COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Poynt - I was perfectly happy with your video presentations but am shocked if you are seriously proposing that we take your numbers over those of the serious equipment that Aaron's using. Your method is fine for hobbyists. But that's it. Nothing seriously suggested to gain authoritative values. Just loose guidelines in my opinion.

Sorry. You're getting overly optimistic if you expect anyone to take such readings as an 'acceptable standard' of measurement - with respect.

[Aaron]

Delaying the negative spike

YouTube - Ainslie Circuit Negative Delay

Delaying negative spike so that the negative spike rebounds positive at the moment the next pulse on time it happening. Does that reduce power required to make the positive spike since it is the negative spike that appears to be inducing the positive spike? The best example that I've seen of this is on Glen's circuit "Fuzzy Tomcat". I'm not sure if he posted pics of it yet.

[poynt99]

On the Ainslie circuit note:

I received Groundloop's PCB today in the mail.

Thanks Luc, much appreciated!

.99

[poynt99]

1) Non-Repetitive waveforms (especially with widely fluctuating F's): Could indeed change those results; and that is where you would be likely to see significant differences between the different models. These were very clean, very controlled signals from a waveform generator (nice equipment, BTW). Lol, why is it the "skeptic patrol" always seems to have the best stuff?

I am fairly certain that a frequency modulating wave form, and one that is non-repetitive will give VERY SIMILAR RESULTS to the scope. I will demonstrate this also since jibbguy continues to downplay the issue (understandably, with all his previous "expert" negative banter about it).

2) Convincing anyone who would be looking at this in the scientific mainstream of the wider world that a DMM would be "reliable & trustworthy" in these cases: Very difficult.... It is important to note that they are NOT spec'ed or calibrated for this application (for good reason: There are too many variables).

What the vids show, is that for our OWN use, as COMPARATIVE tests, they may serve if a scope is not available. For ultimate readings of amplitude though... You would not want to publish using them without scope or high-speed data acquisition system data as it would be asking for trouble.

Also, when there is much "flickering" from values around zero and non-repetitive waveforms: What would you do, count how many "plus' " and "minus' " signs you see (as we noted earlier in one of Aaron's vids)? That would be quite difficult to explain in the report

A Test Engineers task is to create a procedure and set of data that is:

> Repeatable by others' using the same instrumentation
> Reliable and plausible; by using established methods
> As far from controversy and any questions over methodology as possible
> Optional (but generally accepted as critically important): Recording the data so that others may analyze it for themselves at any time in the future. This is where the digital storage scope or data acquisition system pays for itself... Because if the above criteria are met; it is the "ending of argument".

So using DMM's to read high frequency pulses in DC mode, as a means of "tweaking" to help see relative comparative differences... May be fine for out own purposes. But trying to rely on it to make any conclusions that would convince others... Would not be advisable or worthwhile.

..So why bother with it, if the scope is available? That is the point.

All weak arguments in my opinion. Do as you choose.

btw, once I have the Ainslie circuit up and running, the DC meter measurement will be validated once again against the oscilloscope. A practical application will be convincing enough, even for the bull-headed.

.99

[jibbguy]

Yes, well done videos. However, i am afraid my previously stated problems with this technique are still valid:

1) Non-Repetitive waveforms (especially with widely fluctuating F's): Could indeed change those results; and that is where you would be likely to see significant differences between the different models. These were very clean, very controlled signals from a waveform generator (nice equipment, BTW). Lol, why is it the "skeptic patrol" always seems to have the best stuff?

2) Convincing anyone who would be looking at this in the scientific mainstream of the wider world that a DMM would be "reliable & trustworthy" in these cases: Very difficult.... It is important to note that they are NOT spec'ed or calibrated for this application (for good reason: There are too many variables).

What the vids show, is that for our OWN use, as COMPARATIVE tests, they may serve if a scope is not available. For ultimate readings of amplitude though... You would not want to publish using them without scope or high-speed data acquisition system data as it would be asking for trouble.

