COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Joit]

I know that the fastest way to have something die or dissapear is to ignore it - not give it even any argument because it simply validates its existance. However, this forum is not the place to play games or act like a valid point hasn't been made - ...

Rofl. I like that Post. And see. i still bite my Lips (bloody) try to stay polite, and look for the best Things.
I dont even comment Videos, because i think, he would delete my Posts,
because i would tell him some other Things, what i would want to say.
Doenst mean, when someone is quiet, he would'nt have to say something.
Maybe Tk did take a 'little Part' of My Hate, thats why he is irately.
And i still ask myself, if he isnt work for the Lobby.

Ramset.
I need to go down to the lower Frequency, to see, what it really does.
I will try to modify it so far, and a bulb is not the right Proove,
because you cant see the switch fast enough, it dims still a bit longer,
A Led would be better for that, but the Timercircuit seems still spit some Energy from the Cap out, when its disconnected. Not sure, if you realy can see the Cycle, maybe at very low Frequency.

Something strange, when i put the 10W Bulb between Plus and Drain, the Scope shows, as i have the Shot.
But when i have no Load at the Drain, straight to Plus,
the Scope shows the same Form, but just inverted ..
means Offset line is on Top, the Cycle goes to the bottom Side.

Edit And even when that would be prooven, then you still cant say, with which Cycle it works or not.
Easy Proof, make the Cycle otherwise, and see if you can gain something else.
But anyway, from others we probatly, or should i say, For sure we only get hundret more Proofs, that All just dont work.

[Aaron]

no musts

My rationale is this: IF the results of a real experiment can be duplicated and verified using SPICE, then one must come to the conclusion that the real experiment is exhibiting "normal" behaviour according to known electrical theory.

Respectfully poynt, I don't believe this is logical.

It is claimed there are psychic surgeons in the Philippines that can put their hand through someone's body and pull out tumors, etc... I'm sure most of us here are aware of at least seeing this on tv or whatever.

There have been plenty of frauds caught ripping people off and some people doing this that haven't been proven to be frauds - and no matter how hard it is to believe, the possibility remains that someone may be doing it for real. Whether they do it for real or not isn't the point - this is the point...

James Randi the skeptic, I mean cynic, demonstrates what looks like to be the same thing. Basically as a magician, he is good at palming - a simple technique to hide something in the hand without it looking like there is anything in the hand. He palms a chicken heart. Goes through the motions and pulls out the tumor.

His point is that this is how he was able to duplicate the appearance of the claim and claims that it is all fraud simply because he can replicate the appearance of the effect with trickery - and claiming it is always done this way.

The common sense reality is that all he proved is that he can use trickery to appear to imitate the "psychic surgery" and to project his own particular method as being what everyone must be doing is simply outside of the realm of logic, science or integrity.

This isn't a perfect example but I think makes the point.

The simulation software only shows what appears to be the same thing based on it's own method of operation and that is about it. It may be close or similar but cannot be considered the same. And to come to the conclusion that it must be exhibiting conventional behavior I think is not doing anything justice.

I believe almost all psychic surgeons are fake but we do all have those areas of unconscious incompetence - we don't know what we don't know. There exists the possibility that someone may be doing it and if that possibility remains a possibility, it is logically illogical to assume a MUST in the analysis.

[MileHigh]

I will try to respond to various points raised about my posting.

The issue about no current going back to the battery: It looks like no one was aware that the circuit cannot recharge the source battery. Aaron pointed to some high-voltage diode + AC circuits that charge caps/batteries with one wire. That is not a valid point, it simply looks like he went for a "Plan B" after he understood what I said. Besides that, relating back to his clips, there is no high-voltage AC associated with this circuit. You can't say, "Look at another circuit that is totally different from the one we are discussing and perhaps it will apply to this circuit."

I offered two suggestions for anyone building the circuit to actually test this point for themselves. Nobody has reported in, perhaps eventually someone will.

