COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Ramset - your question as to what functions generator I used? May I ask why you are asking this? I've never used one other than for testing purposes in sundry engineering labs. I've always used a 555

[DrStiffler]

Rosemary, there is an extreme psychological collective block on all of these concepts.

"I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?" - This concept is self-evident in many natural events I believe.

"is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit?" - I'm not sure if it is acknowledged in any honest way, but it IS being applied in many instances. One example is Solar powered yard lights that have small rechargeable batteries are ALL charged very efficiently by the inductive spike coming off of a coil AFTER the transistor is turned off. It is the only way they can get those batteries to charge like they do instead of putting the solar cell straight to the battery. Solar cell charges primary then power turns off and the collapsing spike charges the battery. Again, the battery is charged AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

Another example is every photoflash unit in cameras. Those caps are charged many times above the voltage of the battery powering it. The caps are all charge with the inductive spikes coming back AFTER input power is disconnected from the circuit.

These aren't the "source" battery but they do demonstrate utilizing energy AFTER source energy is taken away.

@All
I think what we need to do is look at the issue of battery charging like this.

Today I take $2 from my piggy bank, spend $1 and put $1 back into the bank. Next day I do the same thing. Yes indeed I may be making deposits, yet I continue to decrease my bank account. I made a post some time back where I said its how you look at it, your bank account is 1/2 empty or it is 1/2 full.

I can not in any way see how the return (collapsing) pulse id going back into the battery, I see it as going back into the coil. The reverse biased protection diode (Zener) in the MOSFET wants to see a negative pulse in order to conduct. So the problem, the FET is off and the coil field falls trying to keep the current flowing in the same direction, shunting back through the 1N4007 back into the coil. Now looking fro ground reference the Drain is still positive and not negative, so the internal protection diode should not conduct.

Maybe I am totally missing something here....

[witsend]

Dr Stiffler, this is the 'thing' that actually happens. The counter electromotive force coming from the load resistor is evident as a voltage spike over the load resistor ( also the inductor ). Only If you have a flyback diode going back to the battery does one get the benefit of that spike.

This is easily proved. Take a battery as the supply source to drive the circuit. Take a second battery and link it to the first only on the negative rail. Then take the feedback diode and put it on the postive terminal of the second battery. You will see the second battery recharge. If you use a fully charged battery as the second battery it will still recharge. We've taken a fully charged battery 12 volt battery to plus 17 volts in the space of 15 minutes.

But quite apart from this - academics themselves have advised me that the way to compute the energy delivered by the battery is the difference between the two parts of each duty cycle. This has never been brought to question. I was given the measurement protocol - not by one but by many recognised experts in the field. And they are right. Because the rate at which a battery actually discharges its energy is consistent with the sum of or as I've pointed out, the difference between the energy measured in both cycles. The one cycle discharges the battery. The second recharges provided always that the voltage spike is greater than the source battery voltage and the resistance of the load resistor itself. That level is not difficult to attain with counter electromotive force from the collapsing fields on the resistor itself.

If required I will get this comment approved by an academic. I happen to know quite a few. And they are not averse to answering these types of questions. This point goes to the heart of the thesis.

[Joit]

I wouldnt take any Gelbatteries for that, they dont like that charge/discharge.
Seems i did mine damage a bit last Days, as i did feed it to much with Spikes and used it same Time.

Drstiffler, does it help in any way, when you figure, the current comes from Minus, like the physical Direction is, and the Diodes work in opposite Way?
Beside, i did load a Batterie once a bit too only over the Minus connected.

[Aaron]

sending the spike to the front

I can not in any way see how the return (collapsing) pulse id going back into the battery, I see it as going back into the coil.

Hi Dr. Stiffler & @all,

I think it does both but here are some practical examples of taking the collapsing magnetic field to charge the source. This post isn't about Rosemary's circuit specifically and what is happening with the spike, just about the concept of sending it to the front power source.

Any battery that is in powering mode doesn't like to be charged at the same time. Once the lead ions momentum is in powering mode, sending spikes to it are almost an effort in futility - it would be like a semi-truck driving towards us and we try to slow it down and get it to go in reverse by shooting bb's at it.

However, sending spikes to it in between the on cycle pulse does definitely extend the running time compared to not sending spikes to it at all so sending the spike to it can help to charge it but is not ideal. It is better to take all the inductive spikes, collect them in a separate storage device cap/battery. When the front power battery is depleted, then put the separate storage device on the front and take the depleted power source on the receiving side. This has been one of Bedini's methods for many years. Works much better to have a battery either in powering or charging mode even though to a certain degree, it can do both at the same time.

In Rosemary's circuit, I don't know for a fact that both the battery and coil are receiving the spike but it would definitely be consistent with what I have experienced. I do know it is possible for the source battery to receive the spike and extend its running time because of getting some separation of charges from the spike's potential.

Sending the spike to the front battery can be done in many different ways without truly closing the loop - pseudo closing. Actually in my opinion, ultimately, there is no true closed system since it is open to gravity, etc.... all sources of potential. But for practical purpose, I think we all know here the basic concept and differences of what is supposed to be meant between open and closed circuits.

