COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

I've no quarrel with TK's test parameters if anyone would care to read it. It's post 716 on the OU.Com thread.

But I would suggest that it can be either supplemented with or replaced by battery draw down rates to prove it futher, notwithstanding henieck's and MileHigh's opinion. If they question the 'recharge' value of the spike they must then argue with our learned and revered. It's enough early evidence to show the gain. Detailed measurements can come thereafter. The only person who objected to our battery reference was the editor at Quantum. I've always regretted that omission. The more so as opinion is divided amongst academics as to the relevance regarding the battery draw down. Some require it exclusively.

What I would put on record is that I'm looking forward to a test by TK using that expensive Fluke and displaying the DC coupling with the probes clearly positioned across the shunt. That would be such a pleasant change.

[witsend]

I'm getting like Ramset here.

YouTube - Rosemary Ainslie Circuit - Oscillation in Resonance with Timing signal

Posted by powercat? Not sure if I've copied the link correctly Couldn't get the sound - because I'm still barred and had to use the neighbour's computer. Could you post this over Aaron? It looks REALLY GOOD.

[Aaron]

contruction

I really have no dispute of whether these spikes or ring-downs are present in yours and similar circuits. There is bound to be spiky stuff all over the place, esp. if construction techniques were average.

99,

For example, my circuit is ugly, but my connections are rock solid. I have a lot of spiky stuff and none of it is from my construction. There is however one enhancement that I can make and that is using bigger wire on all the connections and using only straight lines and no curves in the wire. Then there will be even less loss of the free radiant potential.

Defining what average construction techniques are might be helpful.

[Aaron]

oscillation

Hi Rosemary,

Yes the video works fine with sound.
YouTube - Rosemary Ainslie Circuit - Oscillation in Resonance with Timing signal

I only said that the oscillation is overlaid on the timing signal. During each on pulse, the oscillation is there. Just have to know to look for it.

That, by the way, was the original circuit where I only had a range of 50% to 99% proving your point beyond a shadow of a doubt that duty cycle is irrelevant.

My timer circuit now has a range of 1% to 50%. Will have to double check frequency but I still get that oscillation overlaid on the timing signal.

MH, did you get that? The demo of the scope showing it going flat during oscillation has nothing to do with the mosfet oscillating. I don't think waiting 10 days to relax will change the facts.

You jumped to the conclusion on that one pretty quick I think because it agrees with your expectations. Maybe you need to take a break for 10 days, come back and listen to reason.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

> Are you now saying that 99.9999% of the power going thru the resistor is not being burned up after all?

You are mixing up the example of the battery driving the load of a hypothetical 3-watt circuit and the real-world example of the coil-resistor discharging across its own resistive component and the diode.

> Is 4 watts moving thru the resistor and if 1 watt comes back, does that mean that 1 watt snuck thru the resistor unnoticed?

Something I should have mentioned in my previous posting: You break down the four watts that you measure being transfered into the overall circuit load (not just the resistor, again, gotta be clear here, it's a complex circuit load) into three watts burned as heat and one watt stored. i.e.; stored power like in a capacitor or an inductor. The one watt that you see coming back through the shunt resistor to charge the battery is coming back from any energy storage components in your circuit.

4 watts measured out = 3 watts burned and 1 watt stored. The 1 watt stored goes back into the battery as the circuit operates. If you make a simple average power measurement you see that the battery is putting out 3 watts to keep the circuit running, and the circuit actually is burning 3 watts of power.

> Therefore 4 units of heat was produced for a total of 3 units of energy net expenditure from the battery. This is exactly what the point is. And you're right, that is what the numbers game is. But you have to add or subtract in the right order. The return energy isn't returned before the energy is dissipated, it comes back AFTERWARDS.

I have seen you suggest this "recycling" of energy in a circuit many times before. Perhaps you didn't considerthe energy-storage aspects in some of your examples? Again, the key point is that the 4 watts in from the battery does not all become heat, some is stored.

> Based on the assumption that almost all the power is dissipated in the resistor, that means the resistor is only able to take what it can "burn up." And there shouldn't be anything left to come back.

