COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Guest]

IF her circuit would have worked she would have sold 1000s of samples over the web a long time ago after she first published her findings, there is no hard parts to master in her circuit so let´s just agree on the massive probability this is just useless tech and a waste of time.

I am inclined to believe Rose-Mary has very limited electronics expertise and has trusted a guy behind her, and this guy was just wrong. Why Mr Lindemann has put months and months of his extremely valuable time(interviewing the woman and not building anything) into this without just replicating the circuit in a few hours in his professional lab seeing the poor results for himself instead of letting Tinselkoala do all the work and disprove his "thrills" yet again, well....

There is no logic in this circuit being able to heat water. Look at Meyer´s steam resonator instead, there is at least some logics to back it up with the water dipole structure. And the level of circuitry is also considerrably higher.

[Jetijs]

Gaus, there IS much logic behind all this. As I have stated above, I have seen as much as 4x greater currents flowing through the coils than what is coming out from the power supply. And any current that is flowing through a resistance, will create heat. So I have no reason not to believe Rosemary or Peter.

[DrStiffler]

It's rather amazing to see how this is running. A worker publishes an article with a circuit in it, in black and white. The article is presented over and over during several years, and astounding claims are made for the behaviour of the published circuit--which has appeared on sites endorsed by the original researcher.

Now, when another researcher innocently tries to build and test THE EXACT CIRCUIT published and apparently endorsed in the article, he finds that a critical feature does not perform as stated, and it has nothing to do with the MOSFET or its characteristics.

So what happens? "The circuit was inserted in the article, it's cryptic, it leaves something out..." or "It's a misprint" or something else.

But strangely, the specified "misprint" cryptic circuit is easy to build and check, and strangely, produces the exact specified frequency range and the exact INVERTED pulse width waveform...accidentally...from an inserted misprint...

OK, I agree: it's hard to argue with logic like that.

(And Dr Stiifler your scope shots are missing important details. I don't see any ringdown or inductive spikes on the trailing edge. Try turning off "bandwidth limiting."
My circuit's mosfet pulses track the input pulses well, I don't see the long turnoff delays that you have shown, at short or long duty cycles. I'm sure you will see heating since your mosfet is staying on half the time.
Have you tried building the EXACT 555 circuit listed in the Quantum article? There is a cleaned up version on overunity that may be easier for you to read, since you seem to have trouble with the Quantum version...)

And still, the issue, as far as I am concerned, is this: did the testing reported in the Quantum article use the circuit specified in the Quantum article, or not? If so, what about the inverted duty cycle? If not, what circuit WAS used and how did the wrong one get in there?

@TinselKoala
Your right I'm just clueless....
As far as clouding a scope shot that integrates to near nothing, I missed the point again, monster hv spikes are magic.

[Guest]

And what is the simple logics of physics for this unit and did you hear about reactive energy and phase angle?

Are you sure you are measuring correctly what you are inputting integrating the duty cycle input, it seems like many experimenters just repeat the same mistakes about true input. Tinselkoala´s results show us the truth, no need to waste your time on this.

IF Peter´s circuit from 2009-02-15(or Rose-Mary´s circuit for that matter) would have worked he would have told us long ago.... Instead he is showing us his circuit designs but not telling us anything about his results when building it himself(if he ever tried to build anything that he drew)....... Funny isn´t it, a guy draws stuff but does not tell us how his circuit is performing.....

Why is it there?..

Peter is preaching about stuff(after we discussed Witts functional water heater with COP of 10 000 he wanted to change focus suddenly) but has nothing to show after months of "work" on the phone with Rose-Mary without building any of her circuits and checking the results before preaching about "thrills" about this super simple circuit performing magics.

Just consider how Peter is working. Many threads, alot of speculations, no experiments, never showing any test results by himself despite drawing alot of printer paper circuits, changing subjects often, refuses to visit Witts COP 10 000 unit in Ohio but he reportedly spends months of work time for free on Rose-Mary Ainsley from South Africa, has spent 20+ fruitless years on FE research... Reportedly lives off FE book revenues. See a pattern anyone?

No wonder we are still stuck with fossil fuels.....

Let´s continue building the Steam resonator shall we...

When Peter or anyone else gets this Rose-Mary circuit working I will gladly take back what I said but not before I see that unit working. Which probably will not be today... I suggest everyone turns their head to logics which is that water is a dipole.

Gaus, there IS much logic behind all this. As I have stated above, I have seen as much as 4x greater currents flowing through the coils than what is coming out from the power supply. And any current that is flowing through a resistance, will create heat. So I have no reason not to believe Rosemary or Peter.