Let me propose a slightly fancier non-oscilloscope test setup to confirm this: Add the back-to-back ordinary 0.6-volt LEDs in series with the battery positive like I said before. Replace the diode across the coil-resistor with another ordinary LED. Change your signal source to a 50% duty-cycle 10 Hz square wave.

When you run this test you should see the battery "forward current" LED blink at 10 Hz and the LED across the coil-resistor blink at 10 Hz. They will ping-pong back and forth. The "reverse current" LED will not light up. This test will clearly show you that the energy stored in the coil-resistor discharges across the resistive part of the coil-resistor itself and the LED across the coil-resistor when the MOSFET switches off. If you make some measurements with a scope and/or multimeter with this setup, and then disconnect the "reverse current" LED and repeat the same measurements, you should not notice any significant changes. All of this will offer very convincing evidence that there is no battery recharging going on because the second configuration has the single LED in series with the battery positive which will prevent any battery recharging.

For what it's worth, I made a sincere attempt to explain how the inductor stores the battery energy when the MOSFET switches on. If any newcomers are interested, it is back a few pages in this thread.

It would be nice if someone could also confirm that there is no high voltage across the coil-resistor when there is a diode across it. That's another misconception that I tried to clear up and I am sure that you would like to see experimental proof of this.

Rosemary, I can't comment on the Nerzdishual posting right now simply because I am too tired. I will try to some time soom.

Quite Aaron: "The concept of getting the spike back to begin with is profound. It is considered a nuisance according to classical teaching and I have seen so many references online by ACADEMICS describing that this transient spike is unable to perform work. What kind of micky mouse thinking is that and to promote that idea as actually being scientific is profoundly ridiculous!"

I don't know where you are reading comments like that but they don't make sense to me. I suppose that you could say that spikes simply exist, and they certainly can perform work. I can assure you that there is no promotion of the stuff you are saying above in mainstream science.

> Staging the argument to discuss capacitance of the circuit itself as being something that will gobble up the puny little spikes downplaying it making it look like there are only microjoules, etc... is really nothing but misleading.

This circuit burns off 99.9999% of the energy stored in the coil-resistor in the resistive part of the coil-resistor and in the diode. If there is an astute person out there with a scope and is willing to make some tests, they should be able to confirm this. I only discussed the capacitance as part of a short discussion with .99 on the PSpice simulation. Most perople don't put stray capacitance and stray inductance in their simulations because it is not necessary.

Anyway I hope that I answered most of the questions. With respect to the "big question", all that somebody has to do is set up the 3% "on" duty-cycle waveform, and make a fairly accurate measurements of the power drawn from the battery and the power dissipated in the diode and coil-resistor to see if there is OU or not.

Regards,

MileHigh

[poynt99]

That's all for now folks...

My rationale is this: IF the results of a real experiment can be duplicated and verified using SPICE, then one must come to the conclusion that the real experiment is exhibiting "normal" behaviour according to known electrical theory. .99

1) Sorry. This makes no sense.

2) Your early assistance to gotoluc I am sure is appreciated. But thus far, as it relates to his test, it seems that you have only thrown doubt on his experimental evidence by subjecting it to PSpice analysis.

3) Nor did you point out that PSpice could not, under any circumstances, simulate anomalous conditions. That is less than intellectually honest - by its kindest assessment.

Rosemary,

1) Respectfully, in all fairness, my quote may not make sense to you and that is fine.

2) On the contrary, the results obtained from my analysis with PSpice support Luc's findings.

3) Providing one uses and interprets the results from a SPICE simulation properly, there is no possibility of achieving overunity with it. It is logical to assume this and it is implicitly implied by the very fact that the program operates using mathematical models based on known electrical theory and properties.

.99

[gotoluc]

Fuzzy - YOU ARE A STAR. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I shall certainly correspond and - maybe we can get him on the forum. I'll tell you what. I'm going to try and brush up my french.

How fantastic.

