COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[FuzzyTomCat]

@Glen, do you think the 32mm glass tube is a requirement? since I didn't get anything for this yet. Maybe I can find a test tube that's close to this size.

Luc

Hi Luc,

I am thinking that the diameter of the "Load Resistor" possibly is one of the keys to this replication .... the reason being that all the test results I did using a smaller off the shelf wire wound resistor (20-26 uH) did not perform well at all.

As for the test tube ... Humm ... I don't think the "pyrex" glass thickness will allow you to wind a resistor using AWG 20 "Ni Cr" wire .... this material is very springy stuff and you must apply a lot of pressure to get it winded, so I wouldn't recommend it.

There is a piece of 32mm that was a scrap that we found the ends are melted in as normal but it isn't totally perfect it's "exactly" the same material as mine and Aarons prototype resistor and the same size. If you would like it, I would only charge you shipping, if you need a photo or something we can talk in the PM's.

Glen

[witsend]

We are gonna get Glen's down to a T , dont care how long it takes and do more tests, Luc is not far behind, this is all that we need to concern our self's with for now IMO, those guys will always have their own ways, I think with them as jumping off board is less of a distraction for us to get the job done.

I learned long ago that that forum is over run with mis management .Eventually more reps will sway their opinion, even if we have to build 2 of glens and get one to point to test OUR WAY. If so , so be it. building this weekend again .

Ash

Hi Ash. I have absolutely no doubt that you will do the necessary here. As ever - am blown away by your dedication.

[witsend]

Having bad day, thatnks for making me smile Witsend.

David P.

Hi David. You are really most welcome. But my own optimism may have been a bit precipitous. And my emotional baraometer is also often in aperiodic oscillation. No wonder the most of us identify with this strange waveform of ours.

[gotoluc]

Thanks Ash for your vote of confidence

That's right! ...I'm not far behind, just far away, 2,500Km ... I'm still in Florida but I'll be back in Ottawa, Canada November 3rd. and hopefully I'll have all the components to replicate by then.

@Glen, do you think the 32mm glass tube is a requirement? since I didn't get anything for this yet. Maybe I can find a test tube that's close to this size.

Luc

[ashtweth]

Guys, especially Ash, here's some pertinent numbers copied over from OU.COM. It seems that we are running out of interest over there. Hope the posts are self-explanatory.

My reply to Poynt post 2265 copied over from ou.com.

"Hi Poynty. Your objections are duly noted. I take it that in your opinion the range of DC average across the shunt on the source is too wide to represent meaningful results. I think Harvey has covered this sufficiently.

I have an ongoing concern in this aspect of our discussion. It appears that even if we were to log results continuously over - let us say an hour - or alternatively and if possible - the entire test duration - then your objections here will persisit if that variation persists. Unfortunately that is the point where you need to evaluate any real reasons for your continuing involvement. It appears to be required condition of this circuit. In effect this opinion means that regardless of the probe refinement or any apparatus that you apply - this range is unlikely to lessen significantly. In effect, even if you scale 15 meters you will regard the results it as meaningless.

Preceded by this post 2250

"And your results are a failure - except in that they are accurate results of the test you conducted. It would be nice to see more data. But I trust your presentations. You can redo the test a million ways and still come up with the same results. So what? That only gives us your results. Your results are definitive according to your test. We're hitting a blind spot here Poynt. Here's an analogy. The record for high jump is set at - let us say 8 meters. Someone then scales 15 meters. Many try to break that record. Some claim it's impossible and the 15 meter mark was never breached. Some claim to try for 15 meters and fail. One or two people manage the 15 meters AND scale the new level AND their efforts were video'd. Does the fact that the majority failed that level then discount the two that breached it?


And regarding the 'extended run'. I'm satisfied that during your running of the proposed that you will possibly reach random moments where the DC average across the source shunt will show negative. What conclusions do you then draw if that also co-incides with the only moment that you capture your data as you do not see any point in that extended run? You will then erroneously propose a power analysis based on something that is essentially false. Not good Poynty."

So I'm inclined to think that Poynt is out of this argument for the reasons stipulated. That more or less brings that thread to a close. And this is is halting a little for want of some data. Hopefully this will be corrected soon.