[TinselKoala]

@TinselKoala
Your right I'm just clueless....
As far as clouding a scope shot that integrates to near nothing, I missed the point again, monster hv spikes are magic.

Nobody is saying you are clueless; I follow your work and I acknowledge that you are doing good work.

But you did make that error in looking at the 555 diagram in the Quantum article..."pin six connections..."

And it seems that understanding integration of an instantaneous power waveform is at the root of the problem being discussed in this thread. Many people apparently do believe that monster HV spikes are magic--because that is the only conceivable mechanism for power transfer to the Ainslie load, IF her circuit is in fact using the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle that she claims.
However, IF her circuit is as published, and if my build of it is correct, the main mystery goes away--because it is unremarkable for a load resistor to get warm when it's provided with 50 watts of power on a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, and it's unremarkable for a storage battery to indicate anomalously high voltage for its state of charge, if it has been subjected to HV spikes during "charging".

So please calm down Dr Stiffler, and if you really want to add to knowledge, please breadboard up the exact 555 timer circuit from the Quantum article and tell us how it behaves. Did I build it wrong, or does the Quantum circuit really provide 96.3 percent ON??

And if Ainslie is reading this thread, can you at least tell us for sure one way or the other: is the circuit in the Quantum article correct or not?

[Armagdn03]

Accidental Post

[DrStiffler]

Nobody is saying you are clueless; I follow your work and I acknowledge that you are doing good work.

But you did make that error in looking at the 555 diagram in the Quantum article..."pin six connections..."

And it seems that understanding integration of an instantaneous power waveform is at the root of the problem being discussed in this thread. Many people apparently do believe that monster HV spikes are magic--because that is the only conceivable mechanism for power transfer to the Ainslie load, IF her circuit is in fact using the 3.7 percent ON duty cycle that she claims.
However, IF her circuit is as published, and if my build of it is correct, the main mystery goes away--because it is unremarkable for a load resistor to get warm when it's provided with 50 watts of power on a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle, and it's unremarkable for a storage battery to indicate anomalously high voltage for its state of charge, if it has been subjected to HV spikes during "charging".

So please calm down Dr Stiffler, and if you really want to add to knowledge, please breadboard up the exact 555 timer circuit from the Quantum article and tell us how it behaves. Did I build it wrong, or does the Quantum circuit really provide 96.3 percent ON??

And if Ainslie is reading this thread, can you at least tell us for sure one way or the other: is the circuit in the Quantum article correct or not?

@TinselKoala
Oh, don't get me wrong either 'I'm very calm', yet I fail to understand your continued pointing to the circuit in the Quantum Article?? I guess you have never experienced making a mistake in a circuit diagram versus the actual circuit? Well rest assured I most likely 99% of the rest of the technical world has at least once. In fact I do get very upset when my circuits leave my control, you start depending on others to transcribe for you and you have trouble.

I have no intention of building the circuit from the article, not just because I fell it was amateurishly drawn and one had to match wires with mis-positioned captions but I knew from looking at it there was a problem, maybe you should look again.

Anyway I built as stated a 555 PWN to match the 'test' description of operation. I have no doubt in my mind at all that under the right conditions an oscillation can take place as described. I did indeed a few years back build a circuit that worked in a parametric pumping mode and was a result of just such an oscillation: You can see the circuit at stifflerscientific.com/images/CE4Cir01.gif.

Now in testing her circuit I am currently doing the tables of the data obtained. No! I have yet to see excess heat, but far better than 50%. Indeed the last was 83% and this does not account for the missing heat from the FET. Sooo...

There is a page I posted somewhere on this thread that I am updating, so if you were so inclined to could look now and then.

So how about in the interest of not turning this into some show thread we drop the interpretation of the Quantum Drawing? I see it different than you and find no fault in the errors, you see it different, so whats to banter about here, we see it differently, right?

[TinselKoala]

I really do not understand this.
An article is published with a circuit diagram. Claims are made that the circuit performs in such and such a manner.
When somebody FINALLY actually builds the exact circuit it is found NOT to behave as claimed; in fact it behaves exactly OPPOSITE to the claimed behaviour.
I submit that this is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve "by accident" or by misprint. Any misprint or incorrect component values in the 555 circuit would have resulted in it not working at all, or making some random combo of freq and DC. But the published circuit has the correct frequency range and the correct Duty Cycle ratio--just inverted.

This is, again, impossible to have by accident.

Additionally, the published circuit generating the inverted duty cycle DOES produce the heating in the load that Ainslie reported, while everybody who is using an actual FG or some other source producing a known 3.7 percent ON duty cycle is NOT seeing much or any heating of the load.

Again, impossible to have by accident.