How do I get my email to you? Not sure how to use the PM System. So far have only answered post. Can you send me a message - I'll repy?

Hi Rosemary,

just to let you know I'm French Canadian and live 1.5 hour drive from Montreal.

I would be happy to drive there to meet Zoltan if he is open to it. I could do a video of one of his experiments also if he allows it

Luc

[witsend]

The following quotes from MileHigh

It looks like no one was aware that the circuit cannot recharge the source battery.
Are you saying that the circuit cannot recharge the battery? Or that everyone thought the circuit could recharge the battery? Or that everyone thought that it couldn't? If I had to take a literal explanation with those two double negatives I'd say your meaning is 'looks like everyone is aware hat the curcuit can recharge the source battery'. I don't know if that's what you mean.

Aaron pointed to some high-voltage diode + AC circuits that charge caps/batteries with one wire. That is not a valid point..

Why is this not valid?

... there is no high-voltage AC associated with this circuit.
Alternating current is defined how? Just do a Google search on Alternating current on a switching circuit. There are many examples.

Regarding the recharging of batteries. Here's a much quicker test. Take 2 12 volt batteries. Connect the test circuit battery to the second by the negative rail only. Take the flyback diode to the positive terminal of the battery. Make sure that the voltage on the test battery is less than the second. Then run the circuit. You'll see an immediate recharge.

For what it's worth, I made a sincere attempt to explain how the inductor stores the battery energy when the MOSFET switches on. If any newcomers are interested, it is back a few pages in this thread.
Your efforts are appreciated. But it is - unhappily - only your opinion.

It would be nice if someone could also confirm that there is no high voltage across the coil-resistor when there is a diode across it.
Not sure what you mean. Do you mean. Across it? Is that the same as parallel? If so, then our own findings conflict. But I'd like to hear of others that do or don't?

With reference to Aaron's comment that spikes are 'problematic' ...
I can assure you that there is no promotion of the stuff you are saying above in mainstream science.
I can quote you chapter and verse, emails from sundry Professors, and examples of actual appliances where the problems relating to 'heat' generated by these 'spikes' is either addressed or discussed. There is entire consensus from mainstream that back electromotive force can be problematic in sudry applications using switching circuits.

Staging the argument to discuss capacitance of the circuit itself as being something that will gobble up the puny little spikes downplaying it making it look like there are only microjoules, etc... is really nothing but misleading.
Again. I can't understand this. It looks like we are now 'down playing' the advantage of the spike? Are you arguing that the spike is beneficial afterall?

This circuit burns off 99.9999% of the energy stored in the coil-resistor in the resistive part of the coil-resistor and in the diode. If there is an astute person out there with a scope and is willing to make some tests, they should be able to confirm this.
No problems here. That's more or less what we say. The 'burn off' is in the counter electromotive force. The question is how much energy was stored?

I only discussed the capacitance as part of a short discussion with .99 on the PSpice simulation. Most perople don't put stray capacitance and stray inductance in their simulations because it is not necessary.
The quarrel here is not with the stray capacitance. It's with PSpice, the more so as it is tailored to conform to compliance with Conservation Laws. Obviously if we are looking to evidence conflicting with Conservation Laws, then such software will factor it out - regardless.

Anyway I hope that I answered most of the questions. With respect to the "big question", all that somebody has to do is set up the 3% "on" duty-cycle waveform, and make a fairly accurate measurements of the power drawn from the battery and the power dissipated in the diode and coil-resistor to see if there is OU or not.
Indeed. I think that's more or less what we're all trying to do. But the proposal is that the data is measured on experimental apparatus rather than simulator programmes.

Thanks for this MileHigh. I wonder if we could impose on you to clarify the questions. But thanks for the input. I know how much time it takes and how much thought goes into such an exercise.

[witsend]

Hi Rosemary,

just to let you know I'm French Canadian and live 1.5 hour drive from Montreal.

