COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Inquorate]

misinformationists and cascades

they really can't help themselves once we build up steam, eh? it goes to show that narrow minds exhibit a narrow-minded approach.

and they also have no idea what will work until it starts showing real promise..

love and light

[witsend]

MileHigh - I'm still hoping against hope that you'll answer my question. Let me advance it again.

What happens to the potential difference established across the resistor when the battery is no longer able to deliver energy?

Is there some reason you won't address this? I'd be really glad of an answer as this is the very moment where classical and new age physics are parting company.

[witsend]

May I bring the focus back to something that I think holds the key to this entire question of over unity. The following is put forward with the utmost respect to our classical theorists and, if it is offensive - then let me apologise in advance.

If, for whatever reason, it is shown that a system can be induced to regenerate a second cycle of energy then - of necessity - the system will generate more energy than was originally supplied. Therefore there's some considerable urgency on the part of our classical theorists to refute this. And, with respect and thus far, there's been a rather shameless reach at using the most extraordinary and illogical explanations for refutation.

Reference to 'the spike' is intended to describe that 'regenerated' energy during the off period of a duty cycle. I have heard, read, discussed and explored evaluations of that 'spike' that variously recharge, do not recharge, supply energy, do not supply energy, enhance efficiency but never that much and always there as a result of stored energy. The spike is also variously claimed to be the result of misreading, mismeasurement, stray capacitance, stressed mosfets, faulty scope readings, valueless, useful, partially so and on and on. Every possible qualification. Even in this thread the question is ignored or is somewhat flippantly regarded as 'answered'.

But the issue is still there - still needing some kind of attention. The spike is the result of changing magnetic fields doing what Farraday and Maxwell explained. They are changing magnetic fields and by so doing they are introducing a second cycle of regenerated energy that is proportionate to the energy first applied.

[witsend]

More on this subject. I am entirely satisfied that, in the fullness of time - the evidence of a gain on switching circuitry wil be more and more widely acknowledged. I think that it is one of those 'thing's that eluded mainstream thus far - but new needs and freshened emphases will challenge our classicists to argue the issue more robustly. And I am not sure how long it will take to resolve the issue but I would remind everyone - we are running out of time.

The question then is 'so what's changed'? And, in fact, all that will have changed is that there will be concession to this 'moment of regeneration' and then some attendant acknowledgement that the electromagnetic interaction is not constrained to second laws. It may also force our utility suppliers to 'open the throat' of their watt meters to acknowledge that this energy is returned to the national or regional power grids. And it may, thereby encourage end users to apply switching circuits to devices that can manage those fast frequencies. Thereby will we all be able to reduce our bills. This will, essentially, lighten the burden on both our production costs and, more especially, pockets. But far more essential to this is that Nature will get some relief from the wanton and excessive production pollution that is required to give us any energy at all.

But the next real value in this breakthrough would be in the promise of it's potential to regenerate. Resonance as a principle, offers a remarkably plentiful return on input energy. I suspect that these values will be exhaustively studied to allow even less cost for the supply of our energy needs. That would improve on the first benefit.

But there is a final benefit. If the definition of current flow is revised by acknowledgement of the source, and if, in turn, it is seen to be the result of some magnetic force heretofore excluded from recognition, then I suspect that we will be in the happy position of understanding all the forces better and with hope to better defeat them as required.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary,

I will try to answer your question in terms of the magnetic field.

There is potential difference established across the coil-resister after the MOSFET switches off, so the question is how do we get there. Let's leave the resistor part of the resistor-coil out of the picture and just talk about the coil part. Pretend the resostor part doesn't exist for starters.

Just before the MOSFET switches off the current is DC and the voltage across the coil is zero. Even through there is zero voltage across the coil there is current running through it. This current is sustaining the magnetic field around the coil. It took power x time to create this magnetic field, and therefore the magnetic field represents a certain amount of stored energy. It goes back to the compressed spring held in a vice analogy.

Suppose the MOSFET switches off and at the same time you put a short circuit across the coil.

In this case the magnetic field remains sustained, and current keeps on circulating through the coil. There will be a slight amount of resistance in the wires, and so the current running through the wires will burn off energy slowly through the resistance, and the magnetic field will slowly extinguish over five seconds and then die out. The energy stored in the magnetic field will get slowly burned off in the wire resistance and become heat energy.

