COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

.99: Just some colour commentary. There are indeed tiny capacitive effects but I ignored them. It's fair to say that a few things happen at the same time.

The principle event that takes place when the MOSFET switches off is that the coil has to discharge it's stored energy. The stray capacitors are very small and will charge up almost instantly and may generate a tiny sipke. However, when they get charged there is still a ton of energy that still has to be discharged out of the coil. The coil is acting as a current source, not as a voltage source when it discharges. So the current literally blasts it's way through the the reversed-biased protection diode and/or the n-p and p-n junctions inside the MOSFET. Those junctions are supposed to be off, and instead get blasted with current coming from the coil (with a minor boost from the battery). They weather the electron storm and the junctions start to heat up. Beyond a certain temperature the semiconductor material fails and you have lost the MOSFET. All in all, it's a very unhealthy experience for the MOSFET.

I am no expert in circuit ringing but let me spin a story. The interconnet wires themselves are inductors, the semiconductor junctons are capacitors, and there is stray capicatance that is probably much larger than the semiconductor junction capacitance. So when current in the interconnect wires is stopped abruptly, you ring the inductor-capacitor bells in the wires, and see a nice litte 2 MHz (?) ring-downs in many wire interconnects. The resistances in the wires themselves dampen the oscillations down to zero. <Edit: 2 MHz is not a special frequency, every individual wire interconnect will ring at its own frequency.>

Back to the circuit: In very simple terms, you know that current is flowing clockwise. When the MOSFET switches off, the coil comes to life and KEEPS the current flowing clockwise for as long as it can. The reason for this is that coils resist changes in current flow, and therefore the current HAS to flow for a short while longer, there is no stopping the coil. This is simply a property of coils. The high voltage spike is a manifestaton of the fact that the current has to keep flowing in the same direction. If you changed the coil for a much much larger coil and put it in the same circuit, it would take longer for the coil to reach it's maximum current affter the MOSFET switches on. A much larger coil will of course store much more energy, and when the MOSFET switches off, it will instantly blow up! No sheit!

More fun! lol

MileHigh

[RAMSET]

Part C:
YouTube - Aaron's circuit PART C
Part D:
YouTube - Aaron's circuit PART D

I have _at last_ been able to get some true parasitic oscillations out of my "Aaron's Rod" circuit. Now that I've got the right resistor in the positive rail...

So I've made a couple new vids, they are processing and uploading now. I'm able to show that I do get parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind, and I still believe that Aaron's scope is missing triggering to produce the bands that he is seeing.

The parasitic oscillations are regular, albeit quite complex. Since the voltage on the battery monitor goes up, this means that the mosfet is not allowing as much power through during these oscillations.

Or, it means that power is being fed back to the battery, and the battery monitor is just showing the sum of the forward and reversed power.

Or the crack into the seventh dimension is leaking again.

Note that the Aaron's circuit is widely different than Ainslie's and is being operated at a much higher frequency. I still have not been able to get my Ainslie build to misbehave. I guess I'll have to (cringe) hook up this breadboarded timer to clock it and see what happens.

But at least I know for sure what happens in the Ainslie circuit with a good solid 3 percent pulse when there's NO OU.

So any OU will have to beat that baseline.


But I'm really curious about one thing:

I've done some experiments where heat was measured, and I've reported those experiments. Why hasn't there been any comment on those? I thought that photo especially would have gotten some play.

Is it because people already realize that the heat can't be OU, so they're trying to find OU in the battery charging explanation...even though we should know by now that voltage is not power, power is not energy, and energy is all that matters?

And with all this brouhaha about minor circuit variations making big differences in behavior, why hasn't Rosemary shown us the exact circuit, since she has said several times that she still has the apparatus...

You see, many direct questions have been dodged or ignored, and that is not helping people like me. Or anybody else, except those who wish to hide the truth or change history.

Rosemary, we need to see your exact circuit used, your raw data, your spreadsheet calculations, the vetting laboratory and university laboratory reports you keep citing, and so forth, in order to be able properly to evaluate your claims.

Publication in even a fringe peer-reviewed journal like JSE would need those items and more. They would need to see those things before even considering publishing a claim like COP>17.

