poynt99
I have just placed poynt99 on my ignore list - if he gets out of hand and keeps insulting people and spreading lies about what i have done or haven't done - flag the posts and we can move to have him banned from the forum.
I have never seen such a coward in all my life. Good riddance to him.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
-
ignore list
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostI haven't seen anything that corroborates the notion that the net mean current is negative.
I've seen a lot of 0's on meters, and a fluctuating +/- 0.2 or 0.3 on your red meter. So nothing convincing. I've also seen a lot of twisting of my words and mis-interpretation of my posts and the intended message.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what anyone says, clearly you all will continue to disregard it and by any means convince yourselves otherwise. That's one thing that clearly has been proven.
.99
You are going on my ignore list today. You deserve NOTHING.
Leave a comment:
-
negative dominance
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostVoltage across a coil being pulsed at its resonant frequency. Frequency = 400kHz. Period = 2.5us. Pulse width = 0.6us. Supply = 150VDC. L = 50uH. Rinductor = 10 Ohm:
.99
Leave a comment:
-
Insignificant
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostNot a single sample was ever 0.0000V. The closest to zero in all 5880 samples was at row 4892 of 1.25mV (0.00125).
You will stoop to very low levels obviously.
Leave a comment:
-
@poynt
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostIf Aaron is wise, he would heed the advice from the Tek application engineer and calibrate the scope and re-run the test.
Leave a comment:
-
@poynt
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostRosemary,
I have to tell you, every post of mine--you consistently mis-interpret at least part of it, just as you did again just now.
The video not being convincing is from "your guys'" perspective. If I do a video demonstrating the DC voltage meter method of determining net polarity that is.
.99
Leave a comment:
-
accurate instrument
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostAre you presuming that taking measurements down in the fractional mV range does not call for an accurate instrument?
YOU assume the scope was not calibrated by me.
You walk about fraction mv range needing accurate instrument - that is why you want to suggest putting a volt meter on it?
I actually had to laugh out loud on that one.... oh, too much.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Joit View PostHarvey, did you know, some theoreticians can explain you, and even believe it by herself,
how to hang an Elephant with his Tail knoted on a Daisy headfirst into a Canyon?
I only hope, they all do stand below, when they do the REAL Experiment.
Leave a comment:
-
Poynt99 AGREES CIRCUIT IS OVERUNITY
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostIf the scope still reads a net mean value that is negative, and it is corroborated with a DC voltmeter measurement across the shunt as I have suggested, then ok we can agree that the mean value of current in the shunt is negative, albeit very tiny, but negative.
Now what? How are you going to demonstrate that this result can be used in some practical sense?
Practical application? Doesn't have to be one. It is proof of concept that thermodynamics is wrong - at least closed system thermodynamics that you are a believer in. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics perfectly describes this ability to show negative wattage. And this is not the first demo of data that shows this! It is just one that I have done.
Leave a comment:
-
0.000
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostIf there is current in both directions and they are both exactly equal, then the meter will read 0.000.
Leave a comment:
-
I haven't seen anything that corroborates the notion that the net mean current is negative.
I've seen a lot of 0's on meters, and a fluctuating +/- 0.2 or 0.3 on your red meter. So nothing convincing. I've also seen a lot of twisting of my words and mis-interpretation of my posts and the intended message.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what anyone says, clearly you all will continue to disregard it and by any means convince yourselves otherwise. That's one thing that clearly has been proven.
.99
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by witsend View PostHi Harvey - I watched both videos and had the pleasure of rating them 5 star - yet again. I'm not sure I understood the significance of the switch. Are you saying the the oscillations come from the timer?
The only thing I know about these oscillations is that it needs the smallest pressure to get rid of them. But I think Aaron's found a way to make them more stable.
Some of the activity we are seeing, is a new pulse coming from the timer. It appears that the off-time is being cut short and a new pulse is being presented. This means that one of 3 things is occurring. 1. The chip is being reset by signal injection into the internal reset transistor 2. The trigger input is falling below 1/3rd Vcc 3. Something is rapidly discharging the 0.0033 microfarad cap, circumventing the off-time discharge path.
The internal schematic for the Texas Instruments NE555 shows a diode running from the output stage to the first stage output transistor collector. The emitter of that transistor goes through a 100 ohm resistor to the Discharge transistor base and to the collector of the PNP reset transistor. When the output is 'low', the first stage output transistor is on and there is a path to the collector of the reset transistor. If a sufficient EMF spike occurs on the output pin 3 it could find its way through that path and cause an avalanche in the reset transistor sufficient to trigger that circuit at the end of the avalanche. The hurdle here is the final stage of the output section which is essentially at ground at this point. The spike energy has to be enough to overcome that transistor on resistance. I need to runs some tests to see if this is what is happening.
Regardless of the re-triggering, we also have self triggering of the IRFPG50 which is quite evident to occur during the off period of the timer. Clearly these oscillations are timer independent during this period. Aarons work indicates that if the re-triggering does not occur, that the self oscillation will grow in amplitude until a trigger occurs (or if it was allowed to continue an avalanche in the FET).
We have quite a few variations to the circuit, the components, power sources and the test equipment. So we can certainly expect variations in the behavior. The good news is that even though the wave shape may be slightly different, we are all able to obtain the self oscillation in some form.
Next, I would like to focus on how this oscillation played a part in the original work that claimed the high COP and see if we can tailor our variations toward that same goal.
Leave a comment:
-
calibration
Originally posted by poynt99 View PostWhen working with such minute voltages, it's imperative to ensure the scope is calibrated before the readings can be trusted.
Obviously the test should be re-run after the scope is self-calibrated as per David's comment in 3. above.
And while running this scope for hours on end, the spc won't do ANYTHING unless there is some big temperature change and this room only fluctuates a few C in a 24 hour period. With or without spc - there is no difference in the data.
In any case, all data presented is ACCURATE and CLEAN - please stop trying to misdirect people's attention away from the facts.
And you continually ignore ALL THE CORROBORATED DATA and RESULTS that match what is shown. Get over it!
Leave a comment:
-
Harvey, did you know, some theoreticians can explain you, and even believe it by herself,
how to hang an Elephant with his Tail knoted on a Daisy headfirst into a Canyon?
I only hope, they all do stand below, when they do the REAL Experiment.
Leave a comment:
-
Showing negative readings on voltmeter across shunt.
YouTube - Ainslie circuit with negative voltage on voltmeter across shunt.
Showing negative readings on voltmeter across shunt.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: