COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Big leagues - MileHigh? Can you support this with full disclosure of your name and credentials? It's needed if that's the claim. I personally, have no reason to doubt that you know whereof you speak. But I question your right to 'authority' without such disclosures. Until then - and with respect - I would take it that your recommendations are simply part of a discussion for the required test parameters. If you're seriously proposing that we simply and blindly 'do as you say' - then there is even less respect for our intelligence than I first realised.

The following quotes for MileHigh

>> The shunt resistor should be moved to the battery postive terminal, that way you can record the voltage drop across the shunt and derive your source voltage and current with a single recording channel.
My advices from experts is that the shunt remains at the negative terminal. This also goes to issues related to 'dampening' if that's the word - the oscillations that we need. More hereunder.

There is only the "shunt resistor", one resistor.
I have seen experts apply 'shunts' to monitor current flow - at up to five places on our circuit. I have no reason to doubt their need for this nor their expertise.

This all assumes that your battery voltage will be constant throughout the test, which is a reasonable assumption.
When in known classical physics and anywhere recorded throughout history has there been a 'reasonable assumption' that battery voltage will stay constant throughout the test period? Have I missed something?

It should still be spot-checked a few times during the test anyways with your multimeter. Personally I would still go with a "real" variable bench power supply and forget about the battery.
Answered by Aaron.

You should should not insert the thermocouple inside the tube, it should be on the outside.Convection drafts around and through the coil-resistor are not bad for the setup as long as they are let to form naturally and you don't interfere with them. These convection drafts are an integral and very important part of the setup.
My object here is to ensure that nothing interfers with the waveform. I'll get back to this.

The Excel analysis is the heart of your power measurement. If you can't figure that out get someone to explain this in more detail for you. There should be no aliasing as long as you sample at a high enough rate.
With the utmost respect MileHigh it would be wonderful if we could conduct a test where the data is dumped - on a continual basis - throughout 16 hours of a proposed test period - for detailed monitoring. We do not, I believe, have that set up, unless between Peter and Aaron it can be achieved with the fluke. In the absense of such, regular dumping of data from the storage facility of the Fluke is the best that I propose can be done. All I was referring to was the need to check that the digital values displayed marry with those dumps to get the required initialisation of the test procedure.

Regarding your discussion of sample rates. I think we're arguing the same thing. Unless you are objecting to the need to establish some average over a series of waveforms? Regarding the variac - or bench power supply - or anything at all, I was simply pointing to the need to establish a control to determine wattage dissipated. This was omitted from your recommendations.

Regarding the evaluation of energy delivered and returned frome the battery. Can you please advise me if you refute that energy is, in fact, being returned. If you concede that some does return and some is discharged, then I am proposing that you determine this from the sample range of voltage across the shunts. If you don't concede this then you must argue with those experts who require this.

Note the positive of the battery is the same node as the other side of the coil-resistor. Not to fight, but truly, the coil-resistor discharges across the diode and back into itself. You will just have to keep exploring this circuit and one day you may arrive at the same conclusion. Your comment about "heat being added to the heat value" makes no sense.
Classical assumption is that the diode returns energy back to the coil. New age assumption differs. The object of the test this. We are generating some delicate resonance and oscillations. Undue pressure applied to the circuit wire or sundry components may obviate this benefit. Indeed for those that have worked on eliminating the Hartley effect it's all that's required. If you insist that the diode is positioned as you have proposed this may be enough to obviate that resonating phenomenon. It takes very little to 'take it away'. That's not from me. That's from experts.

I think that someone should walk you through how the test works step by step, explaining the rationale behind how it works. Again, the statement above makes no sense in the context of what you are trying to achieve here.

Milehigh. I have no objection to you referencing my lack of knowledge. But don't presume that I have none. It is offensive.

[witsend]

Why not use a capacitor for the input ? A battery act differently at each plateau , a capacitor discharge curve is predictable so at any moment you will know exactly how much power is in it, no more question about fluffy charge. If that dosent work with a capacitor then its a chemical process who make the magic and not the circuit directly.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

I'm not sure of the answer here EgmQC. I think it's to do with the need to get evidence of 'returning energy' from the 'off' period of the duty cycle. I'm not sure that the cap doesn't somehow hide this value. But we'll need Aaron or Peter to answer this.