Yes, the resistor represents lost energy... unless you want to make it into a heating element and store the "lost" energy from the resistor in a hot water tank! lol

MileHigh

[Aaron]

load

You break down the four watts that you measure being transfered into the overall circuit load (not just the resistor, again, gotta be clear here, it's a complex circuit load) into three watts burned as heat and one watt stored. i.e.; stored power like in a capacitor or an inductor. The one watt that you see coming back through the shunt resistor to charge the battery is coming back from any energy storage components in your circuit.

4 watts measured out = 3 watts burned and 1 watt stored. The 1 watt stored goes back into the battery as the circuit operates. If you make a simple average power measurement you see that the battery is putting out 3 watts to keep the circuit running, and the circuit actually is burning 3 watts of power.

MH,

This isn't what is happening. If you think it is a 3 watt load to the battery, then the battery will deliver only 3 watts to the resistor and it won't give more than 3 watts. If it is a 3 watt load to the battery, it delivers 3 watts and you get nothing back.

Show me how to power the resistor with 3 watts output if it is a 3 watt draw from the battery to begin with.

With the resistive load, can you show me any other circuit that will "burn" 3 watts in a resistor while the battery is initially giving 4 watts?

The answer is you can't. It requires the entire 4 watt input since it is a 4 watt load and then you get back 1 watt in the collapse. Of course we know these numbers are just for example but shows the point.

The circuit will draw initially, what the load really is and that is a 4 watt draw.

You have now contradicted yourself again.

Now you admit that 99.9999% of what moves thru the resistor is not dissipated in the resistive part of the inductive resistor. You said that pretty much word for word.

Therefore, you are now saying 75% of what can move through the resistor is dissipated while 25% actually does sneak through in the form of stealthy ninja watts that went unnoticed by the resistor.

Your example not only violates classical examples, but it also violates non-classical examples.

[poynt99]

99,

For example, my circuit is ugly, but my connections are rock solid. I have a lot of spiky stuff and none of it is from my construction. There is however one enhancement that I can make and that is using bigger wire on all the connections and using only straight lines and no curves in the wire. Then there will be even less loss of the free radiant potential.

Defining what average construction techniques are might be helpful.

It's just a general commentary on many builds out there. Breadboard for starters is bad for high frequency, pulsing type stuff. Long leads to the MOSFET Gate and Source pins, little things like that.

Of course there will be a lot of spiky stuff in this type of circuit, but "loose" construction will just make it a bit worse. Nothing to worry too much about for this application though.

.99

[MileHigh]

Hi Aaron,

I don't think that we should get too distracted from Rosemary's circuit here.

The 4-watt/3-watt discussion is about an AC circuit load of course, and we are talking about the net average power delivered to the load over time, and time is continuoulsy advancing. So 4 watts of continuous power out less 1 watt of continuous power back in gives you a net continuous power of 3 watts.

Think of putting a big decoupling cap between the battery and the load. The battery would put 3 watts of more-or-less continuous DC power into the big cap. The big cap would do the 4-watt-out-1-watt-in AC power dance with the load.

<< Addendum: To emphasize, one of those four watts does not get burned off in a resistor. It gets "pushed" by the big cap into another cap or an inductor in the circuit. It takes real measurable work to do this, volts x amps x TIME = work = energy. This energy pushes it's way back into the big cap later on as part of the AC cycle and voila you see your returned spike. >>

This relates to Rosemary's circuit in terms of any spikes observed going back into the battery. Yes indeed, the spikes in some small measure recharge the battery. However, we have all seen that in all of the clips, the spike that goes back into the battery has much less energy than the waveform going out of the battery. In addition, the source of the energy for the back spike is the forward waveform anyways. Somewhere in the circuit energy is being stored and gets released back into the battery when the MOSFET switches off. Since it is "already paid for" energy, it's not remarkable or too exciting. And as a reminder, I pointed out that you really have to check what the spike is actually doing, because in your "no diode" example the battery is clearly discharging when the spike is generated.

Let me address the issue of the shunt resistor current going to an extrememly low level when TK made the MOSFET go into oscillation again. You made a clip where you allege it is a fake.

This simple test will resolve this issue in one swoop: For starters, use one channel of your scope to show the input signal to the MOSFET, and use the second channel to show the shunt resistor current. I assume that you have a signal generator that can generate an ordinary square wave.