Hi Rose/ALL, after being around for a few years i have to say that this is a typical day at OU forum, so please don't think that they have the majority of influence in capable engineers, Luc, Glen , Harvey , Aaron and many others, are all capable of coming up with more results and structured tests, between us we are gonna work side by side Glen etc to get a replicable and similar out come, after a few more pop up it is enough to (public opinion) to make them consider, not that we need too.

Aaron and Crew have already given us the blue pill as opposed to them eating the red one.

We are gonna get Glen's down to a T , dont care how long it takes and do more tests, Luc is not far behind, this is all that we need to concern our self's with for now IMO, those guys will always have their own ways, I think with them as jumping off board is less of a distraction for us to get the job done.

I learned long ago that that forum is over run with mis management .Eventually more reps will sway their opinion, even if we have to build 2 of glens and get one to point to test OUR WAY. If so , so be it. building this weekend again .

Ash

[eternalightwithin]

Having bad day, thatnks for making me smile Witsend.

David P.

[witsend]

Poynt, MileHigh and Hoppy were the only three that kept the thread alive - so, without their interventions I think that the thread has finally come to a close.

I think it will go on record as being the single most challenged claim in the history of that forum. This triumverate of protagonists was preceded by TK and his merry band of admirers who traded insults with my name with varying degrees of skill. And this continued for a full 6 months preceding this thread topic by one month.

I am still baffled at the enormity of that attack. But - bated breath here - I think we may finally see that dreaded thread fall off the cliff that MH referenced in one of his posts. Am feeling uncharacteristically optimistic at the moment. And I'm a sucker for optimism.

[witsend]

Guys, especially Ash, here's some pertinent numbers copied over from OU.COM. It seems that we are running out of interest over there. Hope the posts are self-explanatory.

My reply to Poynt post 2265 copied over from ou.com.

"Hi Poynty. Your objections are duly noted. I take it that in your opinion the range of DC average across the shunt on the source is too wide to represent meaningful results. I think Harvey has covered this sufficiently.

I have an ongoing concern in this aspect of our discussion. It appears that even if we were to log results continuously over - let us say an hour - or alternatively and if possible - the entire test duration - then your objections here will persisit if that variation persists. Unfortunately that is the point where you need to evaluate any real reasons for your continuing involvement. It appears to be required condition of this circuit. In effect this opinion means that regardless of the probe refinement or any apparatus that you apply - this range is unlikely to lessen significantly. In effect, even if you scale 15 meters you will regard the results it as meaningless.

Preceded by this post 2250

"And your results are a failure - except in that they are accurate results of the test you conducted. It would be nice to see more data. But I trust your presentations. You can redo the test a million ways and still come up with the same results. So what? That only gives us your results. Your results are definitive according to your test. We're hitting a blind spot here Poynt. Here's an analogy. The record for high jump is set at - let us say 8 meters. Someone then scales 15 meters. Many try to break that record. Some claim it's impossible and the 15 meter mark was never breached. Some claim to try for 15 meters and fail. One or two people manage the 15 meters AND scale the new level AND their efforts were video'd. Does the fact that the majority failed that level then discount the two that breached it?


And regarding the 'extended run'. I'm satisfied that during your running of the proposed that you will possibly reach random moments where the DC average across the source shunt will show negative. What conclusions do you then draw if that also co-incides with the only moment that you capture your data as you do not see any point in that extended run? You will then erroneously propose a power analysis based on something that is essentially false. Not good Poynty."

So I'm inclined to think that Poynt is out of this argument for the reasons stipulated. That more or less brings that thread to a close. And this is is halting a little for want of some data. Hopefully this will be corrected soon.

[marxist]

Now if I could only read French...

Hi Harvey, will let you know when I find a proper translation of the patent(s).
I think that such a translation would prove interesting, also because Boutard's view of the underlying fluid mechanics shares some characteristics with R. Ainslie's zippon model. However it already differs from it from the outset, because he calls 'zippons' 'AEther monads'.
Monad being derived from 'mono' and meaning something like 'fractal' or 'basic pattern'.