[witsend]

Hmm sorry to say, i am sadly out of touch with my old contacts, as i left that field about 10 years ago and went into another electronics-related one (high-speed industrial printers for packaging and "RFID"), for several years... Before just up and quitting one day from the "fortune 500" corporate life rat-race, and moving down here to the Florida Keys. I DO NOT regret it, and they can take their cell phones, laptops, and airport security lines and stick them into sunshine-challenged storage cells

Actually i am not old enough to "retire", so i often do consulting/systems integration and install work related to "off-grid living"... Mainly with live-aboard boaters and "out-islanders" seeking renewable energy systems. I also fish, and pretend to be a writer and free lance journalist. And i have been doing EE consulting work for an alternative energy project here that is hoping to be Granted soon with some serious cash so we can go into production of tide turbine generators.

I would probably still be in corporate electronics full time, but my published articles on the excesses and crimes of the bush regime lost me my Security Clearances... And around here any electronics jobs worth having are related to the Navy bases in or near Key West. Ever since i realized i was "blackballed" i've made it my mission to make sure they get their money's worth

So i am afraid i can't help much there... "Loudmouths" have very limited utility when you get down to it.

Have been giggling over this post. Copied the whole thing so I can see it on this page as well. I entirely misread you. I had an idea that you were a conservative - restrained - measured - middleclass - mind your manners - law abiding citizen. Not a rampant loose cannon enjoying the rights to freedom of speech. What a pleasure Jibbguy. We have much more in common than I realised. You just have a more adventurous turn of phrase.

[Aaron]

battery is important

The shunt resistor will record any current going back into the battery or power supply by going voltage positive.

If you think that the battery is "multiplying" that power or using it to somehow capture energy from the environment, all of that discussion will have to wait for a whole second round of testing after the first claim is tested.

This sounds reasonable to a point and even the patent applications address wall power applications.

However, there is complex chemistry in a battery and in some conditions a battery will exhibit negative resistance when charged with voltage potential without current.

Read this:
Bedini's Method for Forming Negative Resistors in Batteries

I'm not saying the battery is developing negative resistance in Rosemary's circuit but there is so much more about batteries that conventional science understands.

There is a real chemical change in the battery on the discharge pulse and there is a real chemical change in the battery when it receives a recharge pulse. The chemistry itself in a battery is something a wall supply will never give. The spike going back to the battery can cause MORE of a charge in the battery than the you can account for in the spike alone - because of the chemistry.

In chemistry it is known that 1 + 1 can equal 3 and this is why do doubt that the Nobel Prize was given to Ilya Prigogine in 1977 for open dissipate systems was given in chemistry. Any system that is open to the environment can freely output MORE than the operator inputs - extending thermodynamics to encompass Over 1.0 COP systems as a matter of fact.

That chemistry in the battery plays an important role and I just happen to personally know a few people that have run THOUSANDS of hours of tests on recharging batteries and have shown gains in the battery where conventional science says there can't be any. I have personally witnessed many of these tests and have experienced the gains myself.

The battery allows for extra gain beyond what the spike going back will show and a wall supply will never reveal this.

It is not something that needs to be tested afterwards, it can be done from the start just like all the other validated tests by credentialed academics.

[Aaron]

cap vs coil

That is just plain incorrect.

Heat is generated while charging a capacitor in MUCH the same manner as when energizing an inductor, but inductors are more lossy due to their finite DC resistance.

.99

I can transfer potential from cap to cap with my methods with almost zero loss. And I can charge a cap with pure potential and virtually no current and zero heat is generated. There are quite a few people on this board that have experimented with just this concept.

A cap charged is not electrons piling on plates but I'm sure you believe that too, that is fine but the point is, charging a resistive element is supposed to dissipate all the energy moving through it - and THEN, the coil is charged, collapses and gives a good portion of the energy back. Meaning the heat is not connected to the amount of energy moving thru the inductive resistor.

It isn't the same comparison.

[Aaron]

battery vs cap

Why not use a capacitor for the input ? A battery act differently at each plateau , a capacitor discharge curve is predictable so at any moment you will know exactly how much power is in it, no more question about fluffy charge. If that dosent work with a capacitor then its a chemical process who make the magic and not the circuit directly.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

I thought about using a cap but it is missing battery chemistry. I believe battery chemistry will play a role. Without the battery probably a gain, maybe not as much but to do this circuit justice, the replication attempt should be the same and changing anything is simply not science.