Anyway, here is an indirect way of capturing the spikes and sending them back to the battery. I have done this and have greatly extended running time even though, it eventually starts to cause a "fluffy" voltage effect in the battery showing voltage but not really carrying its weight in the current delivering department.

Charge an inductor and have an isolated second recovery winding which sends the collapse through a bridge to a capacitor. Once the applied power to the coil is turned off, the source battery is disconnected from the circuit while that capacitor is dumped onto the front battery by relay, other mechanical switch, solid state, etc... There are many variations of this and I have done quite a few and they all work to prove the point.

That works and is taking the collapsing spike to recharge the front battery extending the running time.

A capacitor doesn't care if it is being charged or is powering a load at the same time so I think it is much more effective sending the spikes to a capacitor that is also the power source on the front end. This is probably where supercaps will shine in this type of application.

Another way is to recover the spike in a cap with an isolated second winding (1:1 ratio is all I would use) - anyway, that cap can receive the spike and that cap can be connected to the front battery in a way that the front battery does NOT even know the capacitor is there. However, the load will preferentially draw from the cap before it touches the battery so that less is used from the battery than normal since the recovery is used. This is just another method.

I know we don't have a recovery winding off these inductive resistors, but this is the general concept with taking the spike from an inductor and putting it back to the front.

[Aaron]

battery problem

I wouldnt take any Gelbatteries for that, they dont like that charge/discharge.
Seems i did mine damage a bit last Days, as i did feed it to much with Spikes and used it same Time.

Joit, just discharge the battery (if 12v then down to about 10 to 10.5) and charge it back up. After a few times, it should be back to normal - at least for the most part.

[Aaron]

scope the battery?

Isn't it easy enough to put a scope on both terminals of the power battery?

Should see spikes above the battery voltage. Wouldn't that point to the possibility that the battery actually is receiving part of the spike?

The spike should be lower than what is actually hit it since the battery is sucking it up reducing the voltage pressure - but still higher than the battery voltage.

[Joit]

This Batterie was allready down at 2,5V, i had running it on a Newman machine, and have no Diode there.
A Carbatterie did take the load, and keep the Motor running, but the Gel did drop down and stay there.
Right now its back to 6,5V since a Day. The Spikes did come there 6 times each half revolution. so it was kinda Spikefire on it.
But, anyhow, my Gel did not like it.
Guess i need to recharge it more Times, and see what i get.
But Gels dry out too, and that i think, what did happens anyhow.
But i ll try to charge, discharge few times, and see if i can bring it back, Thanks for the Hint.

My Opinion about the Spikes at the Batterie, i think, they get sucked into the Batterie and the Potenzial from it, i didnt see them really, or only a part of it, when i had the Batterie connected.
How they did look like was mostly more guessing.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - to yet again involve you, if you don't mind. Here's the thing. Regardless of the level of efficiency I do see a recharge value in that returning energy from the collapsing fields. Does this fall in line with classical thinking?

In other words, is it acknowledged that a battery supply source can be recharged from energy supplied by the circuit? This sort of goes to the heart of the thesis? Academics have only commented that the measurement of the energy is correct. But if so, then their own measurements protocol allows for this benefit. And logic therefore points to a gain over the energy dissipated? I'd be very glad to have a discussion on this point. If not Hoppy someone? Allcanadian, Aaron? anyone?

Witsend - Yes, recovery of energy from the collapsing field can be used to charge a capacitor and then discharged into the source battery with suitable switching. The only point of debate is whether the recovered energy is sufficient to replace more than was supplied.

I do not doubt what Luc's demo shows. I can obtain more heat in my output resistor than in the input resistor. The voltage across the output resistor is also higher than the voltage across the input resistor. I have a different setup to Luc's but the result is very similar. Experimentation shows me that the resistances need to be very close or equal to each other and equal or slightly higher than the impedance of the inductor for optimum results. In the low kilohertz range, the impedance can be considered to be the same as the resistance of the coil for practical purposes. The idea here is to match the input and output impedances as closely as possible, to get maximum power transfer from input to the load. This is the art in all of John Bedini's devices.

To be honest, I cannot fully explain the observations but the inductor is releasing more energy to the load when the load is matched to its internal impedance. When it is matched, the losses incurred in charging the inductor are minimised and this in turn reduces the input current. As I mentioned before, I think there are other factors involved that require further investigation before a full explanation can be attempted. There may be a point where the inductor taps energy from the environment which accounts for the increased heating effect in R2 but this is going to take a lot of proving and some very clever minds to do it.

Hoppy

[Joit]

Hi
I did complete right now the Timer Circuit with the Parts from the Quantum article.
I had only a 5k Resistor instead of the 5,2k.

But the Timer does, what it says.


Its actually One Line, but i had to use a longer exposure time.
Clock is set there 2µS, Scale at 200µS Voltage 1V, Probe 1:1, Source 8,5V
Else i used all other Parts what are in the List.
I can adjust it as i need it.