Don't believe me? JSE is actively looking for experimental reports of this kind.

I suggest you submit your article to them and see what kind of response you get.

Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE)

Because at the conclusion of my researches concerning your claims, I will be preparing a paper for submission to them, and you really do deserve equal time.

And I, as you know, have hard data, and I'm not afraid of scientific scrutiny


I have made Yet Another Video of the scope lost trigger phenomenon, using the Tek 2213A scope. As I suspected, its trigger is not as good as the Philips and it is easy to show the phenomenon Aaron demonstrated. The mosfet is oscillating because of the bad ( in Engineering terms, not Free energy terms) drive signal from the 555 timer, and at certain settings the scope loses trigger on the complex noisy signal. There is actually very little true "noise" in that signal, though.

However, when I try to upload the video I get this:
Quote

This functionality is not available right now. Please try again later.


This is clearly an attempt by the Ainslie crewe to prevent me from posting my results. They must be reading my emails and personal correspondence, and I want it stopped. I understand Ainslie takes her orders from someone called, "Jolt." Probably a pseudonym, intended to conceal a true identity.



Or it could be that YT is doing maintenance, so I'll try again in a few minutes.



(EDIT: Which delay gave me time to make Yet Another video, part F, where I trace the oscillation to the 555 timer definitely, and show again, definitely, that the oscillation is regular and Aaron's phenomenon is loss of scope trigger.)

I'll post the links here as soon as I can upload them.

Grok the Fullness!


VERY INPORTANT: I just realized, and confirmed, that the oscillation in my circuit, and probably Aaron's is happening when the mosfet is supposed to be OFF. Remember, the drain signal is High when the mosfet is OFF, and the 555 timer is high when the mosfet is supposed to be ON. So timer pulse High, Mosfet ON, drain signal Low.
Look at the traces. The oscillation happens before the timer is turning ON, not off, so the oscillations in the mosfet drain are causing the mosfet to leak power when it's supposed to be OFF according to the driving pulse.

Another point obfuscated by Aaron's misinformation project

[Aaron]

TK's fraud

Ramset,

I don't have a smiley appropriate for this forum to respond that this deception but I'll try.

First, I'm quite aware of where I placed the timer ground originally, yes it should be on the other side of the resistor. But what has that got to do with the FACT that my circuit WAS producing square waves with the resistor on the battery EXACTLY like I said? Nothing, it is a distraction from the point that my mosfet was oscillating, period but you want to jiggle a sock puppet out in the other direction so people don't see the main point.

First he claims there is NO oscillation, second it is oscillating because of bad timing signal. No consistency in what he is saying, a bit of truth goes a long way, would be good to see him demonstrate some. I can get it to oscillate to at 99% duty cycle and he gripes about the quantum circuit. lol

It should be more than obvious to anyone that he is deceiving people. He said clearly on his video that he ADMITS that he can't get his mosfet to oscillate no matter what.

That is a very clear claim. Then he says:

Here is his exact quote from ou:

"I have _at last_ been able to get some true parasitic oscillations out of my "Aaron's Rod" circuit. Now that I've got the right resistor in the positive rail...

So I've made a couple new vids, they are processing and uploading now. I'm able to show that I do get parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind, and I still believe that Aaron's scope is missing triggering to produce the bands that he is seeing.

The parasitic oscillations are regular, albeit quite complex."

Then he now says:
"I have linked your triggering flaw to your induced oscillations in the mosfet, which are primarily caused by your improper signal driving the mosfet."

So improper signal causes???

• true paracitic oscillation
• parasitic oscillations of the classic textbook kind
• parasitic oscillation that are regular

That means that my circuit produced real clean oscillations that the scope is reading. When I zoom in, I see very clear high frequency pulses going thru the coil and the shunt. That means there is no improper signal driving the mosfet, it means that I was zoomed out too much on the scope.

He said he gets true oscillations that he can see with my circuit since he duplicated it exactly. Yet he claims at the same time that improper signal is causing the triggering flaw. Yet, if he can see the oscillations with my circuit and my circuit is dong true oscillations as he claimed word for word, then that means he has multiple personality disorder where one personality doesn't remember what the other said.

