COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Joit]

@witsend

Well, so far you did see it by yourself, that it worked, you should feel save.
And if you get the Confirmation even from Peoples, what dont work at Free Energy devices, you should feel save.
Its mostly the Point, when 2 Opinions hit eachother, its starts to be a Mind game.
And just working against each other, instead looking for the same Target ends most at the Dirt.

But anyway, each Time, when i post something here, its like i am getting a blockade, and need to do other Things, to come back to it, and continue.
Its like some have the Ability from the Readers to sproad bad Charma.

That Motto cames actually from all that Patent collecting Peoples, where they assure, it all do work, just do this and that, but when you try it, nothing works.
Or some other Specialists can tell you exactly how it should work, but never did a rebuild, to confirm it by herself.

And at last, a lot of Patents dont have all Informations what are needed, even when there is a Coil, you cant see, if its a torroid, or a special Transformer or anything else.
Only with a Patent its sometimes hard, to proove something.
And well, i think, TK is still not happy right now, because it maybe still dont work, as he do expect.
But anyway, noone can take you away, what you know by yourself.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I've been running some tests and running a control test with straight dc and I am starting to wonder here, why is it assumed that when pulsing dc into a circuit that the circuit sees the full source voltage. I recall some comments from Rosemary that alluded to this very thing and I have been going over all her papers and patent app. and it almost seems as though at least in the paper doc. that this is how the voltage measurements are being considered. Across my load resistor it shows 1.13V at 12V input and with a sense resistor the voltage there jives since it would lower this 1.13V due to the lower resistance, so what is the voltage dissipated in the load resistor, seems it's 1.13V. I am simply wondering why current is averaged and not voltage as well in pulsed systems. Anyone's own personal thoughts on this appreciated and not recited text book material, thanks.
peace love light

[Harvey]

143khz

Hello Rosemary and all,

I rarely dig deeply into things that TK is involved with because a great majority of his efforts are directed towards explaining fringe science by classical means. When he invested so much effort into this it really piqued my curiosity, because normally he can zero in on the root of the matter rather quickly. His hand waving about lost scope triggers did not set well with me and I had to go and read the Quantum article and the Newspaper article and have a gander at the patent application as well.

When I saw that schematic I knew I had seen it before; at least the HEXFET arrangement with the inductive load. I knew that TK was using his own flavor of MOSFET and that can have varied results. So...digging back into my International Rectifier Designers Manual (HDM-3 September 1993) for HEXFET's I had a concerted look at the IRFPG50. One of the features of that particular item is that it is 'Repetitive Avalanche Rated'. It is specifically designed to handle the voltage spike generated during and inductive field collapse to the tune of 800mJ for a single pulse and 19mJ for repetitive pulses (depending on junction temperature).

Looking at the battery as an inductive-capacitor and the load as an inductive-resistor we can see that the source impedance of the battery will have a reactance as will the load. When these two items are tuned a certain way, we can expect a resonance to occur. When this happens (according to the documentation at 143KHz), the current through the load is AC and the EMF is converted to heat while the current moves in both directions, multiple times, while the ringing subsides. This condition can be exacerbated by the Avalanche characteristics of the IRFPG50, where additional current may initially flow subsequent to the off state of the device, which enlarges the magnetic field just prior to collapse.

One can see that this works similarly to a water-hammer in plumbing where the flow of water is suddenly stopped and the energy cascades back to the source and resonates between the source and the shutoff device until it is fully dissipated.

Replicators, including TK, need to focus on the 143KHz secondary oscillation and how it plays a part in the documented results.

Best Regards,

Harvey

[Harvey]

Hi folks, I've been running some tests and running a control test with straight dc and I am starting to wonder here, why is it assumed that when pulsing dc into a circuit that the circuit sees the full source voltage. I recall some comments from Rosemary that alluded to this very thing and I have been going over all her papers and patent app. and it almost seems as though at least in the paper doc. that this is how the voltage measurements are being considered. Across my load resistor it shows 1.13V at 12V input and with a sense resistor the voltage there jives since it would lower this 1.13V due to the lower resistance, so what is the voltage dissipated in the load resistor, seems it's 1.13V. I am simply wondering why current is averaged and not voltage as well in pulsed systems. Anyone's own personal thoughts on this appreciated and not recited text book material, thanks.
peace love light

The instantaneous voltage across the load resistor will be the current through that resistor times it's resistance E=I*R. The IRFPG50 has a Rds(on) of 2.0 Ohms. The sense resistor is 0.25 Ohms So the combined resistive circuit (notwithstanding reactances) is 12.25 Ohms. Two series batteries for a total of 24V across 12.25 Ohms is 1.96 Amps. Therefore, you should see 19.59 Volts across the load. The instantaneous power during that condition would be 38.4 Watts.

