COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

irfpg50

what about the other Energetic members, doesn't there actual replication matter or have any influence here in this thread?

Right - everyone's efforts are needed to see the bigger picture on all of this. My replications are just my replications.

Also, I'm glad you're offering up the right mosfet. I hope everyone uses the IRFPG50 because it will do what is needed as opposed to other recommended mosfets. It is the best one to start with.

Bedini always said - don't change it until it works... so if everyone does it with the irfpg50 and gets results first, then go off and try other things. Just a subtle warning - not so subtle if I'm spelling it out - lol - but please don't use the mosfet tk is promoting.

Every single oscillation I have shown is with the quantum circuit and the IRFPG50.

[Aaron]

the right battery

Gel cells are fine for tuning and learning but if using a gel to find the tuning you want or close enough, run the actual draw down tests on liquid flooded sulfuric acid lead acid batteries...just like the car batteries.

The electrolyte in them resonates like a bell and can take strong advantage of the spike and ringing unlike the gel cells.

The gel cells can to a point but not like the flooded cells.

With both, you'll get about the same heat but the recharge is stronger on liquid batts.

I posted this before, but read this again because it is accurate regardless of what some thing about batteries and resonant ringing.

-------------------------------------------------------

BEDINI'S FREE ENERGY GENERATOR

FOREWORD

Imagine having a small D.C. electrical motor sitting on your laboratory bench powered by a common 12 volt battery. Imagine starting with a fully charged battery and connecting it to the motor with no other power input. Obviously, the motor is going to run off the battery, but by conventional thinking it will stop when the battery runs down.


Impossible, you say. Not at all. That's precisely what I have done and the motor is running now in my workshop.

It isn't running by the conventional wisdom of electrical physics. It isn't running by the conventional rules of electric motors and generators, but it is running.

It isn't something complex. It is pretty simple, once one gets the hang of the basic idea.

It is running off the principles of electromagnetics that Nikola Tesla discovered shortly before 1900 in his Colorado Springs experiments. It is running off the fact that empty vacuum - pure "emptiness", so to speak - is filled with rivers and oceans of seething energy, just as Nikola Tesla pointed out.

It is running off the fact that vacuum space-time itself is nothing but pure massless charge. That is, vacuum has a very high electrostatic scalar potential - it is greatly stressed. To usefully tap the enormous locked-in energy of that stress, all one has to do is crack it sharply and tap the vacuum oscillations that result. The best way to do that is to hit something resonant that is imbedded in the vacuum, then tap the resonant stress of the ringing of the vacuum itself

In other words, we can ring something at its resonant frequency and, if that something is imbedded in the vacuum, we can tap off the resonance in vacuum stress, without tapping energy directly from the embedded system we rang into oscillation, So what we really need is something that is deeply imbedded in the vacuum, that is, something that can translate "vacuum" movement to "mass" movement.

Well, all charged particles and ions are already embedded in the vacuum by their charged fluxes, so stressed oscillations - that is, vacuum oscillations - can be converted into normal energy of mass movement by charged particles or ions, if the system of charged particles or ions is made to resonate in phase with our tapping "potential". For our purpose, let's use a system of ions.

First we will need a big accumulator to hold a lot of the charged ions in the system that we wish to shock into oscillation. We need something that has a big capacitance and also contains a lot of ions.

An ordinary battery filled with electrolyte fits the bill nicely. While it is not commonly known, ordinary lead-acid storage batteries have a resonant ionic frequency, usually in the range of from 1-6 MHz. All we have to do is shock-oscillate the ions in the electrolyte at their resonant frequency and time our "trigger"potential and "siphon" current correctly. Then if we keep adding potential to trigger the system we can get all that "potential" to translate into "free electrical energy".

[Aaron]

data

It should also be considered that his results are only one part of the data set. We can take a page out of the book for the LIGO project. The retrieved data is sent to multiple computers to be crunched and then the results are compared to each other to establish the norm. The more independent tests we get of the same basic operation the better the dataset. That will also help certain things to 'pop-out' where results differ. For example, if 5 persons run the circuit and 1 out of 5 does not get the oscillation, and as it turns out he is using a 12mA SE555 while everyone else is using a 200mA NE555, then it will stand out.

Absolutely, I wish everyone had the same scope as well to have the same data collection method. Definitely so important to have the right equipment.

At least everyone could do standardized battery draw down tests. That is in the realm of a reasonable budget compared to expensive scopes.