But the magic isn't just a battery. It must be realized that heat was produced in the resistor and the energy only passed through it without dissipating...that is very "magical" and certainly is independent of the magic in a battery charging more than the potential put to it.

Putting them together, I can easily see why it is clearly the most simple and highest COP device ever put in the public domain and easy enough for people to build and experience. Even at a COP of only 5, it would already make most heat pumps obsolete because cost of production is a fraction.

The real kicker is heat made without dissipating the energy - energy is recovered in the spike. Clearly with this kind of recovery, conservation of energy is a fairytale. It is anyway, but for the benefit of the doubt, I'll enjoy seeing this circuit prove itself out in time and eventually by hundreds and possibly thousands of people around the world by the end of the year. It is an unstoppable snowball effect.

[poynt99]

Big leagues - MileHigh? Can you support this with full disclosure of your name and credentials? It's needed if that's the claim.

Trying to stay out of the fray here, but some things are just too odd not to inquire about. Not that MH needs defending, but his (and others') trials and tribulations on this and other threads is my own as well.

Why would anyone making the statement MH did have to demonstrate their credentials? It has nothing to do with his credentials, but it has everything to do with what legs one has to stand on, and how well they will hold up to heavy scrutiny.

Any individual with few technical credentials but good observation skills can see when an impending circumstance (escalating the issues and questioning the "critics'" and "distractors" integrity") is going to involve some serious vetting. I would hope that all following this thread see this too.

One is either toying around (no hard data, evidence, etc.) making big claims to those that will lend the ear, or one is going head-on with the big boys (in general Rosemary, not literally, i.e. not MH himself for heaven's sake) which involves serious testing and scrutiny of all the data, test procedures and conditions, and repeatability, etc.. That's what MH intended by that statement, and I am puzzled why you would not interpret it that way yourself.

You're poising yourself to take on the establishment, not any one individual. And one poises themselves the moment they utter a claim that goes against the accepted understanding.

Don't blame anyone for the heat (excuse the pun) you're taking on, it goes with the territory you've ventured into. One either stands up and defends themselves hopefully on solid ground with sound evidence, or one goes back home and polishes up for next time. The choice is yours.

.99

[gotoluc]

Hi all
I also decided to test this concept out. My setup is a simple PWM circuit that has an adjustable duty cycle and the lowest on times are about 4.8%. The MOSFET is IRFP360. I used a wire wound resistor, it is something like 100w and 330Ohms, I did not have anything else at hand. It is wound on a ceramic tube, the hole in the ceramic tube is perfect to slide in a ferrite rod because this allows to adjust the inductance and thus the efficiency. The pot on the MOSFET base is 10k, but turning it on max does not make the MOSFET self oscillate, maybe I need higher resistance. I used 12v12Ah batteries in series for this test, I have enough of these to go up to 200v. Anyway, here is the setup:



I recorded some scope shots, maybe this will help someone. This is the scope shot across the resistor without any recovery:
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/..._diode_36v.JPG

This is when the recovery diode is attached to the positive of the battery bank with the same setup settings:
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/..._diode_36v.JPG

This is closer look at the waveform at 36v and without any core material:
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/..._diode_36v.JPG

And this is the same setup with a ferrite core:
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/..._diode_36v.JPG

The higher the voltages, the higher also the spike. But also the ferrite core adjustment changes the amplitude of the spike, for example at 60V I managed to get up to 384v peak to peak with adjusted core position.
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/...e_position.jpg

Also the duty cycle plays a role on the magnitude of the spike. At 48v I found that 30% duty cycle makes the highest spikes:
http://www.emuprim.lv/bildez/images/...nti_1/48v2.jpg

But the higher the voltages, the smaller duty cycle is needed for maximum spikes.

Now I need to change the MOSFET base pot for higher resistance and to change the PWM for smaller duty cycles. But this is interesting
Thanks,
Jetijs

Excellent test report Jetijs

Most all your scope shots are identical to what I have been seeing

It's interesting to see that when the input voltage is higher you can turn DOWN or UP the duty cycle (to a certain point) and it hardly has any change on the flyback spike

Thanks for sharing your tests.

Luc

[witsend]

Answering .99 here

Why would anyone making the statement MH did have to demonstrate their credentials?
No need if there's a discussion. Every need if his proposals are beyond question.