His analysis is fraud or incompetance. In either case, it is bogus. He couldn't even see his mosfet oscillating until he used my circuit and got it right! I guess I shouldn't say stole because I give it away from free. At least he has something that works now that he can learn from since nothing he built works right.

[Aaron]

@ramset

Ramset, you are either working for TK, you ARE TK or you have a different agenda, but honestly posting message from here to OU is not what you are doing.

I asked you if you could post my message. You selectively nit-picked my message to TK on the triggering issue. I know you did because I read your message.

That is why I posted it myself since you are doing whatever is convenient to make TK look good and preventing any followers there from seeing the truth to his M.O.

I already told you, I know what you're doing and you are not fooling anyone.

If you post anything from here to there again and selectively leave out pertinant information that exposes TK's fraud or incompetance, don't bother posting in this particular thread again.

[RAMSET]

Aaron glad you pointed that out

When I cut and paste to the other forum Nothing but regular text appears No BIG[BIGGER THAN THIS]print appears No scope shots or pics
If you would tell me how[to post all your custum stuff [Exta big words etc...] I would Greatly appreciate it
I noticed this when I cut and pasted that post[meant to ask you then]
But have been very busy with new Grandchild Duty
BTW thanks for the congrats

Chet

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Aaron, good job, you are the master detective and you and I must be able to see things through the same lens, that of integrity and honesty. Good job and good work with the circuit tests.
peace love light

[poynt99]

Rosemary,

I closely read through MileHigh's proposed testing protocol and I see no problems with it.

I also see no problems with your test protocol either, up to page 8 in the EIT paper. Everything seems sound to me, but I am not an expert in this area.

What does make me weary is the actual raw data itself. We do not have much information as to how it looked, nor how it was massaged in the spreadsheet. Another thing that I have doubts about is the equipment sampling your data. How good is it? Is the sample rate high enough to capture ALL those fast spikes? Is the equipment being fooled at all by them? These are issues that need to be worked out before testing begins.

Same thing goes with MH's protocol. The data needs to be solid and the number crunching checked, i.e. exactly how the numbers are to be massaged. This is where many errors are probably made.

If I had my Joule meter fully designed and built, for me that would be the way to go. Every component would be monitored simultaneously, and you would have a real time readout of anything you desired, COP, Watts, Current Voltage, and of course a running accumulation of Joules.

.99

[Aaron]

funny stuff

Besides, this oscillation thing is Yet another Red Herring.

Anyone with eyeballs can see that I have already reproduces essentially the heating profile that Ainslie claimed to get, and I'm using a known fast risetime clean 3 percent dutycycle with no parasitic oscillations. And my input power figures are nearly the same as Ainslie's.

The appearance of battery recharging and the accounting of the power flows through the circuit have been analyzed by Henieck and MileHigh and others, and this phenomenon also does not depend on the mosfet oscillation--as it can and has been observed in many other pulsed charging systems, that even Aaron can probably cite.

So, if the oscillation isn't necessary for the heat, and it isn't necessary for the appearance of battery recharging, what's it there for?

It is there to obfuscate the issue. Please tell me how the duty cycle figures cited in Ainslie's paper are compatible with the oscillations on Aaron's scope. Take single shots all you want...they will still result in regular traces that can be easily computed, when done properly.

(Don't forget, I have these 2 digital sampling storage oscilloscopes sitting here next to my analog ones. It is just possible that I do know whereof I speak, in spite of Aaron's enlightenment.)

Of course there is heat without the oscillation. LOL

"Please tell me how the duty cycle figures cited in Ainslie's paper are compatible with the oscillations on Aaron's scope"

The papers say the oscillation OVERRIDES the timing signal.

The false triggering on my scope in TK's mind has mysteriously transformed into "oscillations" on my scope.

And things that even I can cite. WOW, I'm honored!

Claiming the oscillation is a red herring is complete proof, not evidence, but proof that once again, TK jumps to remarkable conclusions without doing the tests.

