COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Aaron]

cop

Hi Aaron

I'm back and thanks for your reply. I will try to explain my thinking in a little more detail. The SG Monopole motor is perhaps a good example to use. Loading the shaft mechanically will affect the energy discharged from the inductor and vica-versa. It is not possible for the mechanical or electrical side of the motor to be loaded without affecting each other. The motor seeks a balance between electrical and mechanical output for a given level of input energy. Charging a secondary battery is a diversion of energy which will be compensated by a rebalance of energy in other parts of the system. The inductor acts as an energy storage tank that can be tapped but has to be refilled in order to keep balance with the tapped load. Heat is produced in the process of switching, converting the low voltage input to high voltage output. This high voltage allows a secondary battery to charge and it is here that claims are made that a battery charged in this way will deliver more out than in. IMO nobody has ever shown convincing proof of this. We are shown very low power motor devices being run for very long periods of time from batteries, but these are all utilising the 'Peukert Effect' to a degree depending on the capacity of the supply battery, giving the impression of self-running but these are not overunity systems.

As Peter Lindeman has shown in his excellent videos, PM motors can be made more efficient. However, in terms of total energy input to total energy output both electrical and mechanical, they can never run overunity by feeding back energy to the supply battery. COP>1 is of course achievable if the criteria is based on some or all of the input energy to a system being a free energy supply being defined as a 'non-user' input obtained from environmental sources as described in John Bedini's Free Energy book. Even a COP of infinity is possible with full environmental energy input but the point is COP>1 or infinity does not take a system overunity. If I rig my electricity meter and pay no grid power bill, I can claim a COP infinity system. I do not see this criteria for calculating COP as being at all helpful as a means to measure the true performance of an electro-mechanical device such as a PM or SG monopole motor.

Hoppy

Hoppy,

Over 1.0 COP is Overunity in the intended sense of the word. Technical we can't have more than "everything" so there really is no overunity but it is a term that is widely accepted to mean over 1.0 COP.

Many people that talk about overunity do think it means over 100% efficient, which is different from COP but they haven't figured it out yet.

In either case, overunity means over 1.0 COP so in the INTENDED meaning of the word, anything over 1.0 COP is overunity. A windmill with 100% environmental input has a COP of Infinity and is overunity. Something at 1.01 COP is overunity.

You can clearly see that on John's bicycle wheel energizer that there is a big heavy fan (radiator fan) and is a LOAD and is doing WORK (blowing wind)...it blows my hair back when my face is in front of it. lol It is doing real work.

The batteries charge just fine from it.

I have also done many tests with a belt pulley system, which is a load and also no problems. The energizer isn't made for torque but the mechanical is still doing work. Look at all the fan projects...those all blow air at the same time... the load has no negative effect.

You say nobody has shown convincing proof, but if your analysis on all of that doesn't see over 1.0 COP, it is because you don't let yourself see it and not because it isn't there.

It is easy to get 90% efficient in the recovery battery. Doing actual dyno test on the rotor the old fashion way with a leather strap and springs, etc... you can calculate EXACTLY how much mechanical work is there and the equivelant electrical power that is supposed to be requierd to produce that mechanical work. Add that to 90% and it is over 1.0 COP. You can deny it but you also haven't done the test to measure mechanical. If you did, you'll see over 1.0 COP staring you square in the eyes.

Power readings on the shunt of the Bedini system have all been done in the same way as discussed here. Power in and power out.

You do realize that TUV from Germany tested Bedini's machines and recorded a 500% gain compared to the input. COP 5.0 (not 500% efficient).

COP ratio for these devices are PERFECTLY suited for comparing total output comapred to what we pay for on the input.

This is an old tired argument.

[Aaron]

time as fuel

Cant say how long I have known, but I dont really think it is understood by almost anybody. I was watching a guy speak, who was a former "black ops" who said that the military had circuits which only "spent time".

This is the whole point to the voltage potential spikes. There is no real width to them because they are storing the TIME POTENTIAL. That time is what is being used to power the circuit when a load is applied. That time potential will cause current to flow when load is applied.

Literally using TIME as fuel.

[Hoppy]

Aaron,

So, you say: "there is really no overunity, just an acceptance that COP >1 means overunity." Therefore, Peter's motors are not really overunity, just accepted as overunity??