Any individual with few technical credentials but good observation skills can see when an impending circumstance (escalating the issues and questioning the "critics'" and "distractors" integrity") is going to involve some serious vetting. I would hope that all following this thread see this too.
Not sure of your point here. Who are the 'critics' and who the distractors and whose integrity is being questioned?

One is either toying around (no hard data, evidence, etc.) making big claims to those that will lend the ear, or one is going head-on with the big boys (in general Rosemary, not literally, i.e. not MH himself for heaven's sake) which involves serious testing and scrutiny of all the data, test procedures and conditions, and repeatability, etc.. That's what MH intended by that statement, and I am puzzled why you would not interpret it that way yourself.
.99 I want serious testing of this data, or indeed of any data, related to OU. If that involves the big boys so much the better. Indeed it must be well scrutinised. Who's arguing?

You're poising yourself to take on the establishment, not any one individual. And one poises themselves the moment they utter a claim that goes against the accepted understanding.
I agree. I'm aware of this. But its not been addressed by the establishment.

Don't blame anyone for the heat (excuse the pun) you're taking on, it goes with the territory you've ventured into. One either stands up and defends themselves hopefully on solid ground with sound evidence, or one goes back home and polishes up for next time. The choice is yours.
Who am I blaming?

My answers to MileHigh are simply that the points in his proposed 'test' be appropriate and up for discussion. Is that somehow unreasonable?

EDIT - OK I see it. You're saying MileHigh isn't the big league player but others are? In which case, I owe MileHigh an apology. But the other points need to be addressed. Could you comment .99?

[poynt99]

I can transfer potential from cap to cap with my methods with almost zero loss. And I can charge a cap with pure potential and virtually no current and zero heat is generated. There are quite a few people on this board that have experimented with just this concept.

No doubt you are referring to the myriad of capacitor-to-capacitor experiments around? Transferring energy from cap to cap with little (there will always be some) loss is not easy, but it can be and is done. So what is special about it? In theory with a pure inductor you can transfer energy from cap to cap with zero loss. The catch is you still had to pay double for the energy that went into the first cap from the battery or other voltage source.

A cap charged is not electrons piling on plates but I'm sure you believe that too, that is fine but the point is, charging a resistive element is supposed to dissipate all the energy moving through it - and THEN, the coil is charged, collapses and gives a good portion of the energy back. Meaning the heat is not connected to the amount of energy moving thru the inductive resistor.

It isn't the same comparison.

How the charge is stored in a capacitor is not important for the analogy. Your description is correct. Heat is dissipated in the coil resistance and connecting wires, and also some energy is stored as magnetic flux. Then when the coil de-energizes, it does so once again through it's own coil resistance into whatever you have connected as a load. So you lose some energy both when energizing and de-energizing the coil.

It is the very same thing when charging and discharging capacitors. Some heat is dissipated (energy lost) in the connecting wires during both phases. That is why the cap to cap energy transfer experiments when done only with wires (no coils) lose half their energy each time.

.99

[poynt99]

Answering .99 here

Why would anyone making the statement MH did have to demonstrate their credentials?
No need if there's a discussion. Every need if his proposals are beyond question.

Not sure what there is to discuss? What is beyond question?

Any individual with few technical credentials but good observation skills can see when an impending circumstance (escalating the issues and questioning the "critics'" and "distractors" integrity") is going to involve some serious vetting. I would hope that all following this thread see this too.
Not sure of your point here. Who are the 'critics' and who the distractors and whose integrity is being questioned?

Myself, MH, TK, et al, here representing the "establishment". For the record, these were terms placed on us by this forum, not by our choice. It is rather odd that you question our integrity, but no one else's. (Please don't ask who, you know who they are.)

You're poising yourself to take on the establishment, not any one individual. And one poises themselves the moment they utter a claim that goes against the accepted understanding.
I agree. I'm aware of this. But its not been addressed by the establishment.

What did the establishment miss then?

Don't blame anyone for the heat (excuse the pun) you're taking on, it goes with the territory you've ventured into. One either stands up and defends themselves hopefully on solid ground with sound evidence, or one goes back home and polishes up for next time. The choice is yours.
Who am I blaming?

Are you not feeling any heat? Well then good I guess

My answers to MileHigh are simply that the points in his proposed 'test' be appropriate and up for discussion. Is that somehow unreasonable?

It can be up for discussion, what's the problem?