[MileHigh]

TK and Aaaron: Remember the John Lennon Bed-In for peace in 1969? You both should forget about the oscillation issue for now and pick it up later. May I suggest focusing on making sure your MOSFET switching function is working properly, and then making measurements with a 3% pulse waveform input. I acknowledge TK's first go at making a real measurement and it does not show OU, but it's lost in a verbal storm. You should be bouncing ideas off each other and trying to help each other. Or agree to disagree or something.

Later on you both should try documentating the different ways you can induce oscillation. Aaron, with all due respect, if you want to contunue working with circuits you should be willing to learn and take input from others, and be hunting around online for more information or go visit a bookstore. TK, make your point a maximum of two times and then let it pass and move on and keep the interesting info and clips coming. It would be great to see this come to a resolution. It's a simple setup and a few of you out there have the equipment to do it.

For those that don't know: A scope trigger: If you leave it on "auto" all the time (modern scope) then you are making a big mistake. It should be played with on manual. You can set the voltage the scope triggers at and if it is going to be a rising or falling edge trigger. You can look at your waveform and play with the trigger. You can make an intelligent decision on what level to set the trigger voltage at and if it is going to be on a rising edge or a falling edge of your waveform. If your waveform modulates a bit in amplitude, you can set your trigger level to catch the top-most peak of your waveform. Whenever the waveform goes down a bit in amplitude, then you loose trigger and, depending on your time base setting, see a jumble of unsynchronized waves or contrast bands.

Good luck everybody and peace and love and put a flower in your hair.

MileHigh

[Aaron]

text

When I cut and paste to the other forum Nothing but regular text appears No BIG[BIGGER THAN THIS]print appears No scope shots or pics
If you would tell me how[to post all your custum stuff [Exta big words etc...] I would Greatly appreciate it
I noticed this when I cut and pasted that post[meant to ask you then]
But have been very busy with new Grandchild Duty
BTW thanks for the congrats

Chet

I have no problem with a pic not being able to post that is why I posted it but you only posted a fraction of the TEXT, which does copy over.

[FuzzyTomCat]

When I cut and paste to the other forum Nothing but regular text appears No BIG[BIGGER THAN THIS]print appears No scope shots or pics
If you would tell me how[to post all your custum stuff [Exta big words etc...] I would Greatly appreciate it
I noticed this when I cut and pasted that post[meant to ask you then]
But have been very busy with new Grandchild Duty
BTW thanks for the congrats

Chet

Hi Chet,

I think Aaron is really busy right now conducting electronic experiments in his lab and may even be really tired from his endless work on FE devices. So I'll try hard to answer your questions as best I can.

This image is a Standard SMF Forum "Post Reply" screen with full options -



This is OverUnity's "Post Reply" screen with only options allowed by the "Administration" or one having control of the Forum -



As you can see all the questions that you asked have been omitted and are unavailable at "OverUnity" to display from Energetic Forum that uses vBulletin Forum software.

Images can be transfered from one site to another but is not a easy task using the mouse right click "copy" on the image and go to OU site paste http:// link to new location, but link will only show as a http:// link, not a photo ........ only do if no copyright notices apply.

Hope this helps,

Glen

[Aaron]

input from others

TK and Aaaron: Remember the John Lennon Bed-In for peace in 1969? You both should forget about the oscillation issue for now and pick it up later. May I suggest focusing on making sure your MOSFET switching function is working properly, and then making measurements with a 3% pulse waveform input. I acknowledge TK's first go at making a real measurement and it does not show OU, but it's lost in a verbal storm. You should be bouncing ideas off each other and trying to help each other. Or agree to disagree or something.

I have only ever used a manual scope. Never had an auto one.

I don't mind input as I benefit from it all the time.

However, TK has proven himself to simply be dishonest as I have shown based on his exact words - quoted word for word that he posted at ou.

There is no denying this. Instead of working on a timing circuit for this project, I believe a flip flop circuit would suit him best. He should get out of electronics and run for office.

Constructive criticism or assistance is one thing but blatant dishonesty is not acceptable.

All I did was run a circuit that I could make with parts on hand and it worked. It oscillated, it produced only a few degrees above ambient because of a 10 ohm shunt and I reported that my front battery climbed 0.25 volts from 24.40 to 24.65 over a few hours and it took almost 24 hours until it dropped below resting voltage before the test.