Also, when there is much "flickering" from values around zero and non-repetitive waveforms: What would you do, count how many "plus' " and "minus' " signs you see (as we noted earlier in one of Aaron's vids)? That would be quite difficult to explain in the report

A Test Engineers task is to create a procedure and set of data that is:

> Repeatable by others' using the same instrumentation
> Reliable and plausible; by using established methods
> As far from controversy and any questions over methodology as possible
> Optional (but generally accepted as critically important): Recording the data so that others may analyze it for themselves at any time in the future. This is where the digital storage scope or data acquisition system pays for itself... Because if the above criteria are met; it is the "ending of argument".

So using DMM's to read high frequency pulses in DC mode, as a means of "tweaking" to help see relative comparative differences... May be fine for out own purposes. But trying to rely on it to make any conclusions that would convince others... Would not be advisable or worthwhile.

..So why bother with it, if the scope is available? That is the point.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

New thread

Hi all,

I have just started a new thread on something that I worked on some time back, and I thought it was time to dust it off as I think that Rosemary's circuit could be linked to it in two forms, as a replacement for the inductor resistor, and what is happening in the original circuit.

Open to thoughts

Mike

[witsend]

Poynt - your videos were very good. Certainly helps me. Thanks for the input.

[witsend]

Evaluating whether or not Sunspot activity could have emitted CME that may have resulted in the extra energy released in the RA heater tests I was able to find a few interesting reads:



NASA article on the 1859 Carrington Super Solar Flare includes pictures of transformer failure caused by the 1989 geomagnetic storm.

Sunspot activity peaked in July 2000 ( Space Weather Java Sunspot Plotter ) and typically runs on an 11 year cycle. We are currently at the threshold starting a new cycle after the Solar Minimum last year. This means, if the extra energy observed was related to CME, that we would have to wait another 5 years for increased activity to see if it affects these inductive actions.

Just another possibility that needs to be eliminated.

You didn't reference moon phases? Tidal influences? Wind? And what about our transition through the "Age of Aquarius"?

[poynt99]

A "MEAN" Meter

The Challenge:
To accurately measure the net mean or average voltage value of a high frequency wave form using a common and inexpensive digital voltmeter set on "DC Volts".

Many would not believe it could be done, and they would not try it.

For their benefit and for all others that enjoy learning new ways to make measurements, this is for you.

The attached supplement to the video is nothing fancy but hopefully it help explain why this works. The "why the video" file contains material some may have regrets about saying after viewing this video.

Regards,
.99

A "MEAN" Meter, Parts 1 & 2:

YouTube - A "MEAN" Meter - Part 1
YouTube - A "MEAN" Meter - Part 2

[Harvey]

Hi Harvey. Just know that I was blown away by your video. 5 stars doesn't cut it.

I have a question. Is it actually feasible to physically organise an even timing? - in the charge discharge of the inductor? And how critical to the effect is this timing arrangement?

The timing is very sensitive to the internal capacitance of the inductor - however, on these particular resistors where the winding is exposed it should be possible to tune the device similarly to what I have shown using external capacitors where necessary, unless the internal capacitance is so great that we cannot properly reduce it.

I think it is important to state that while the current is negative, and the inductor power shows negative (which is Apparent Power), the resistor power is positive for both charge and discharge periods of the inductor.

[Harvey]

Sunspots Offer Extra Energy

Evaluating whether or not Sunspot activity could have emitted CME that may have resulted in the extra energy released in the RA heater tests I was able to find a few interesting reads:

"... During the 1989 solar max, for example, a power surge triggered by solar energy damaged transformers that were part of the Hydro-Quebec power system. That surge left 6 million people in Canada and the northeastern U.S. without electricity for more than nine hours..."

NASA article on the 1859 Carrington Super Solar Flare includes pictures of transformer failure caused by the 1989 geomagnetic storm.

Sunspot activity peaked in July 2000 ( Space Weather Java Sunspot Plotter ) and typically runs on an 11 year cycle. We are currently at the threshold starting a new cycle after the Solar Minimum last year. This means, if the extra energy observed was related to CME, that we would have to wait another 5 years for increased activity to see if it affects these inductive actions.

Just another possibility that needs to be eliminated.