[Aaron]

results

Aaron:

How goes your testing of the RA circuit? Surely your time with the Tek scope must be near over if not already.

Can you give us an idea when the numbers will be posted?
Many many folks would like to put to bed the Ainslie claims one way or the other based on your evidence, so we're all waiting patiently.

.99

I'm not responsible for everyone's progress with this circuit and there is no reason for anyone to wait on me.

You, TK, and the rest have instruments and you should be doing your own tests since you will be most satisfied with analysis of your own results. When I post results, it won't put anything to bed. The results will simply be debated by skeptics until the end of time and those that believe may find incentive to replicate the circuit to see it for themselves.

I have done the battery draw down comparisons and have already beat 1.0 COP compared to a control drawing needed wattage as outlined in the draw down test protocols that I have posted.

What I am doing now is analyzing waveforms at 10,000 samples per screen to calculate the power leaving the battery. It is the most accurate method with this equipment.

Plus, with the high sample rate, this is the method acceptable to academics and not the dc average reading on the screen next to the scope shots.

Each sample gives a voltage reading at the shunt and with a channel on the battery, it gives the exact voltage at that instant so the wattage for that sample can be calculated. Averaging all 10,000 samples gives an accurate reading of wattage leaving the battery whether it is positive or negative.

With all your equipment or whatever TK has, he should be doing the same thing instead of amusing us with his analysis showing a 1.0 power factor meaning that if the RMS at the load is showing 31 volts for example, that is about 95 watts for a 10 ohm resistor.... WHERE IS THIS ENERGY?

Explain...account for 95 watts that doesn't exist and why does the load show it according to the readings.

Don't tell me about this mostly dc with some ac... that rms is an accurate RMS reading of the load. 31 volts X 31 volts = 961 divided by 10 ohms load = 96.1 watts.

And with about 90mv or 0.090 volts at the shunt for 12.89 volts on power battery for example, is 4.64 watts (0.25 current sensing resistor).

So 4.64 watts and 96.1 at the load shows with the numbers is COP 20.71. However, there is not 96.1 watts of heat at the load, not even close and there isn't that much recharge in the battery to account for that.

The full 31 volts is squared outright since as TK shows the power factor is 1.0 so the phase adjustment isn't needed.

I'm not saying that is cop 20.71 because I don't see the heat to match that but what I am saying is that the academics are scratching their head to answer this.

WHERE is the energy when the load indicates a certain RMS. That RMS is really there so explain where the energy is to go with that voltage.

Again, don't tell me about mostly dc with some ac. That rms is the rms period.

On my draw down tests anyway, the Ainslie circuit beats the control. Anyone can see this easily if they do HONEST draw down tests.

I will post results later after I do enough draw downs. I'll make a video or something showing the data collection method and how it is analyzed.

And by the way, the Ainslie circuit will have a longer running time than the control even when the data dumps show a positive wattage leaving the battery because the battery benefits big time from the spike coming back. That is the whole point. Recycle energy after work was done.

Just like a bouncing ball, which is over 1.0 cop absolutely. You put x in and that is work you get in lifting it. Each bounce after is less than the one before but you add up all the joules of work in each bounce and it is more than can be accounted for in the initial lift.

I have already seen for a fact that this is happening in the Ainslie circuit without a doubt.

[Aaron]

555

@Aaron - have you tried to achieve oscillation with anything other than the 555 circuit?

Sprocket,

Only with the 555.

[Harvey]

It should also be considered that his results are only one part of the data set. We can take a page out of the book for the LIGO project. The retrieved data is sent to multiple computers to be crunched and then the results are compared to each other to establish the norm. The more independent tests we get of the same basic operation the better the dataset. That will also help certain things to 'pop-out' where results differ. For example, if 5 persons run the circuit and 1 out of 5 does not get the oscillation, and as it turns out he is using a 12mA SE555 while everyone else is using a 200mA NE555, then it will stand out.

[thaelin]

When will the results be ready?

I guess this has always been one of my misunderstandings about research what ever kind it is. As in all research, a goal must be set. What do I want to try to prove or disprove. Then a set of rules or steps must be formulated. Parts and equipment are assembled and setup.
Now so far this has all been done. Tests have been run and have shown ample reason to pursue an end result. That end result has not been met yet.

Enough runs and data have not been logged yet to render a final decision. Until that happens, the testing is still open and running. Research demands that enough data be logged that a decision can be made. Not before.