Now, you might not think it significant that the published data from the researcher herself contains either the wrong circuit diagram that was NOT used in the tests, or the right diagram but faulty interpretation of results--
But I certainly do. One way or the other, the article is wrong. There are simply no two ways about it. Either the diagram is wrong and should be retracted and replaced with the correct diagram by the author, OR the data and interpretations are wrong and should be retracted by the author.
OR, of course, it's possible that my build of the 555 is wrong--even though I've built 3 different copies of it by now--which is why I have kept on asking for someone else to build the exact 555 circuit from the Quantum article published by Rosemary Ainslie, and tell me whether they get what I get or not. If I am wrong I will gladly retract my findings and go on to calorimetry.
However if I am right...it has certain implications that are not trivial.

But for goodness sakes, why is there so much resistance to building and testing a simple circuit? I would have thought that people would be especially eager to PROVE ME WRONG, regardless of how they might feel about Ainslie or OU in general. Just construct the 555 circuit and tell us what kind of Duty Cycle it produces, and tell us what implications that finding has for results quoted in the Quantum article and the EIT pdf paper.

Please.

[Allcanadian]

@jetijs

As I have stated above, I have seen as much as 4x greater currents flowing through the coils than what is coming out from the power supply. And any current that is flowing through a resistance, will create heat. So I have no reason not to believe Rosemary or Peter.

I would agree, irregardless of any errors made in any publications, a person skilled in the art should understand it is the spirit or intent that matters. As well there is an issue of common sense, You should at least have a premise in mind when building, that is some idea of what you believe is required to produce a successful outcome as it relates to what was presented initially. Some major issues I have with any validation also concerns substitution of critical components. For example if a different Mosfet is used, is the internal resistance the same?, is the gate capacity the same?, is the internal diode threshold the same, what are the rise and fall times?. As well concerning the wire wound resistance, what is the former material? is it ceramic?, what is the metallic content?, if so what are the concentrations?, what is the crystalline structure and concentration of any quartz in the ceramic?-- if it is a coated ceramic then there are dielectric properties to consider, at peak transient voltages the wire may charge the ceramic dielectric and discharge within itself or through the conductor. What is the size and mass of the former relative to wire--this is a capacitive issue regarding surface area. To conclude, I can basically write you a book regarding the properties of the five simple components in this circuit and in every case the properties of every component can be considered as critical to an accurate outcome in some way and this does not even include the external field geometries, there phase relationships or magnitudes. In regards to experiments and constuction of prototypes I have one simple rule ---- everything matters, every detail no matter how small.
Regards
AC

[TinselKoala]

Here's my award-winning chocolate cake recipe. It's been independently reproduced by cooks at the University of the Trees, and has won many county fair awards. I can't seem to get it published in any cookbooks, but that's because the editors are too traditional and can't see the innovations of my recipe.

Take one large sack of ready-mix concrete
one gallon of water
twenty pounds of clean beach sand
and some dark brown Tempera paint powder.

Place solid ingredients in a wheelbarrow; slowly add water with stirring until ingredients are folded in.

Pour mixture into a large cake pan and let sit overnight.

Voila! An award-winning chocolate cake.

I encourage replicators. This recipe is foolproof, and you can even alter certain ingredients and it will still work.




What's that you say? All you get is a brown block of concrete?

Well, perhaps there's a misprint in my recipe. That shouldn't matter at all, should it?
Just alter the recipe however you want, to get a chocolate cake that you like. Don't worry that my theory of chocolate cakes is based on my recipe being correct...And don't worry that your "replication" is no longer a replication, but is instead a fantasy trip...

[TinselKoala]

@jetijs

I would agree, irregardless of any errors made in any publications, a person skilled in the art should understand it is the spirit or intent that matters. As well there is an issue of common sense, You should at least have a premise in mind when building, that is some idea of what you believe is required to produce a successful outcome as it relates to what was presented initially. Some major issues I have with any validation also concerns substitution of critical components. For example if a different Mosfet is used, is the internal resistance the same?, is the gate capacity the same?, is the internal diode threshold the same, what are the rise and fall times?. As well concerning the wire wound resistance, what is the former material? is it ceramic?, what is the metallic content?, if so what are the concentrations?, what is the crystalline structure and concentration of any quartz in the ceramic?-- if it is a coated ceramic then there are dielectric properties to consider, at peak transient voltages the wire may charge the ceramic dielectric and discharge within itself or through the conductor. What is the size and mass of the former relative to wire--this is a capacitive issue regarding surface area. To conclude, I can basically write you a book regarding the properties of the five simple components in this circuit and in every case the properties of every component can be considered as critical to an accurate outcome in some way and this does not even include the external field geometries, there phase relationships or magnitudes. In regards to experiments and constuction of prototypes I have one simple rule ---- everything matters, every detail no matter how small.
Regards
AC

Then you should be really concerned about the substitution of a function generator for the 555 circuit published in the Quantum article.