[witsend]

Imagine for a moment that we own a Watt Meter. And that we have an Adjustable Voltage and Current Power Supply . Now imagine we take that Ainslie resistor and stick it across that output of that supply, and adjust those values until we get a temperature in the resistor of 50° over ambient and we read the value on the watt meter. That value represents all of the power consumed by the supply and the resistor - entirely. Now we simply insert the Ainslie circuit in between the power supply and the resistor. And without changing the power supply settings we are able to get the same 50° increase over ambient - but the watt meter shows a decrease in overall consumption. Then there can be no doubt that the circuit does show an improvement in COP.

For more precision in the experiment, one could baseline the no load power supply draw and then compare that to the load power draws for both direct and circuited tests. Also, tests could be compared for different thermal settings.

The advantage of this arrangement is that the watt meter is being used in the way it was intended to be used, at the frequency and voltage envelope it was designed for. And its measurement becomes insulated from the aperiodic nature of the Ainslie circuit.

We've tested this concept - but difficult to prove with our SA watt meters. But there was definite evidence of gain on the one side of the meter - and evidently less input on the other. But apparatus was crude and test results therefore questionable. Theoretically, however, I believe this argument holds.

[witsend]

Hi Harvey. Just know that I was blown away by your video. 5 stars doesn't cut it.

I have a question. Is it actually feasible to physically organise an even timing? - in the charge discharge of the inductor? And how critical to the effect is this timing arrangement?

[ashtweth]

Hi poynt, Rose, Havery, Aaron, Glen et ALL.

Still fine tuning guys got a better results then last time, got a few tests done, looking forward to the new data Glen, Harvey this is a great help my friend. Okay here is the message i got back From Andrew

Hey all,I have replaced the capacitor and resistor values from the August 12 2009 revision to the newer August 26 2009 revision and having better luck.

Notes and observations:
resonant / optimal frequency of inductor operation (max spike power going into cap / 470 ohm resistor): 960KHz, 55% (meter indication only).

I added a grey rubber Mosfet insulator between the mosfet and the heatsink, with white heat transfer grease. I still get wild oscillations if the series gate resistance isn't correct. Could it be that the series variable 10 turn resistor would be acting as an antenna also?

Input power: 24.1V 1A (output of pi filter - capacitor -> inductor -> capacitor)

The 555 timer warmed up significantly greater than the ambient temperature. Maybe we should replace the 1nF capacitor with a 0.1nF, and the resistors with 10x their resistance value? That would achieve the same frequency and duty cycle using less power. I had 13.8V going in to the 12v regulator (7812) and the regulator was also warm. It might be worth looking into a frequency generator using more modern components with sharper square wave forms?

Temperatures:
Ambient - 29C / 84F
10 ohm resistor - 64C / 148F
555 chip - 54C / 129F
IRFPG50 Mosfet - 50C / 122F

The capacitor, diode and resistor combination are the same for collecting the spikes off the resistor: 4700uF / 50V, 1N4007 diode, 470 ohm resistor. 4 volts was measured across the 470 ohm resistor which was across the 4700uF capacitor.

I calculated the inductance of the 10 ohm resistor, using the coil calculator link Harvey mentioned (www.66pacific.com/calculators/coil_calc.aspx). Our resistor has 23 turns, 1" diameter, 4.5" long = 2.7uH. A photo of the resistor we purchased is at http://img-asia.electrocomponents.co...F252618-01.jpg

Thoughts or comments anyone?

Andrew

[Harvey]

Imagine for a moment that we own a Watt Meter. And that we have an Adjustable Voltage and Current Power Supply . Now imagine we take that Ainslie resistor and stick it across that output of that supply, and adjust those values until we get a temperature in the resistor of 50° over ambient and we read the value on the watt meter. That value represents all of the power consumed by the supply and the resistor - entirely. Now we simply insert the Ainslie circuit in between the power supply and the resistor. And without changing the power supply settings we are able to get the same 50° increase over ambient - but the watt meter shows a decrease in overall consumption. Then there can be no doubt that the circuit does show an improvement in COP.

For more precision in the experiment, one could baseline the no load power supply draw and then compare that to the load power draws for both direct and circuited tests. Also, tests could be compared for different thermal settings.

The advantage of this arrangement is that the watt meter is being used in the way it was intended to be used, at the frequency and voltage envelope it was designed for. And its measurement becomes insulated from the aperiodic nature of the Ainslie circuit.