[Harvey]

Hi Marxist,

Thank you for that link, I have downloaded a copy of that patent and will review it when I get a chance. (Now if I could only read French... )

It is interesting that as mainstream progressed they seemed to deviate from the vortex theories into a more homogeneous distributed field theory.

I suppose experiments could be done on a single wire system to determine the validity of having two currents flowing in a single wire in opposite directions.

[marxist]

Single Conduit Multi Vortex

...
Today, I would like to entertain the possibility that a vortex current structure could form in specific resonant circuits that exhibit a dual function with regards to the voltage and/or frequency of the circuit. In this case, we may have a low voltage, low frequency, high current condition flowing in one direction in the conductor center, while we may have a high voltage, high frequency, low current condition flowing on the same conductor surface in the other direction - simultaneously.

Hi Harvey and all,
Louis Boutard, was a Frenchman born 1880 and filed 6 patents
Louis Boutard's patents
The first three in the linked list deal with (electro-)magnetism

Here a translated quote from his Patent FR33826EE
[Page 10 line 33]

This shows, among other things, that in reality the ‘cross of Oerstedt’ is not an electro-magnetic cross, but solely a magnetic cross. The sacred cross itself, as shown in figure 11: the electric current here (and in all other cases) is only an inductor that creates a force field. And since the lateral magnetic flux always tends to run crosswise to the axial flux, so that the maximum deviation is 90° (degree), it follows logically that the magnetic needle can only tend to form a cross relative to this 'current', without ever being able to form a proper cross - as it’s trapped between the two souths and the two norths of the created force field, so its maximum deviation is 45°.

According to my understanding he also – like many others - found, that the ‘secret’ is related to what we call a vortex: a structure formed by two fluxes, headed in opposite directions. A fast (heavy, descending) axial flux and a slow (lightweight, rising) peripheral flux (enveloping the axial one)

[Harvey]

Thanks for the information . Never realize that.

Isn't powerline and data transmission both are AC? so current flow in two direction?

Yes, but these applications usually use the Superposition Theorem to allow the higher frequency component to ride on the lower frequency component as a carrier. So the AC of the higher frequency is really just a fluctuation or deviation of the lower frequency carrier. This technique has been used for many years for products like the X-10 remote systems.

In the case of the PoE, the Ethernet communications rides on top of a 48V DC bias and would look like ripple to anyone viewing the voltage. Capacitors are used to offload the higher frequency intelligence and pass it on to the PHY in the network controller subsection.

[Harvey]

I must make a correction to at least two posts I have made with reference to the overall quantity of data obtained in any given 7 hour run.

In at least two places on the OU forum I stated that the total data collected was less than 1 second for any seven hour run. I quickly calculated this by summing the microseconds for each hour at 40µs + 20µs + 2µs for each sample set giving 62µs / hr for 434µs for any given run. This is incorrect!

That value is off by a factor of 10.

The reason for this error, is that those sample times represent the 'per division' sample. Each data dump is 10 divisions. Thus the actual data samples we have for any 7 hour run is actually 4,340µs worth of data comprising 210,000 individual samples.

I apologize to any who were affected by this error and would like to use this as a case in point as to why we need others to double check my work and do their own calculations on the data.

This error was discovered when I proceeded to include an overall time value in the master file for test #6 and noticed that each sheet in the file was off by the factor of ten.

[sucahyo]

Thanks for the information . Never realize that.

Isn't powerline and data transmission both are AC? so current flow in two direction?

[Harvey]

Hi Sucahyo,

IIRC, 100Mb Ethernet only uses 2 of the pairs of a Category 5 cable, whereas 1Gb Ethernet uses all four pairs of a 5e or or higher category. Thus, if you want PoE over Gb Ethernet, the data must share the same wires with the power. For more information on the 802.3af standard see this, or if you have IEEE access; this



Imagine if you can 1KV at 1A moving on the conductor skin in one direction, spiral vortex and a 20V 50A moving in the center of the conductor, opposite spiral, opposite direction. Imagine that the frequency of each is such so as to provide a perfect magnetic interlace where each spiral crosses the other near right angles - sort of like the weave of a Litz wire. Would the result offer no resistance to the counter flow of current?