When the magnetic field collapses both in the battery and in the inductor, the voltage present could spike to over 1000V (The Avalanche Voltage for the IRFPG50) and cause a large current to flow for a very small period of time, but sufficient to enlarge the magnetic fields on the rebound and setup a resonant ringing that produces instantaneous values in excess of those above. When this condition occurs with sufficient frequency such that the ambient cooling of the load is unable to dissipate the thermal energy in the time provided, the load will increase in temperature even though the time slice that produces the heating is very small.

Cheers,

Harvey

[eternalightwithin]

Wow, an explanation that makes sense. You have a way with words, Sir!

Sincerely,

David P.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Harvey, I'm pulsing at 2.6khz @ 3.6% duty and my multimeter on dc shows 1.13V using 12V input, which i assume to be an averaging value. Meter on input jives with sense resistor @ around .12A. So .12AX10ohms = 1.2 or in my case 1.13V, hence my questioning calculating using the full source voltage. The circuit load resistor is only using an average of 1.13V so why do we assume that 12V is flowing.
peace love light

[Harvey]

This is one of the reasons that TK tried all the things he tried, because he knows the 'average' is a weird combination of instantaneous values all summed together. Unfortunately, our meters (even good RMS meters) don't take into consideration oddly shaped waveforms, like triangle waves, saddlebacks, sawtooths and composites. Instead, they assume the waveforms will be sinusoidal. When we know the precise slopes involved, then we can invoke mathematical functions to accurately predict or determine the true averages, but from the waveforms I've seen here that is a tall order.

This is why our meters have a different voltage settings for AC vs DC, so it can approximate the expected envelope. If your meter offers Peak to Peak AC, you may want to use that to determine the amplitude of the pulsed DC peak to peak. That will give you an idea of the higher instantaneous voltage across your load, but it really doesn't do this experiment the justice it deserves.

If your waveform is reasonably square or trapezoidal, then you can deduce by the duty cycle the average power without too much grief.

In your specific case, you know you have 12V across your circuit, and you know you only have 0.12A flowing through it. Thats around 1/10 of what it should be. So we know right away that there is a large resistance or impedance somewhere in your circuit - possibly the MOSFET itself running in a linear mode (is it getting real hot?). Or is it that the 0.12A is an average?

Now for the really simple answer: You can use all the voltage part of the time, or an average voltage all the time for your calculations. Getting a true average is not as easy as it sounds.

Cheers,

Harvey

[Peter Lindemann]

Spectactular

Hello Rosemary and all,

I rarely dig deeply into things that TK is involved with because a great majority of his efforts are directed towards explaining fringe science by classical means. When he invested so much effort into this it really piqued my curiosity, because normally he can zero in on the root of the matter rather quickly. His hand waving about lost scope triggers did not set well with me and I had to go and read the Quantum article and the Newspaper article and have a gander at the patent application as well.

When I saw that schematic I knew I had seen it before; at least the HEXFET arrangement with the inductive load. I knew that TK was using his own flavor of MOSFET and that can have varied results. So...digging back into my International Rectifier Designers Manual (HDM-3 September 1993) for HEXFET's I had a concerted look at the IRFPG50. One of the features of that particular item is that it is 'Repetitive Avalanche Rated'. It is specifically designed to handle the voltage spike generated during and inductive field collapse to the tune of 800mJ for a single pulse and 19mJ for repetitive pulses (depending on junction temperature).

Looking at the battery as an inductive-capacitor and the load as an inductive-resistor we can see that the source impedance of the battery will have a reactance as will the load. When these two items are tuned a certain way, we can expect a resonance to occur. When this happens (according to the documentation at 143KHz), the current through the load is AC and the EMF is converted to heat while the current moves in both directions, multiple times, while the ringing subsides. This condition can be exacerbated by the Avalanche characteristics of the IRFPG50, where additional current may initially flow subsequent to the off state of the device, which enlarges the magnetic field just prior to collapse.