The circuit I built is from the Quantum publication. If there is an error in printing, what is the correct circuit? If there is no error in printing, what is the explanation for the inverted duty cycle?
Perhaps there's also an error in printing the power balance figures, or the type of MOSFET used, or...
If every detail, no matter how small, matters, why has the "misprint" if it is such, been allowed to remain in place for so long?
And if every detail, no matter how small, matters as you say, how can anyone ever expect to reproduce the quoted results? Especially if the published diagram is wrong...

I maintain that the published diagram is probably NOT wrong, because the circuit built with that diagram WORKS--that is, it heats the resistor, the current and voltage values are correct, and so forth. The only thing that is wrong is that the input power is miscalculated because of the inverted duty cycle.
On the other hand, when people use the stated 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, they get mostly...nothing.


(Oh, and by the way, I have now tried 3 different N-channel MOSFETS in my build and they all behave substantially the same--except the IRFP450, which gives a similar long turn-off time to DrStiffler's mosfet--but not quite that long, only about double the initial pulse width. But if I turn the gate drive resistor down (to low resistance) the response pulse shortens and squares off and the turn-off delay is now mostly in the inductive ringdown. I also tried a high-voltage silicon junction transistor, BU508A, which I believe promptly failed, but it made an interesting waveform before it went...)

[DrStiffler]

@jetijs

I would agree, irregardless of any errors made in any publications, a person skilled in the art should understand it is the spirit or intent that matters. As well there is an issue of common sense, You should at least have a premise in mind when building, that is some idea of what you believe is required to produce a successful outcome as it relates to what was presented initially. Some major issues I have with any validation also concerns substitution of critical components. For example if a different Mosfet is used, is the internal resistance the same?, is the gate capacity the same?, is the internal diode threshold the same, what are the rise and fall times?. As well concerning the wire wound resistance, what is the former material? is it ceramic?, what is the metallic content?, if so what are the concentrations?, what is the crystalline structure and concentration of any quartz in the ceramic?-- if it is a coated ceramic then there are dielectric properties to consider, at peak transient voltages the wire may charge the ceramic dielectric and discharge within itself or through the conductor. What is the size and mass of the former relative to wire--this is a capacitive issue regarding surface area. To conclude, I can basically write you a book regarding the properties of the five simple components in this circuit and in every case the properties of every component can be considered as critical to an accurate outcome in some way and this does not even include the external field geometries, there phase relationships or magnitudes. In regards to experiments and constuction of prototypes I have one simple rule ---- everything matters, every detail no matter how small.
Regards
AC

@Allcanadian
Accurately and professionally stated, except you left out the second book on thermodynamics and how to properly construct, calibrate and interpret a calorimetry. I'm now 1000% sure this could take years the way tis thread has digressed, I would think it time for for someone to put a stop to it or it has become just another beat my chest forum.

[DrStiffler]

So why can't I edit out my spelling errors?

@Moderator

Why if the 'Edit' button is available and one does an edit followed by a 'Save', nothing happens?

If its not possible to do an edit, should the edit button be there?

[Joit]

@Moderator

Why if the 'Edit' button is available and one does an edit followed by a 'Save', nothing happens?

If its not possible to do an edit, should the edit button be there?

Sometimes it just happens, i would try it to edit later again.
I can not edit some Posts few Minutes later, too.
But a bit later i can.
Seems, first someone has to have a look at the Topic.

[TinselKoala]

Gee, and I thought this thread was about replicating Ainslie's claimed COP>17 overunity circuit that was published in the Quantum article and again in the EIT pdf article.
But it now appears that it is about doing calorimetry on some other unspecified circuit that has nothing to do with Ainslie's reported numbers.

Speaking of Ainslie's reported numbers:

"* 10 Ohm ceramic, hollow core, wire wound resistor. Length is 150mm. Diameter 32mm. 48 turns of resistive wire spaced 1mm"

Are we then to assume that this resistor is NOT wound with resistive wire, but rather with 2 mm (0.080 inch)wide resistive ribbon? Because when I use my resistive wire, it's only about 0.009 inch diameter (0.225 mm), so 50 turns spaced 1 mm apart only takes up 50 + (50*.225) = about 61 or 62 mm. So what's the other 90 mm or so of the length?
Using 2 mm ribbon would use up the length, but would also produce less resistance and inductance.