If people have followed and accepted the COP explanation in the FEG book, they will have realised how easy it is to achieve overunity and a COP infinity system. As I mentioned earlier, just 'rig' your electricity meter and your flying at COP infinity until you get caught What are we really measuring here

Agreed,this is an old tired argument but one that will go around and around.

Hoppy

[Gre]

Where are the COP 17 measurements, as stated in the title? I looked through this whole thread and haven't seen anything WRT to the COP 17 claim. Did I miss something?

[Joit]

Where are the COP 17 measurements, as stated in the title? I looked through this whole thread and haven't seen anything WRT to the COP 17 claim. Did I miss something?

They are not done yet. You can still be the First !

[Joit]

Popping Batteries

I got a damaged Batterie from a Friend once, what had damaged Cells.
I tried to charge them with a regular Loader.
Over night, the Transformer from the Charger did get a short, and get damaged. I think, this did casue the damaged Charge Batterie
After that, i put the damaged Batterie at a SG Charger, but there did nothing happen, only, the Batterie is still damaged and did load the intact Cells.
Pulsed charges cause lesser sideffects as normal Chargers,
Plus Batteries dont get Hot at charging, they stay just cold.
So, i guess you have to take less care about, to put them in Parallel,
but of course, its allways better to have a Eye on her Temperatur.

[MileHigh]

Hard AC measurement to easy DC measurement

For the replicators:

It just occured to me that there is a way to byppass the complicated power measurements across the shunt resistor and convert them into DC measurements that can be made with your multimeter. Therefore you don't need a storage scope and you don't need to do all of the spreadsheet processing. Sounds good?

If you have a 24-volt battery source, then just add another 12-volt or 6-volt battery in series. Let's assume a 6-volt battery is added to give you 30 volts and the experiment runs at 24-volts.

You do this: 30-volt battery source -> variable resistor -> very large capacitor positive terminal -> circuit input. (the capacitor negative terminal is on your circuit ground)

You run the setup and adjust the variable resistor so that the big capacitor stays at 24 volts. With the proper resistor value in series with the right potentiomenter, you can use the potentiometer as a fine tuning adjustment for the capacitor voltage. You may have to "ride" the potentiometer setting as the experiment runs over 10 or 15 minues and watch the voltage across the big cap and make fine adjustments.

To get your power you first make a precise measurement of your big capacitor voltage to get the source voltage. Then to get the current you make a precise measurement of the voltage from the 6-volt battery, measure between the big cap and the battery. Then you disconnect the power and make a precise resistance measurement for the variable resistor setting. To get the source current calculate the current that was flowing through the variable resistor. Then multiply the source voltage by the source current and you will get a very accurate power consumption measurement for the circuit load and this will factor in any current returned from the circuit to "charge the source battery" which in this case is the big capacitor.

A "big capacitor" would probably have to be one or two coke-can-sized 35-volt electrolytic capacitors. You want the big capacitor to measure very little voltage ripple when the circuit runs, and that can be checked on a scope. If the peak-to-peak of the voltage ripple is less than 0.1 volts you should be fine. It will likely be much less than this, meaning the big capacitor voltage will be almost pure DC when the circuit runs.

Exactly the same type of setup could be done using a fixed value resistor and a good bench power supply (or two bench power supplies in series) that has a fine voltage adjustment.

MileHigh

[Gre]

They are not done yet. You can still be the First !

Oh, I assumed someone already had a COP of 17 after reading the topic. Isn't Rosemary Ainslie here somewhere?

[witsend]

Rosemary,
it is very simple really. You should look at Peters electric motor secrets thread:
...
So you see that we can get most of the energy back and this is real current flow that indeed can charge up a capacitor. So all we need is just to adjust the duty cycle so that the on time is just enough for the coil core to fully magnetize and this will get us the best input/output ratio.
Hope this helps

Thanks Jet. I get it. Very elegant.

[Aaron]

overunity

Aaron,

So, you say: "there is really no overunity, just an acceptance that COP >1 means overunity." Therefore, Peter's motors are not really overunity, just accepted as overunity??

