COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

comparison

I find your scope shot interesting because you and Glen are using basically the same resistor, correct?

Do you get that same effect with all of the batteries?

I think the resistor should be almost exact. The one I have is wound to have South at the positive end. I'm not sure if the one Glen is using is wound the same direction or if it makes a difference.

This exact setup I haven't tried on 24v gel cells.

[Harvey]

Hi Jibbguy,

Do you think it would be possible to use a power supply with the circuit I just proposed to Groundloop? Since it would have a series diode the HV spike would never be seen at the output terminals, but it would have to allow the reverse current. It would be nice to place a standard AC watt meter on the PS input and get a baseline, then run the RA circuit on it and see the difference. The only question then would be whether or not the PS operation would be affected by the RA circuit thereby shifting the baseline. Just thinking out loud here for feedback.


@Glen,

I can't say thanks enough for all your ambition and hard work. I would like to get the temp data associated with the 520V run. If you can Skype me the pics, I'll key them into Excel

Cheers,

[Harvey]

Hi Groundloop,

Yes that sounds good, the MOSFET. It does seem that getting that larger spike has been an important factor here. It was mentioned that perhaps we could dispense with the resistive component and just use the inductor. It would seem that at some point that was done by the original group, using a transformer as the inductor, but that does not mean that it was tuned well. Actually I like the idea of splitting it out. Straight inductance on the drain in series with a forward biased diode and then with an incandescent across the diode. Then perhaps we can measure the real wattage as candle power as the great majority of the energy should be dissipated in the incandescent.

Then if we clearly know the current through the shunt we can determine the battery delivery power. An identical incandescent can be used with a watt meter to determine a side by side baseline. X watts = Y Candlepower. You can even swap the lamps to be sure its all even. Then we do not need an inductive pickup.

This will help us determine if the effect is dependent on the resistive wire being used as the inductor or not.

I know this test would introduce new variables, but if it is successful it will provide a clean division regarding the source of the energy which Rosemary is certain comes from the magnetic field. If the test fails, then we should direct focus to the various types of resistive wire and the properties they may offer. I think Aaron has some data on that.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Fuzzy:
I have a question on the picture of the fluke hand held scope. I have attached it at the bottom for clarity. In this you state the gate time is 8us and the resonance time is 1.2us. There is a way to compute the frequency from these times. What I am after to find out is how many times faster the ring frequency is to the input freq. Would it be 8/1.2? That would make it about 6.6 times input.
Thanks much

thaelin

Hi thaelin,

the Image that you posted is from the "Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator Circuit" that Aaron is working on and I did a replication of the circuit for verification purposes. The Fluke 123 Scopemeter in the Image was attached across the load resistor only in all testing that was done. I'm not quite sure what your question is as the frequency is not the same at some different component locations

Glen

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit - Thanks Harvey for explaining the information on the wave form in the Fluke scope shot

[Harvey]

Aaron,

I find your scope shot interesting because you and Glen are using basically the same resistor, correct?

I am focusing on the vibration centered in each of the waveforms but seems as though it is missing on the load pulse, but very obvious in the battery pulse. These are missing from Glens scope shots which show a smooth pulse there. A closer look at the load pulse reveals what at first looks like aliasing, but in fact is that imposed harmonic. That harmonic appears to originate at the Source pin, but I think in reality it is present on the battery ground. This is quite intriguing.

Do you get that same effect with all of the batteries? I am interested in pinpointing the actual source. Could it be that the leads on the shunt resistors are inductively resonating? I am really curious about this as I know those batteries were charged with the Bedini charger and I am wondering if we have stumbled on some connection there

I know your very busy, but we look forward to your input. Have we concluded that the resistor you did that wonderful baseline analysis cannot produce 'Glen' type results? So the resistor is a critical part to the high heat and wattage ratios?

Cheers,

[Harvey]

Hi Fuzzy:
I have a question on the picture of the fluke hand held scope. I have attached it at the bottom for clarity. In this you state the gate time is 8us and the resonance time is 1.2us. There is a way to compute the frequency from these times. What I am after to find out is how many times faster the ring frequency is to the input freq. Would it be 8/1.2? That would make it about 6.6 times input.
Thanks much

thaelin

Hi Thaelin,

looking at the scope shot we see 5µS per division. There are 9 full divisions visible containing approximately 39 cycles. I say approximately because in between each burst there is an uncompleted cycle. But from this we can estimate that each ring cycle is 1.154µS long. In that same space we see approximately 5.5 bursts, but if we back up one division we get a pretty good cutoff for exactly 5 bursts as the first cycle is slightly shifted to the right just as the last cycle is. This makes it easy to see that 40µS is divided by 5 bursts leaving us with an 8µS period each.