EDIT - OK I see it. You're saying MileHigh isn't the big league player but others are? In which case, I owe MileHigh an apology. But the other points need to be addressed. Could you comment .99?

I'm saying that it is obvious that you are stepping into a whole new realm of scrutiny if you don't accept the norms of established science. You are putting yourself out there.

I was not commenting on whether MH is a big league player or not, I do not in fact even know. It is evident to me though that he is well educated and has a solid understanding and background in electronics, as a minimum. I consider him a worthy peer.

I recognize fellow peers because I have the background and knowledge to assess their level of understanding to a degree. We all acquire this knack after some time in the field....you get a "feel" for where other folks stand technically.

I suspect Rosemary that you may not have this "feel" because in addition to questioning our credentials you would be questioning those of individuals you currently support. But you do not. What makes them more qualified than us? Are you impartial? I believe that you are much more partial to those that support your notion that your circuit exhibits OU.

.99

[Aaron]

TK's accountability

poynt99,

If TK claims the mosfet is unable to fully turn on in false triggering mode and battery voltage climbs because it is unable to deliver, do you think there is any integrity in ignoring the fact that I'm bringing up that he needs to scope the shunt at the same time so he can see that his claims are false?

I find his credentials extremely questionable for the following reasons:

1. He apparently had no idea that false triggering on a mosfet (and other switches) is there when the mosfet is self-oscillating. I provided references so it isn't just me saying it...it is the INDUSTRY saying it themselves in all their technical papers and data sheets. Without the "credentials" I knew it was in self oscillation - I have run countless self-oscillation experiments in the past 8 years and I know when a switch is in self oscillation.

2. He apparently had no idea that to see if there was a real oscillation or not, he should have known to scope the shunt to see if there were in deed pulsations of current/voltage leaving the battery giving clear proof that the mosfet is indeed turning off and on at high frequency. It was either you or mile high that even mentioned looking at secondary validation. Without the "credentials" I knew to do that but TK didn't???

3. He has been unable to get his mosfets into self oscillation and I have been able to from 1% up to 99% as long as gate resistance is high enough and the frequency is high enough. Without the "credentials" I have been able to do it. If he scopes his shunt and sees he is actually in oscillation, most likely, then point 3 is negated meaning that it takes a non-credentialed person to show him how to conduct his own experiments.

There are more, but seeing that you consider MH a peer and TK a peer, don't you think that you have a personal responsibility to keep TK accountable to his claims just as well by asking him to do more than one test before jumping to conclusions? I see none of this. Claiming to be self triggering and not in self oscillation is not only wrong but laughable.

I can show very clear scope shots of the self oscillation and I will do so if and when he demonstrates integrity by doing more than one verification and jumping to conclusions.

If you think TK has any qualifications to question what is happening and if he indeed does, then his blunder is either A - Intentional to simply discredit it because he has personal or other reasons to ensure that things remain the same or B - He made a huge mistake and is unwilling to admit it or C - He really doesn't have the expertise with non-equilibrium circuits and he is actually out of his league since we do have experience with these circuits.

Again, all the credentials out there for EE science really apply to closed system thermodynamics and if you do your research, you can see that thermodynamics really has been extended to encompass non-equilibrium systems. It isn't just me saying it, this goes all the way from Nobel Prize winning science to low key university and govt projects, which you can find reference to all over the internet.

So does all of this violate those laws? NO, under the condition that it is admitted that those laws are only laws that apply to closed systems and NOT to open systems. If they are laws that cannot be violated no matter what, then absolutely, those laws are shredded up one end and down the other.

[Aaron]

establishment

Myself, MH, TK, et al, here representing the "establishment". For the record, these were terms placed on us by this forum, not by our choice.

I'm saying that it is obvious that you are stepping into a whole new realm of scrutiny if you don't accept the norms of established science. You are putting yourself out there.

.99, does your username imply that you don't believe in 1.0 or above? Just wondering.

Anyway, you say that we are the ones labeling you as part of the "establishment."

However, your argument is that if we don't accept the norms of ESTABLISHED science, then we open ourselves up.

Therefore, you are are calling yourself a part of the establishment for the fact that you are scrutinizing what we are doing since we don't accept your science.

So this forum has little to do with labeling you and your peers as "establishment" because you are already considering yourself as such before you ever got here seeing that you DO believe in "established" science.