Start off with the frequency at 2.4 KHz like in Rosemary's experiment and observe the nice exponential rise in the shunt current as expected. Then simply start increasing the signal frequency higher and higher till you get to a very high frequency that is what you think is typical for a high oscilation frequency. In other words, don't try to make the MOSFET oscillate, just feed it a legit square wave signal to make it do the same thing.

You will observe the current through the shunt resistor go down to almost nothing as the frequency gets very high just like I said it would before TK demonstrated it in his clip. That should make the relationship between MOSFET switching frequency and current through the shunt resistor perfectly clear.

After that, everybody should follow 0.99's advice.

MileHigh

>>>
Addendum 2:

Some food for thought about the exponential rise in the current that you see on the shunt resistor. Why is it there? If it was a purely resistive load you woud expect the current to start flowing instantly using Ohm's law. So why the exponential curve?

You are seeing the manifestation voltage source "pushing" on the coil which is "resisting." So indeed it is talking volts x amps x time to "push" and overcome the "resistance" of the coil. The current can't start flowing right away, you have to "push" on the coil to get the current flowing. That "push" is STORED in the coil for later release.

When the coil has current going through it it is acting like a compressed spring. When the MOSFET switches off, it is like you have instantly taken the pressure off of a compressed spring. The spring goes "Boing!" at a high velocity, just like the coil goes "Boing!" at high voltage.

That was your Zen moment.

[Joit]

I dont know, why you allways underestimate the Spikes.
Maybe its because you sit back, and do your comments and to less experiments with it?
When the Coils and timing is well arranged, it has much more Power, as you usual measure it or as what you know from it.
You can count it as equal amount of Energy, what is used in the System.
But this requires to see all, what it does, not only compare it with dry Theorie.
And for sure, noone will follow 99's advice, because i can tell you, where it will almost end up. Into nothing. Its considerable, but not the Way to go.

A Tesla coil, well the Flat Coils are one of the best, what i ve seen, to induct and generate,
but the one at the Picture from the Link has 2 coils, with different Windings,
and anyhow, i think, you will need more of them, but probatly not a bad Idea.
Just, we are not so far right now.

But it would match to a Theorie, when you push Current through a Inductor, you get a EM Field. When the Field collapse, you get Energy from Field back too.
And that is, what a Open System looks like. For me.
but its not accepted from the Science, to regard Em fields.
There, you see how much Holes it has.
And say, a Spike has no Power is like saying, a Flash is harmless.

witsend, the Newman motor what i had there had only have one Coil on it.
The smart Guys only call it DC Motors, nothing else, even, when it has way more, then 'nothing else'.
But it was some special wound, so far, it worked just with one Coil.
And btw, do anyone know, you can get only DC when you only got a Switch closed at a certain Moment?

[witsend]

Following quotes from MileHigh

This relates to Rosemary's circuit in terms of any spikes observed going back into the battery. Yes indeed, the spikes in some small measure recharge the battery. However, we have all seen that in all of the clips, the spike that goes back into the battery has much less energy than the waveform going out of the battery.
Not actually MileHigh. Our repeated evidence is that the energy in the spike equals the input energy - less some SMALL fraction. That's done on Tektronix, Fluke and other even more precise instruments used by our accreditors. It seems that 'what comes out' actually does 'go back'. Which is a good thing really. That conforms to our energy conservation requirements. It's just that it also flies in the face of. Which is why we're trying to address the issue.

In addition, the source of the energy for the back spike is the forward waveform anyways.
Based on what? The belief that current on a switching circuit, unlike current anywhere else in quantum physics, now needs to 'move in the same direction'? notwithstanding the polarity of the applied potential difference? I won't argue that this is a commonly held assumption - especially by classicists - but it also ascribes a property to current flow that diametrically opposes Inductive Laws that proposes current flow is determined by the polarity of that potential difference.

Somewhere in the circuit energy is being stored and gets released back into the battery when the MOSFET switches off.
Hardly likely to be from stored energy. The total value of the stored, in terms of your reckoning must be less than the applied voltage. How then can it breach the 24volt resistance from the battery to recharge it?