You notice that in the above case the magnetoc field is changing very slowly. Changing magnetic fields produce electric fields. Slow change in the field means the coil generates a very low voltage, just enough voltage to overcome the wire resistance. That's how the inductive laws act in this situation with these parameters.

Suppose the MOSFET switches off and this time you put a 10-ohm resistor across the coil.

In this case now the magnetic field that is sustaining the current running through the coil now has to overcome an obstacle, the 10-ohm resistor that has been put in the path of the current.

In this case the inductive laws will react exactly the same as in the case above but the parameters have changed.

In this case the magnetic field around the coil willl change much faster than in the first case. It will collapse quickly because of the resistor burning off much more energy and slowing down the current faster. This time the magnetic field changes much faster, and the changing magnetic field produces an electric field. Therefore the electric filed will be stronger in this case, and generate more voltage as compared to the first case.

Instead of taking 5 seconds to collapse completely in the first case, it takes only one second to collapse completely in the case with the 10-ohm resistor, and there is more voltage generated across the 10-ohm resistor by the faster collapsing fields of the coil.

So there is a very simple pattern here: The larger the resistor across the coil, the faster the magnetic field collapses, and the higher the voltage generated by the coil. That is what the inductive laws say.

This pattern extends as far as it can go: The higher the resistance across the coil, the faster the fields collapse, and the higher the voltage generated.

No matter how fast this happens, it represents the extinguishing of the magnetic field across the coil, and the transfer of the energy stored in the magnetic field into heat energy in the resistor across the coil.

Since the current through the coil and the magnetic field surrounding the coil are one in the same thing, we use the terminology of the "current through the coil" and the magnetic field surrounding the coil is implicit. The energy stored in the coil is 1/2 x L x i-squared. If you have 5 Joules of energy in the coil, after it discharges through the load resistor you will have 5 Joules of heat energy in the resistor.

If that makes sense to you then the only gulf to cross is where the energy originally came from to create the magnetic field. The energy came from the power supply or the battery. The batery had to pump volts x amps x time into the coil to create the magnetic field. Using the example from the above paragraph, the volts x amps x time energy from the battery was exactly 5 Joules.

MileHigh

[Armagdn03]

@ Witsend

People will figure it all out in time. Oddly enough, its the simplest of tests that can solidify, or break a theory. For example:

Imagine a circuit, battery to switch, to resistor to capacitor back to battery. 4 components. When the switch is thrown, the capacitor fills through the resistor. The amount of energy passed through the resistor will be equal to the energy stored in the capacitor. When the resistance is changed, the time it takes to fill the condenser is changed, that is all. It takes no more or less energy to fill the capacitor with differing resistances, the only changing factor is time. And to boot, after all is said and done, no matter how hard you try, you will never "dissipate" a single coulomb of charge in the resistor. Energy transferred from battery to capacitor is always the same, despite the heat "dissipated" in the load. If heat did equal energy dissipated, it would take more energy to fill the capacitor with a resistance in line. This is how you can "create" energy in simulated circuits with ease. Energy in this case is decreased only because we are moving from one potential to another, not because we have dissipated anything.
This is also why the essence of it all is in the simplest of places, and why people must not ever think they are too advanced to go back and visit the basics, its likely a lot was missed.

This is also why Dr. Stiffler, said quite rightly, heat is not understood.

[witsend]

@ Witsend

And to boot, after all is said and done, no matter how hard you try, you will never "dissipate" a single coulomb of charge in the resistor.

Just that. That sentence excites me. You are arguing total conservation of charge? That's 3rd Laws. And I entirely agree. That's where the electromagnetic interaction needs to be defined. How really, really excellent to see that this is known.

[witsend]

MileHigh - you're still arguing classical. I really do understand your explanation. Who could not. You describe things very well.

I am asking this, repeatedly and patiently. The current through the resistor establishes a voltage across the resistor. I do not give a tuppeny damn which is first or second, before or last. I do not care about the sequence of events. Time is relevant, but not to this argument.