So the ratio is 8:1.154 or 6.93 to 1

Cheers,

[thaelin]

Hi Fuzzy:
I have a question on the picture of the fluke hand held scope. I have attached it at the bottom for clarity. In this you state the gate time is 8us and the resonance time is 1.2us. There is a way to compute the frequency from these times. What I am after to find out is how many times faster the ring frequency is to the input freq. Would it be 8/1.2? That would make it about 6.6 times input.
Thanks much

thaelin

[Aaron]

Glen Replication 1

Glen,

I'm trying to keep up with what you're doing!

I have my circuit all setup idential except for the 2 X 330 ohm resistors on the timer circuit.

However, I was able to get the following:

46C above ambient at about 40mv avg. batt at 24.89.
Over the period of about 45 minutes or so, the battery bank
rose to 24.90 and held there for about 30-45 minutes or so
then dropped to 24.89 and stayed there until I went to bed.

Batteries I'm using are 2 X 12v about 12-13ah batts? You saw
them so maybe you know their rating. Anyway, they are liquid
lead acids. Garden batteries.

Anyway, here is a general scope shot...I need to work on tuning
but the waveforms are similar to yours. I have all 4 channels on the
Tektronix 3054C identical as yours.

1. Mosfet source shunt
2. Mosfet drain
3. Mosfet gate
4. Battery

[Aaron]

testing

This can be gotten a couple of different ways, but the objective would be to show a "Classical / Conventional" heating energy profile in an unarguable way.. Possibly just DC across a heating element, "temperature degrees vs. Watts". This method will not need to be "timed" as others have suggested (unless a battery draw-down method is used), only given enough time for the greatly simplified circuit to "warm up" to a steady state, then do instantaneous measurements.

I think it would be a good idea to add the control test / battery draw down comparison to the Tektronix scope shots and data.

I have seen for example, the DC supply give the same heat at the same wattage as the Ainslie circuit - but the Ainslie circuit draws the battery down slower - so the control wattage compared to "shunt" measurements on Ainslie circuit could be misleading. I have even seen the control wattage show same heat for less wattage, but yet the Ainslie circuit still drew down the battery slower.

[jibbguy]

I am extremely impressed with all the great work being done here!!

And gladdened to see something very close to my heart, the increased credibility and professionalism of our genre, is being made real here! NO MATTER WHAT THE RESULTS, THIS IS A GREAT MILESTONE FOR US ALL...

Thanks to the hard work and great skills of our Open Source Replicators

And it certainly proves what we knew to be true months ago, that this circuit was being "railroaded" by a "kangaroo court" with about as much objectivity as a Stalin purge. Strange that, eh? Oh well nm lol...

Now, before the IEEE and other academics are called in, i would respectfully suggest a round table discussion on a few additional methods of verification.

For one, a "Baseline" will be needed to compare against: Almost certainly, i think.

This can be gotten a couple of different ways, but the objective would be to show a "Classical / Conventional" heating energy profile in an unarguable way.. Possibly just DC across a heating element, "temperature degrees vs. Watts". This method will not need to be "timed" as others have suggested (unless a battery draw-down method is used), only given enough time for the greatly simplified circuit to "warm up" to a steady state, then do instantaneous measurements.

A couple of ways to do this that i can think of (and there are probably many more, and quite possibly better ones, lol):

> Use a variable DC supply, get the same Average Voltage as is across the R now in the Results, and simply read the temp once it's all "warmed up". This may get some objections from the skeptics for some reason, however: Because judging from what we are seeing, it really will be like shooting fish in a barrel

> Use the batteries for the supply, but either "De-tune" the existing circuit to such a poor extent that we get "TK results" lol... or devise an all-new transistor amplifier circuit with a pot to adjust DC Voltage across the resistor to match the "Good Results" (because a semiconductor will waste less energy as amplifier than using some sort of R-based voltage divider circuit). Then perhaps, do a timed battery draw down to see how long it takes to get the batts to drop the same amount as the "Good Results". But this method, which automatically brings up the yet-unknown vagaries of lead acid batteries when being pulse-charged, will also get some complaints from those don't trust battery measurements as an accurate means of calculation for actual energy use.

