to the granted patents, just one more time?

These are very simple questions. Yet you dodge them like a politician.
I do not dodge them. But nor am I obliged to continually answer then.

You could have just answered them once, straight out with yes or no answers. But first you don't answer them, then you say you did.


Since we now all agree that the Quantum article has an incorrect circuit in it, when can we expect a correction or retraction?

[TinselKoala]

One thing you really should know is that DSOs like the FLUKE 199 are subject to some well-known errors, particularly with complex and spiky signals, and you should not always trust their readouts. TinselKoala

Spescom - one of our accreditors - got fluke to write a letter to guarantee that the results on our meter were accurate within the frequency range tested. That's in the paper. But the point is that the more accurate the instrument the greater the evident gain. We've tested on Tektronix which in SA costs upwards of R250 000.00 and got the same results. We also went to the trouble of getting a calibration certificate for all the instruments that we used.

But the actual final proof of the pudding is in comparing the draw down rate in controls. The control - in the test result depleted within the time that the test batteries hardly showed a drop.

The other thing is that you do not need that oscillating frequency to prove a gain. The point about that oscillation is that it is well known. It is a problem when used for signalling. It is clamped out through the simple means of applying pressure to the wire. We show - through the published test - that that effect exponentially improves the efficiencies - well above any other frequency tested.

But the paper refers to various other circuits, using nfets, inductors, resistors at different points in the circuit. Whichever way the circuit is configured - provided that there is a switching cycle and that the counter electromotive force is able to be applied back to the battery supply source - the gain is inevitable.

Therefore do I wonder at your measurement of the power from the battery. If you indeed take a series of waveforms and multiple samples of each waveform - you need do nothing more than sum the voltages, divide it by the number of samples, and then do the analysis as mentioned. There is always a clear and evident gain.

OK, it's clear that I am not going to get anywhere. Let me just ask you one more question, then I'm done with you.

What are you using to heat your home?

[Joit]

Rosemary
TK has been asking for your help since 6/17 post#84 regarding his replication
of the circuit
He joined the forum to get your feedback on 6/23 post #99

He does things at a fast pace ,perhaps the time factor of the last few weeks
[since his replication with accompanying video's[by the way not typical here or elsewhere]has made him appear aggressive
He's a good guy a GREAT guy, seeking the truth[not inferring anything here!! ]

Chet

Ramset, seriously, you dont need to take him under your Wings, he dont ask for help anymore, he Force it, And that is not the right Attitude.
And if he dont get it, it sounds like, he wanna shout out load HOAX.
Behaviors from Peoples like this are more the Reason, when People say, it dont work, and resign.
For myself, i dont understand, why he cant talk in a normal Manner,
maybe he still did not learn it till now.

And yes, i still can figure more from all others Posts, what are made here,
even when i am still only pop in anymore, as from his Posts.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I really wonder if some in this thread are interested in the truth, folks its a simple wire wound resistor with a flyback diode recirculated back into the resistor. Why can i say with some certainty that some are not interested in the truth, the only one to comment on my recent results with just the resistor have been Rosemary, how interesting. At this point, its obvious we have much distracting going on here. I built the circuit with just the resistor and it works, and i would assume with proper part matching and tuning one could achieve better results.
peace love light

[RAMSET]

Reason

Jolt
The last thing that I would want to be a part of is discouraging [in any way]
a curious mind /inventor
Please excuse my N.Y. attitude
But I would like to know?

Rosemary

"" What are you using to heat your home""
If we could use your circuit to heat our homes etc.... that is the quest[not question]
Chet