The argument is here. Interrupt that current flow because the source is now disconnected. Those fields - measured as voltage across the resistor - they collapse. Collapsing fields are fields changing in time. All changing magnetic fields induce an electric field. This introduces a new cycle of current. How can I get you to focus on this single, this one isolated event? Nothing else. Please.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

The "new cycle of current" is what I just described in my previous posting. It is not a "regenerated second cycle of energy" that is the "key" to COP > 1.

The new cycle of current is just the stored energy being released. No heat was generated when the coil was energized. The energy was "parked" in the coil and is then released.

The boxcar being pushed forward through the ooze after your finger stops - that was't a "regenerated second cycle of energy."

MileHigh

[gotoluc]

Hi everyone,

a quick video update of the last test I'm doing before my trip out of the country this Thursday.

This test is using three 12vdc batteries in Series at source and 3 identical batteries in Parallel on the flyback recirculated side.

I find the test to be already demonstrating a good result compared to my previous test using only one 12vdc battery on each side.

It has now been running for 3 hours and the voltage at the series source is at 39.5525 and when I started the test they were at 39.7534. The interesting part is I adjusted the duty cycle to maintain the charge level voltage of the 3 parallel batteries with the attached load (bulb) and it has maintained 12.99vdc for the 3 hour period.

Once you see the video you may understand more: YouTube - Effect of Recirculating BEMF to Coil test 10

Luc

[Armagdn03]

Just that. That sentence excites me. You are arguing total conservation of charge? That's 3rd Laws. And I entirely agree. That's where the electromagnetic interaction needs to be defined. How really, really excellent to see that this is known.

Conservation of charge does not equal conservation of energy. What I am arguing is that energy flows to balance a polarized condition. Always source to sink, however sink and source may switch places, and, energy need never be "dissipated" as heat.

[witsend]

Hi everyone,

a quick video update of the last test I'm doing before my trip out of the country this Thursday.

This test is using three 12vdc batteries in Series at source and 3 identical batteries in Parallel on the flyback recirculated side.

I find the test to be already demonstrating a good result compared to my previous test using only one 12vdc battery on each side.

It has now been running for 3 hours and the voltage at the series source is at 39.5525 and when I started the test they were at 39.7534. The interesting part is I adjusted the duty cycle to maintain the charge level voltage of the 3 parallel batteries with the attached load (bulb) and it has maintained 12.99vdc for the 3 hour period.

Once you see the video you may understand more: YouTube - Effect of Recirculating BEMF to Coil test 10

Luc

Guys - yet again. Check this video. Gotoluc - also yet again. What can I say. You go from better to best. What's the next superlative. That was eloquent - unassailable - elegant - amazing. Many thanks. You're showing us the argument with remarkably clear reference. Well done.

HAVE A WONDERFUL TRIP AND HURRY BACK WE NEED YOU LUC

[witsend]

Conservation of charge does not equal conservation of energy. What I am arguing is that energy flows to balance a polarized condition. Always source to sink, however sink and source may switch places, and, energy need never be "dissipated" as heat.

This is so precisely as I've tried to describe current flow in my paper. Armagdn03 - here's my question? How long have you known this and is it widely understood by the guys on this forum?

Dissipated energy is a secondary phenomenon. Is that how you see it?

[MileHigh]

Luc:

By connecting the bulb across the single battery and noting the voltage drop, and measuring the light bulb resistance, you have accumulated the data to calculate the output impedance of the battery. I know that you are working with .99 on this and he can help you there.

Also you shouldn't connect the three batteries directly in parallel, that could be dangerous. You should have a diode on each battery so the charging source goes through each diode.

MileHigh

[witsend]

Rosemary:

The "new cycle of current" is what I just described in my previous posting. It is not a "regenerated second cycle of energy" that is the "key" to COP > 1.

The new cycle of current is just the stored energy being released. No heat was generated when the coil was energized. The energy was "parked" in the coil and is then released.

The boxcar being pushed forward through the ooze after your finger stops - that was't a "regenerated second cycle of energy."

MileHigh

Ok MileHigh. My counter argument is this. While that box car is being pushed forward courtesy potential difference it is simultaneously inducing an extruded magnetic field across it. That is transferred potential difference.

Can we agree on something? If the measurements that are claimed in the paper are duplicated - would you, like Poynt, be prepared to acknowledge that the 'spike' may be 'regenerated energy' and not 'stored energy'? Is that fair?