Since it is "already paid for" energy, it's not remarkable or too exciting.
Not true. It would be miraculous. If indeed the same potential difference from the battery dissipated heat - all over the place, and still had enough energy to then got back to the source - then it would leave most of mainstream science gagging with surprise and shock.

And as a reminder, I pointed out that you really have to check what the spike is actually doing, because in your "no diode" example the battery is clearly discharging when the spike is generated.
How, within the classical frame of reference can the battery be 'discharging' when it is disconnected from the circuit?

Regarding losses at vey high frequencies? There is no question that beyond a given range the benefit is lost to RF.

MileHigh - have you given consideration to the thought that the potential difference over the load resistor discharges to induce a second cycle of regenerated current flow? That's what we're trying to prove. If you won't reference it then you're not giving us a fair hearing. .99, I think - was prepared to concede this as needing testing. You appear to dismiss it - even as a possibility. With respect.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

I could rebut your points but I don't think that it woud be too productive and help the cause. It would be a downer and bore people. Some of your questions were answered in previous postings.

You are more of a "top level" person anyways. That's why I sggest that people start making real measurements and comparing notes. In a few weeks, if the Gods are good and three or more people report real measurements, then we can revisit this if you want to.

You note that TK's test protocol is perfectly valid, it is a quick pass-fail. That's in contrast to my protocol which was conceived to make a true COP measurement. For those that are turned off by my more formal approach, going with TK's quick pass-fail test would be easier to do.

Joit:

The current through a coil and the magnetic field around the coil are one in the same. You can't have one without the other. It all has perfect symmetry and harmony. I think the issue is to try to see the beauty in the symmetry and the harmony. When you see the exponential current waveform rise in the shunt resistor, that is telling you that the magenet field is growing around the coil and finding it's balance point. When the field collapses, the symmetry now goes back in the other direction. In that sense there are no "special wound" coils that give you special results. All coils act and react as Nature intended them to in symmetry and harmony. There are "coils" everywhere in Nature, not just on your circuit board, and they all share a commonality of function and react the same way.

MileHigh

[witsend]

MileHigh - whatever TK's tests - or yours - what I'm trying to do is engage in the need to look at an alternative explanation for measured phenomena.

What do you mean by 'top level'. I certainly am not top level. I'm out here trying to learn a thing or two. And the fact that this issue is ascribed in my name - is just a co-incidence. It's just that Aaron used my paper as another sample of the same old question. It's also the question that is at the heart of the entire movement of FE. I am most anxious to engage in its discussion. The more so as I'm proposing that this 'regenerated energy cycle' is where the 'nub' of the question lies and where it needs to be addressed.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

"Top Level" means that you are like a manager and are more interested in results as compared to the means to get them. It's like the circuit is surrounded by a "black box", and at the real interest is in what the black box does, not so much what's inside the black box.

If there is an alternative explanation for measured phenomena that would be most interesting in pursuing. At this point I think most people in this group would like to see measurements that demonstrate the phenomenon exists.

MileHigh

[witsend]

To whomever this concerns.

Guys this is boring. Whoever's doing this please stop. For others, my own computer has not been able to access OU.com. since I posted TK's 'debunk' message. Now my neighbour's computer's getting the same treatment - again. This is getting really boring. I get the info whether I'm connected or not. It's just that you're making it inconvenient.

[witsend]

Rosemary:

"Top Level" means that you are like a manager and are more interested in results as compared to the means to get them. It's like the circuit is surrounded by a "black box", and at the real interest is in what the black box does, not so much what's inside the black box.

If there is an alternative explanation for measured phenomena that would be most interesting in pursuing. At this point I think most people in this group would like to see measurements that demonstrate the phenomenon exists.

MileHigh

MileHigh - I spent 10 long years developing my field model. I'm intensely interested in the means to get these results. A whole decade of my life. Re the need for measurements you're spot on.

May I add that none of this is intended on a personal level. Your observations are really good and you are exceptionally articulate. Especially when it comes to description of these subtle interactions. It's thanks to this that I am, at long last, being able to understand a classicist's concepts. It's just that these 'things' really do need discussion. I'm so grateful when they're on offer.