I would be happy to drive there to meet Zoltan if he is open to it. I could do a video of one of his experiments also if he allows it

Luc

Luc - you are an angel. I'm hoping it wont be necessary. Let's first see if he'll write. I keep getting up to check my email. Fingers crossed he'll write in. Then we can see what gives. I would so like it if he could consider joining us here. Or even if he would do our power analysis. But I'll tell you what. I may very well need you to interpret - if he speaks French. I used to be fairly fluent - but so many years ago.

[Joit]

Hi again.
I still can not confirm, that the circuit is wrong from the Timer.

As my Shots show, the ON Time is a the small Cycle. The long Cycle is OFF.
That is, what does count for me. Its the short Time, when the Transistor is leading between S and D.
Still makes no sense for me, that the Scope should show at the upper Point the OFF time.
I cant drop the Timer down to a low Frequency even not with lower Voltage input below <1khz to get an other Proof.
Maybe someone can put a SG at Pin2, when he has the same Circuit.
This would control the Frequency to low Hz and show it with a LED.
Or we leave it as it is.

Right now, i did put the Timer with a 9V Block on a bifilar Ferrit-Toroid with a Diode and played a bit around with the Frequency,
and Voltage from Batterie is still rising atm.
Will let it run trough the Night, and see, what tommorow is.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, by the way the numbers i crunched as far as gotoluc's #7 video, were wrong since I included the diodes heat output as part of the input. The revised figures are higher at 5.23 COP. For what its worth.
peace love light

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi Rosemary,

just to let you know I'm French Canadian and live 1.5 hour drive from Montreal.

I would be happy to drive there to meet Zoltan if he is open to it. I could do a video of one of his experiments also if he allows it

Luc

Hi Luc,

Your work is very good and I am really enjoy your videos .... You might be able to contact "Zoltan Szili" as I did at his posted e-mail address p_baril@sympatico.ca I'm not sure why he contacted me but I have no complaints, after looking at his resume .....

I'm sure he would like "your" little circuit also ....

EDIT - @ Rosemary If you don't here from him from my correspondence Please try to e-mail him direct he does sound as if he wants to talk to you directly .... and he speaks English so no worries

Best,
Glen

[Aaron]

one wire charge and spike

The issue about no current going back to the battery: It looks like no one was aware that the circuit cannot recharge the source battery. Aaron pointed to some high-voltage diode + AC circuits that charge caps/batteries with one wire. That is not a valid point, it simply looks like he went for a "Plan B" after he understood what I said. Besides that, relating back to his clips, there is no high-voltage AC associated with this circuit. You can't say, "Look at another circuit that is totally different from the one we are discussing and perhaps it will apply to this circuit."

I don't know where you are reading comments like that but they don't make sense to me. I suppose that you could say that spikes simply exist, and they certainly can perform work. I can assure you that there is no promotion of the stuff you are saying above in mainstream science.

MileHigh,

I don't recall showing the circuit but the diodes on my caps were typical 1n4001 type of diodes - far from HV diode and with AC or DC, it charges easier with the 2 diodes. What is going over the wire is a unidirectional dc impulse at high frequency. The caps and/or battery is only receiving DC. The spikes charging the little photo flash cap are only a few hundred volts or less, within what I would imagine to be not too far from one of these inductive resistors - but are you saying these resistors cannot produce a spike when power is turned off?

I put my resistor (10 ohm 50 watt ceramic wire wound) on my Gray circuit and using DC impulses through diodes (still DC), the battery bank charges. Battery bank is made of 2 X 12v 7ah gel cells. Single wire battery charging with DC. Video will be posted soon.

I'm not changing plans. You said the circuit is open so the battery can't charge because there is no ground wire connected for current flow. And what I showed you is that a battery or cap can be charged with one wire - without the ground connected to the source of the spike - so where is the current coming from? You can say that I am trying to mislead people but that isn't true.

A year ago or more, I was looking at references about the transient spike and I found about a half a dozen references from mainstream sites and they specifically said that this spike cannot be used for anything. I thought that was odd since there are fuses in surge protectors to blow so the "useless" spike won't blow anything out and blowing something out is work. So it is my mistake for assuming that all of the mainstream believed the same thing. If I can find the same web pages, this was from over a year ago, I will post links to show that is exactly what they said.

[tagor]

He's all set. Please let him know.

ok , I do it

[Armagdn03]

MileHigh,

I don't recall showing the circuit but the diodes on my caps were typical 1n4001 type of diodes - far from HV diode and with AC or DC, it charges easier with the 2 diodes. What is going over the wire is a unidirectional dc impulse at high frequency. The caps and/or battery is only receiving DC. The spikes charging the little photo flash cap are only a few hundred volts or less, within what I would imagine to be not too far from one of these inductive resistors - but are you saying these resistors cannot produce a spike when power is turned off?

I put my resistor (10 ohm 50 watt ceramic wire wound) on my Gray circuit and using DC impulses through diodes (still DC), the battery bank charges. Battery bank is made of 2 X 12v 7ah gel cells. Single wire battery charging with DC. Video will be posted soon.

I'm not changing plans. You said the circuit is open so the battery can't charge because there is no ground wire connected for current flow. And what I showed you is that a battery or cap can be charged with one wire - without the ground connected to the source of the spike - so where is the current coming from? You can say that I am trying to mislead people but that isn't true.

A year ago or more, I was looking at references about the transient spike and I found about a half a dozen references from mainstream sites and they specifically said that this spike cannot be used for anything. I thought that was odd since there are fuses in surge protectors to blow so the "useless" spike won't blow anything out and blowing something out is work. So it is my mistake for assuming that all of the mainstream believed the same thing. If I can find the same web pages, this was from over a year ago, I will post links to show that is exactly what they said.

Useless?

Those sites must be off their rockers.

If this were the case, there would be no tank (LC) circuits, for the inductor could not transfer its energy to the condenser.

Equation for energy in a transient spike =

E = 0.5L x I^2 (this is the same equation for energy contained in an inductor)

E = energy
L = inductance
I = current

[Aaron]

spike

That was my reaction when I saw it because I thought it was hypocritical that it was called useless or unusable.

I suppose that I interpreted it as meaning that it can't do do work for us. Maybe they had another meaning by calling it useless as in being a nuisance.

So maybe by them saying useless doesn't necessarily mean they are claiming it can't do work - but it definitely seems to be a serious mindset that the spike can't be captured and put to work again, and again, and again.

It was about 8-9 years ago or something after I met Bedini, I built the school girl motor. I then wound a separate air core coil of wire big enough to fit over rotor's uprights so that the wheel was essentially in the middle of this ring of wire and I had an LED in it. I connected the coil directly to the battery and the led lit and when I disconnected the battery the light went out.

I then flipped the coil over and put power to the coil. The LED did not light. But the moment I removed the wire from the battery, the LED lit. That made such a huge impact on me showing that work can be done AFTER disconnecting the power. It didn't matter that yes power was put into it to begin with - just showed something comes back and does work.

[witsend]

It seems that Zultan Szili does have experimental apparatus to show this field effect. In which case, GOTOLUC - we would be immensely grateful if you could solicit an invite to film it.

The problem here is that he's getting a whole lot of solicitations from all of us. I don't want to scare him off. So hold back. Let's establish a modus operandi and then we'll at least know to what extent he's prepared to be involved.

I cannot tell you how excellent this is. I've written to him - but not yet heard. But considering time lags, wont expect much before 16.00 our time - plus/minus 6 hours from now. I'm counting down the minutes.

And Fuzzy - you have gone above and beyond in searching out this gentleman and bringing his work to our attention. If he associates, in any capacity at all, then we may be able to get authoritative analysis - I hope - on some of our experiments. We can simply use his equations which seem to have been well tempered through experimentation. I'm always absurdly emotional. But right now I feel weepy - and it's not because I'm sad.