Lol i guarantee we will not make everyone happy, no matter what verifications are done. But that matters less than creating a set of data that stands-up to serious scrutiny from those do it for a living.

Frankly i expect the skeptic opposition to hold back the best debunking tools until they see some "solid" data ready to go to academics or independent tests, then spring it when it really matters.... That's why every possibility for insuring the greatest amount of credibility needs to be examined first.

Because the "battle plan" against this, if conventional theory fails miserably, will then be to use what ever red herrings and distractive complaints that can be mustered... And when we view history: One little meaningless mistake in the math of Dr.'s Pons' and Fleischman's Paper in 1989, was enough bare excuse for the US mainstream scientific community to ignore LENR for twenty years. Let's avoid that, i'm too old to wait that long for Free Energy

[Groundloop]

Harvey,

No, when the oscillator runs on a bipolar transistor then there is no sharp
transients. There is NO problem to run a self triggered osc. on a
hexfet transistor, though. If I get time this weekend then I will change
my 2N3055 to a suitable mosfet and give it a try.

Making a inductive pickup is relative easy. Maybe we do not need the
load resistor at all? Just use a coil instead? I can try out this also.

Groundloop.

[witsend]

Guys - some more really good news.

IEEE have informed me that I can resubmit the paper with new revised information and evidence of open source duplication of the experiment provided that they are made fully cogniscant of the data available at the replication.

The implication is clearly that the first was not considered as having sufficient information. So Fuzzy. Would you please allow a collaboration on a new paper including your revised data - that we can submit this for peer review? We're game if you are. I see a comfortable collaboration between all parties here - provided you have no objections to us using your data.

In fact I think that many parties could come to the table here - all from our contributors and it would be so nice if you could pm Fuzzy, me, Aaron or Harvey with suggestions or considerations. Just think of it. The first collaborative attempt of a paper submitted by open source enthusiasts. And possibly the first proof of significant energy savings OU OR COP>17. Both are amazing.

[Harvey]

Hi elias,

Thanks, I'm not totally positive on the 500KHz because I didn't have my frequency counter attached ... so the only thing I could go by was the Channel 1 information on the scope screen right side under the "mean" mV reading where the frequency numbers are, and it seemed to average 68MHz, next time I'll connect my counter and find out exactly for you and other replicators.

Glen

I'm sure its counting each and ever crossing of zero there, so all the 'Fuzzy' stuff is part of that high frequency

[Harvey]

FuzzyTomCat and All,

Congratulation for doing a very good job. :-)

If there is an solution to find even better "voltage spike" capturing methods
then I'm sure we can find them.

Groundloop.

We may call on you to come up with an inductive pickup that we can push a 150W lamp with.

Also, can you get those sharp on and off times without a Mosfet on your self osc. ?

Cheers,

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Rose/ALL.

Yes we all do Glen/Harvey , i am impressed with yourself Rose as you have shown that working with open source engineers is beneficial when having a device with a COP+1. There will be more benefits, soon the establishment will have to accept it and will owe you a HUGE apology.

Dr Stiffler is probably one of the only other ones up there, imagine if we all had our own resourced backed non profit research center we would change the world over night. Thanks Glen/ALL. New doc will be up in 30 minutes with Alex's and all's data. Soon as its optimized thanks to Fuzzy il have the run time tests on the farm of the circuit in the real world to report and added to Rossie's doc, got a solar Bedini charger for that and Aaron's negative wave

Hi Ash,

Thanks for the many posts and kind words on this "open source" project, It's not often our community of experts can gain credibility, we some times are seen as a bunch of "ya who cowboys" with no one direction, but what we have now done puts things in perspective, that we can all work together and accomplish "great" things, and as you said possibly change the world .... in our own special way ... one step at a time (or leap).

There's much to be done now on the "Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Heater Circuit" in some refinement, many practical applications and more research on the " Ainslie - Murakami Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator Circuit" to be done. Hopfully we can see the same support from Corporations that stepped up to the plate like Tektronix, and maybe some others that want to jump on board to further our efforts in the alternative energy fields we work on so hard.

Glen