When will the results be done? When they are done and presented. Even if it takes another month, that's when its done, not before.

So can I ask that he be allowed to finish the tests without being badgered for the results. I am certain he will give full and complete information when it is available.

thanks

thaelin

[FuzzyTomCat]

@ .99

Many many folks would like to put to bed the Ainslie claims one way or the other based on your evidence, so we're all waiting patiently.

.99

@.99

What are you saying here? That anyone else's opinion including my replication I just started working and haven't received all my parts yet doesn't matter and what about the other Energetic members, doesn't there actual replication matter or have any influence here in this thread?

I don't understand what your insinuating with this broad statement?

How is your replication going?

Do you have any stats, data or photos of a replication to share with the group, or have I just missed them?

What's the hurry? I didn't realize there was a time table on this, whats the due date now????

Glen


------------------------------------------------------------------------
edit- If you need a Mosfet for your replication and cannot afford one, I will send you one "FREE" of charge just PM me !!!!

[poynt99]

A Conclusion ?

Aaron:

How goes your testing of the RA circuit? Surely your time with the Tek scope must be near over if not already.

Can you give us an idea when the numbers will be posted?
Many many folks would like to put to bed the Ainslie claims one way or the other based on your evidence, so we're all waiting patiently.

.99

[sprocket]

I finally got my mosfets - not Vishay's but they seem ok - and had a quick play this evening. First thing I noticed is that the g50's seem far better at switching fully-on than the c50 I was using. Anyway, apart from some curious chaotic signals initially, everthing seemed to settle down and I could noto reproduce them. Nothing happening with the iron-coil either. Will add the 555 circuit tomorrow to see if it help any.

@Aaron - have you tried to achieve oscillation with anything other than the 555 circuit?

[Aaron]

tk's vid

TK's vid shows negative average on the shunts:
YouTube - Electric OU: Comparison of Current Monitor Positions; Isolated Input Fluke-0-Scopy

However, based on past history it may turn into something later like:

"Well, it seemed to be a gain to the battery, however I found that
it is the timer battery all along."

This is to build up excitement and then crash it with such a claim to
dampen the replicators excitement.

He may not do this, but it would be consistent with past performance so
I want to point out this possibility first before he has a chance to make
this claim first if he does try to pull something like that.

Anyway, he should run the timer from the SAME battery as the power
battery and he will see, if he knows how to tune it, that he will be able
to get the gain even if the battery is also supplying the timer power.

Also, he can say "fluffy" voltage to the battery, a term I coined 5 years
ago to represent the electrostatic charge that just sits there but doesn't
give real power. Do not be misdirected by his use of this terminology
because when charging batteries with this circuit or having it boost the
input power voltage, you will see on your own experiments that it is
anything but fluffy.

[Aaron]

rf

he is becoming an extension antenna for those frequencies.

This would make sense if it triggered the light when I put my hand on it. However, it is when I grab it and then let go that it does it. Like the "abrupt" turning up of the gate resistance. When I grab it, it dampens down what is at the coil since I'm absorbing it. Then when I let go, the coil pops back to max really quick and that is when it changes the light.

[witsend]

Thanks for the explanation Harvey.

[Harvey]

Harvey - where does the signal actually propagate? Can you explain this? I read your link, by the way - and I'm not sure that it's entirely the same thing. But certainly Aaron seems to trigger something when touching the metal on the circuit - at other times with no (edit) 'metal' contact at all? Is it nonetheless the same thing?

When the device is oscillating it is in the low frequency RF spectrum ( Low frequency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). When he touches various parts (which do not have to be metal, they can be capacitive also) he is becoming an extension antenna for those frequencies. The signal propagates outward like ripples in a pond from the transmitting 'antenna'. The higher the watts, the taller the ripples (AM). Of course the RF ripples move outward at light-speed. Those are transverse waves. There is also a longitudinal compression and decompression of space-time in front of and behind those ripples. It would be similar to the pressure in front of a wave increasing and the pressure behind it decreasing. Our ears hear longitudinal waves, our eyes see both.

Today was a bust for me, hopefully tomorrow will be more fruitful.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Ok ..... today was a good day and the four people that requested the International Rectifier IRFPG50 and have trusted me with there name and address your Mosfet has been sent out USPS priority mail ...... for 100% FREE !!

Enjoy and hope to see your replication !!

Best Regards,
Glen