So? i guess i save better my further Comments on that....

PS. Seems, some better bake a Cake as to make Circuits, and cry, when they dont work for her.

[gotoluc]

Regarding gotoluc's circuit - I'm still struggling to understand it from the video. Sorry. I just do not find my way around these things with the ease that you guys have. I'm referring to the circuit with 'no bulb' and same resistive loads, only because Hoppy recommended 'less variables' and because I understand it better.

So - it's basically my circuit but the 'inductive resistive load' is replaced with a single wound inductor in series with a 22Ohm resistor, call it R1. The base of the inductor goes to the switch. At the junction of the inductor and the switch is the 'feed back' diode which has a second 22 Ohm resistor in series. Call that resistor R2. This, 'fly back' or 'feed back' diode, in turn goes back to - either 1) the junction of the wire between R1 and the inductor or 2) straight to the source - parallel to the R1?

Hi Rosemary,

sorry for the delay. Like I said! I was out for most of the day.

I thought you were asking about the circuit in the new video! I now see you were inquiring about test 4 video.

I made a schematic of test 4 circuit. I also just saw for the first time your schematic. Looks like the same thing ... the only difference is your flyback is created by the small inductance of a heating element and mine by a coil. My original circuit was less the resistors as I was demonstrating the effect of just flyback re-circulated to the coil that created it. I added the resistor after seeing your topic to see how it would perform. I think it's doing very well at producing heat also.

Anyways, you should see the circuit attached below.

Luc

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi gotoluc, I did not realize that is the way you had the output resistor within circuit gotoluc. I was using Rosemary's circuit which does give more heat because I tried both ways although not sure if the coil field would reduce. Here is a cad pic of the circuit I've been using, which I believe is the same as Rosemary's circuit.

[gotoluc]

Posted by wattsup at OU topic:

@gotoluc

I put in some overtime and grabbed each bulb image, saved them at 1200 dpi resolution, blew em up 3fold, then grabbed the whole thing to show. I also summarized your Video6?

This is just a small technicality and would never show any sign of major disparity between what you have shown and the results, etc. But when you say the bulb is the same intensity, you then have to show how the same they are. I could see it by eye but wanted to put it here. We can make our own judgments. The bulb was never as bright as when you put it on straight DC so that is already a winner. But academia will demand more precision even though the end result is obvious.

Hope this helps.

wattsup

Added:

I forgot to mention that these photos would not be possible if your handy cam work was not so precise at each test giving the same angle shot. I must say, the whole video was very well done. An example to all.



http://www.overunity.com/index.php?a...ch=35923;image

[gotoluc]

Hi folks, Hi gotoluc, I did not realize that is the way you had the output resistor within circuit gotoluc. I was using Rosemary's circuit which does give more heat because I tried both ways although not sure if the coil field would reduce. Here is a cad pic of the circuit I've been using, which I believe is the same as Rosemary's circuit.

Hi SkyWatcher,

humm... you're right!... I see now there is a very big difference. In Rosemary's circuit the resistor causes resistance during the on pulse, which means it will be heated by the supply energy and then heated by the flyback when it switches off. In mine, I only wanted the flyback to go though the resistor.

Wow SkyWatcher, thanks for bringing my attention back to this since I thought that both circuits were the same.

If I were you I would think about this as you maybe getting more heat in Rosemary's circuit but if you think about it you are paying for it since it comes directly from the power supply during the on cycle.

I chose not to do that since flyback effects is what I've been studying.

Anyways, do what you think is best.

Luc

[witsend]

Skywatcher and Luc - you both use inductors. The point about my little test is that the inductor and resistor are the same thing. In other words I use an inductive resistive load.

But having said that I really prefer to see what you're testing - simply because it brings up new perspectives on the same thing - being the flyback principle to enhance efficiency - or as gotoluc aptly describes it a 'reticulated current'. That's just so well put. And it's important that all points are argued. So please don't change it unless that's where your own logic leads. To explore your own questions is far more creative and therein you'll add to your own knowledge. Personally I just love asking questions and clearly you guys are of the same mindset.

My only ask is this. I'm not usually 'slow of thought' - but when it comes to circuit analysis - I go into gridlock. The sketches provided by you both I can readily undestand. The circuit diagram described by Groundloop I cannot understand beyond the actual input and output points plus the interactive point with the switch. If you reference a circuit please may I ask you to indulge me and do a sketch if possible. Like you've done. And then, if you change the circuit you can just reference it on the sketch. I think this is really all that even Dr Stiffler needs. Else I simply cannot understand what's being referenced and for that matter no-one can unless they're familiar with your test set up. I'm still learning here.

I'm now going to indulge in watching gotoluc's video. Always a pleasure. Gotoluc I cannot stress how much I admire the way you tackle your arguments and explain your points. So, so elegant.
EDIT - Just viewed the schedule - thought I was going to see a video. Many thanks for the info gotoluc. I must now try and get my head around the data and for me it takes time. I plod where you guys just seem to fly.