If people have followed and accepted the COP explanation in the FEG book, they will have realised how easy it is to achieve overunity and a COP infinity system. As I mentioned earlier, just 'rig' your electricity meter and your flying at COP infinity until you get caught What are we really measuring here

Agreed,this is an old tired argument but one that will go around and around.

Hoppy

Hoppy, I hope you won't take my words to mean something that supports something that you believe in but I don't.

I believe you know exactly what I mean and you're playing games with my intentions. Why do I believe that? Because I ALREADY spelled it out in my post. Read again.

The attraction motors are over 1.0 COP so they produce more work than work input from the batteries.

Overunity is an oxymoron.

The word overunity isn't even needed.

Over 1.0 COP or under 1.0 COP... that is the question. What word do you want to use to describe that Hoppy?

If you take a word: overunity, and you say the MEANING IS over 1.0 COP. That is EXACTLY what overunity means to that person with that definition. That is what overunity means no matter what in terms of what most people think of in terns of overunity.

Some people say overunity is over 100% efficient. It is not. Open systems add to entropy means there is dissipation in the system. More work is simply being done that what the operator had to input. That is over 1.0 COP and anytime I mention that word, that is my meaning.

[Aaron]

@Gre

Where are the COP 17 measurements, as stated in the title? I looked through this whole thread and haven't seen anything WRT to the COP 17 claim. Did I miss something?

Gre,

Did you read all of Rosemary's papers?

[Aaron]

leave caps off batteries

If you have a 24-volt battery source, then just add another 12-volt or 6-volt battery in series. Let's assume a 6-volt battery is added to give you 30 volts and the experiment runs at 24-volts.

You do this: 30-volt battery source -> variable resistor -> very large capacitor positive terminal -> circuit input. (the capacitor negative terminal is on your circuit ground)

MH, you're recommendations just happen to be things that are specifically engineered to reduce recovery. The cap on battery will negate some of the real charging effects to the battery.

Anyone that is interested in this circuit - DO NOT PUT CAPS ON YOUR SOURCE BATTERY.

The only time a cap could be on the front side for recycling is in an isolated condition such as what Peter shows on his circuit. MH is NOT talking about the same thing. It will reduce your COP greatly. If you want to make a circuit that doesn't work as good as it can, listen to MH and put a cap directly on your battery as he suggests.

If you want to do it right, leave the capacitors off the battery powering the circuit.

[Aaron]

message

Rosemary
I was broad sided By a bad guy, can't access the INTERNET (bold underlned blue) [using a buddies comp]
I have fresh armor coming tomorrow.
Chet
PS
I hear 99 threw himelf on his sword![not good]
PPS
I have a feeling my problem came from looking at something "BAD" [you know politics!!]
And not these forums

TK sorry I get distracted When things aren't moving forward[We need a red face guy over here

Rosemary, there is no evidence Chet (ramset) is a unique human being separate from TK, another anonymous person. He can show himself with a picture and name and city. Otherwise, with the anonymous message service for someone with a history of repeated failures, there could be reason to believe it is the same person.

Why would an honest person do such a thing?

Anyone can type messages to appear to be a non-native-speaking English person. Because of how they are playing there game, that is what I believe to be the case until one or the other present their picture and name.

Until then, they're hiding behind an anonymous name. It doesn't take much courage to do that.

For his message to imply that he is getting attacked, that implies, whether true or not, that he is not part of the threat to this project (a subtle way to imply that), which shows a likely intention for you/usto gain favor of him as someone with trustworthy intentions.

[Aaron]

replications

Oh, I assumed someone already had a COP of 17 after reading the topic. Isn't Rosemary Ainslie here somewhere?

Rosemary's test was already certified at COP 17 by BP, Fluke Instruments certified the results, etc...

If you're new to the thread, there have already been multiple confirmations that there is more current circulating in the system that what left the battery. There are many more to come and many more to be posted in this forum.

[witsend]

Hi Aaron. Re Ramset - I get it. Not important. Just find it scarey at times when he holds up that mirror on my life and trials especially when these have not been confided. But you're right. If it matters it should be referenced. Else just ignore it. And I guess the readers don't want to be that involved. With good reason.

The 'double-bluff' - it all gets way too elaborate for my limited understandings. The chances are I'm just being paranoid.