The 2 degrees above ambient HEAT was produced by potential that came back from the circuit and charged the front battery. It wasn't a phantom charge because it went through a RESISTOR and the battery voltage kept up...2 resistors as a matter of fact.

The heat is what we're looking for in this project but if someone can't recognize what 1/4 volt above resting that came from the circuit means AND it's ability to power a continuous resistive load for almost 24 hours, then there are other projects that are more suited to them.

So far, I haven't seen anything from TK that would be useful in getting results since it took my circuit for him to get results. (oscillation)

I always consult my experts and I know what I know but I also know that I don't know what I don't know. I'm very well aware of being unconsciously incompetent about most things as 99.9999% of all knowledge is in people's blind spots (unconscious incompetence) but at least I'm perfectly aware of that fact. Some people don't and there is evidence of that in this thread and elsewhere.

If TK wants to get off his high horse, stop the smug insults and drop the egotistical nonsense because he has experience with instruments, we would make more progress but he is too busy keeping himself impressed with himself.

[witsend]

TK. My own suggestion, for what it's worth would be to stop talking to us and about us. I would assume that you've now debunked?? I do hope we can at least conclude that much. Except perhaps to write that paper - in due course - or hot on the heels of? Please do. I certainly won't contest your findings. Not now or ever. Indeed I'd be pleased to see your hard faught efforts translated into something publishable. We all would.

Will that now be enough? Except perhaps for a predicted period of gloating and a few sad moments to parade all that ego? I think you've completed your mission - to the best of your ability. I would add that I have found your thread really entertaining. Personally I enjoy a good turn of phrase and there are those moments when yours shine, usually and paradoxically when you're slinging yet more of the stuff that archeologists politely refer to as coprolites. I confess I've often found myself rolling with laughter.

But what moves through the underbelly of your thread like a keel hauled sailor - is an entire want of moderation and objectivity. To be entirely plausible you should have given this a little more air. Just way too much testosterone. I can't say whether it's damaged your credibility. Some readers will think one way and others will think another. History will no doubt judge it fairly.

Anyway OC - if you haven't got your boy back quite yet, I think you're a few short days away? Meanwhile I take it as read that you've disproved our circuit, exposed all claims as 'wishful' at best, 'fraudulent' at worst. Our experimental standards not up to par, and - for my part - probably wilfully withholding the required information for your revered and exclusive evaluation.

And thank you for the attention you've given us. I'm just sorry it wasn't more in our interests. And good luck with Don Smith's invention. And there is one rather questionable video on offer to the public that I personally can discount in its entirety. Be that as it may. Cheers TK May you have as much sucess on your next mission to debunk.

Perhaps Ramset can oblige and post this across? And please feel free to block access to OU.COM if you want to. I've finished with it for now.

[dave_cahoon]

the idea it still valid

Hi there,

If I wind a nicrome tesla/lodge coil and connect such that we get current peaking resonance. I think the coil should warm and the res rise imaginary parts will contribute to the heating... only if the top of the coil is connected to earth gnd maybe thru a gap or other load..

Dave

[witsend]

Now - to more important things. Gotoluk - yet again - doing the impossible with just so little effort. And with the usual aplomb.

Fuzzy - if you're there please take my last post across if Ramset's too busy to do so. I'd be obliged.

And more and more coming from Joit and Jetijs? I've just seen his contribution. It's all good.

Guys the only way this fight will be won is by pressing on. Believe it or not, we're quite close to a really positive outcome here. We just need a few more demos from a few more people and I think we may have an argument to take to mainstream.

And I actually owe you all an apology. I'm afraid the need by OU.COM to snuff my argument has made this last climb tough. But the news is good. We're hanging on by the fingernails to reach the top. But we're still hanging on. And we've got TK to thank for the interest in our claim. For once - a debunk that didn't quite debunk. That's got to go down as a first in our OU struggles.

I'm fondly predicting a fresh attack - probably on my character? I'd be glad if you could just see it for what it is. Just bear in mind that the nastier the attack the closer we are to the top. Actually this is fun. But, for the record, if I do happen to die from all the excitement I'd quite like a really detailed autopsy!

so.