EDIT: For the fact that something is "established" as a reality for the masses does not equate with objective reality. It is only consensus reality, which is subjective.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Ground - Grounded - Grounding

Hi everyone,

Here is some information that relates to the differences between North American 120/240 Volt and European 240 volt utility services, it's extremely important that any replications requiring any grounding that is free from stray voltages, frequencies or harmonics that can be transfered through a neutral conductor into a ground wire.

The single or two phase illustrations are from the HV utility connection to a home, farm or business (no 3-phase system illustrated) service or circuit breaker panel would be very similar if not the same.

This is what I call the 'cow' document the information was prepared in 1986 as an activity of the North DAkota Power Use Council, an organization of the Rural Electric Cooperatives, Investor Owned Utilities, Generating and Transmission Cooperatives, North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science and the Rural Electrification Administration in North Dakota. This is on stray voltages in "dairy farms" using a North American Utility connection and how to limit the stray voltages from neutral to ground to less than .5 volts from resistive or inductive loads so that the cows will not get electrocuted while being milked.

There have been many changes in the standard grounding requirements in North America structures from first a water pipe ground connection later adding a ground rod, years after adding a second ground rod now the requirement is a "ufer" ground (concrete encased rebar foundation connection) with a #4 Copper Wire from the service circuit breaker panel for over 100 amps of grounding and dissipation of unwanted stray voltages, frequencies and harmonics from inductive or resistive 120 Volt loads.

http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/abeng/pdffiles/epq108.pdf

Here is a image of a North American 120/240 Volt utility connection -



Here is a modified Image to show the 240 Volt European, Asian and African utility connection -



This is the difference between a "clean" (European) and a "dirty" (North American) earth ground.

The best way for a "clean" ground for a needed replication is a "Isolated Grounding System" (earth ground) the next two are a UPS power supply or a large capacity 12 volt DC battery using a 120 VAC inverter (floating ground) for a clean grounding plane. The last two options are highly recommended to have checked carefully prior to use with a scope and DMM to insure all correct parameters are met for your electronic requirements.

Best Regards,
Glen

[witsend]

.99 another go at this.

Your interpretation of 'stored energy' has nothing to do with inductive laws and the regeneration of current flow during the off period of the switching cycle. New age considers this moment as the inevitable introduction of more energy to a system. To test this - my little circuit applied to a battery. Measurement protocol in line with classical requirements. The gain evident in a battey recharge cycle. I know classicists refute this and explain it differently. Please don't repeat your arguments. I'm explaining the point where the two fields of study differ.

I do not question anyone's integrity. I am questioning which of the two theories can be proven and how? That does not go to moral issues. Purely theoretical - intellectual - hypothetical. No attack intended. No such attack at the person would be appropriate. The argument is not proved through statements such as 'we know better'. It may very well be true. But it is not an argument.

I feel that any comments regarding the question are appropriate. But endless - endless discussion on extraneous possible errors or misreprestations or not of circuitry - does not actually address the question in the paper. The question in the paper has everything to do with a redefinition of current flow - argued in terms of the defeat of conservation barriers. Switch a current from a supply source, allow a regeneration of current flow and you will get an evident and measurable gain that exceeds unity.

MileHigh suggested that any addition to his proposed test parameters would be inappropriate coming from me. There is no earthly way he can object to my proposals unless he is also claiming some kind of authorative expertise that renders his proposal 'above question or discussion'. I know there must be discussion. I've added my tuppence worth. That's all. And I'd thank MileHigh not to dismiss my input as being irrelevant or unnecessary. They are in fact both relevant and necessary.

I suspect Rosemary that you may not have this "feel" because in addition to questioning our credentials you would be questioning those of individuals you currently support. But you do not. What makes them more qualified than us? Are you impartial? I believe that you are much more partial to those that support your notion that your circuit exhibits OU.
I have NOT questioned your credentials. How many ways can I say this. I am, nonetheless inclined to defend OU results that are experimentally evident notwithstanding the challenge from mainstream. I am very familiar with mainstream opinion on such results. Outside this forum it tends to lack a certain objectivity.

.99 We've been through this. I only want to ask you to please - lets check the evidence before we come to conclusions. For now - please confirm that the test parameters outlined would meet your own requirements for required protocol. We've both got lots to learn. And I'm struggling here. I don't want to lose your interest. Nor will I be bullied into ignoring an essential regeneration cycle from this switching circuit.