One can see that this works similarly to a water-hammer in plumbing where the flow of water is suddenly stopped and the energy cascades back to the source and resonates between the source and the shutoff device until it is fully dissipated.

Replicators, including TK, need to focus on the 143KHz secondary oscillation and how it plays a part in the documented results.

Best Regards,

Harvey

Harvey,

Thank you for finding the detailed specifications on the IRFPG50. The information sounds so important, that I'll bet other researchers would find it valuable to have, as well. Would you be so kind as to scan the entire citation from your 1993 IR Designer's Manual on this device and post it to this thread? I know I would download it!

Understanding this resonant window makes Rosemary's claims seem more achievable than ever.

Thanks again for your research and your insights.

Peter

[Aaron]

143hz

Great find Harvey!

Is there any way to get a photocopy of the pages related to the irfpg50 that you mention? This is incredible and explains so much and the effect to make it happen is even documented for this specific mosfet!

143Hz...exactly what the Quantum article said.

[Aaron]

IRFPG50 Datasheet

IRFPG 50 Datasheet

This sheet mentions what Harvey said about the Repetitive Avalanche Rating and a few specs on it.

[MileHigh]

Harvey and Skywatcher:

You guys are presenting a third option so to speak. You have Rosemary's explanation, the classicist explanation, and now your option.

There are big points that you would have to defend. You allege that there is inductance in the battery that can cause a resonance. One of you said, "the voltage present could spike to over 1000V (The Avalanche Voltage for the IRFPG50) and cause a large current to flow for a very small period of time."

By definition the current could never exceed the maximum current of approximately (24/12.25) = 1.96 amps. Also, it's not as simple as i = V/R because when the MOSFET first switches on the initial current is zero, as shown in Aaron and TK's video clips, as per how an inductor works.

I have no intention of debating this stuff with you but I can suggest that you look through the last five pages of this thread to get multiple viewpoints and look at both Aaron's and TK's video clips. I assume that Rosemary would be interested in your ideas, you might get into an interesting debate.

As more test data accumulates the claim of COP 17 for Rosemary's circuit will either be verified or refuted.

MileHigh

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Milehigh, actually I'm just thinking out loud and Harvey is trying to help me and is offering information about the mosfet that may explain part of the large COP figures of Rosemary's from what I see. I'm actually reading the whole thread again to find the posts that were talking about the voltage at the load resistor. I'm sure I may be off base, but it is just a dc pulse, so i don't see why a regular averaging volt meter wouldn't be reliable for volts across load resistor and so based on that it says 128mw across load resistor. Any thoughts.
peace love light
Also my tests are definitely showing more heat in the load resistor with the flyback diode at this point, the circuit is only using the inductive resistor. will post the crude tests methods later since I'm lacking at this time in temp. probes and such.
Ok, pulsed control test without diode just finished at 45 min. and the heat is not enough in the load resistor to give proper results since I used again the too hot for thumb too touch method. So this definitely shows a good flyback return using the diode compared to not.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, So here are the results using my too hot to touch finger sensing method. Yesterday I ran the tests with the flyback diode and used a
10 ohm, 10 watt wire-wound resistor from the 'shack'.
12V, .13A input @ 2.79 khz @ 3.2% duty cycle @ 11.5us on time
1) @ 20 minutes - 6 seconds became too hot to touch with fingers
2) @ 30 minutes - 5 seconds became too hot to touch
3) @ 35 minutes - 4 seconds too hot to touch
4) @ 45 minutes - 4 seconds and becoming stable at 4 seconds
And today's test using NO flyback diode and same test circuit. I could keep my fingers touching indefinitely because the load resistor never became hot enough, so some kind of temperature measuring device will be needed to see more accurate results, however this proves to me that we can get much more heat in an inductive resistor using the flyback it generates and any other effects occurring.
peace love light

[Aaron]

battery resonance

Harvey and Skywatcher:

You guys are presenting a third option so to speak. You have Rosemary's explanation, the classicist explanation, and now your option.

There are big points that you would have to defend. You allege that there is inductance in the battery that can cause a resonance. One of you said, "the voltage present could spike to over 1000V (The Avalanche Voltage for the IRFPG50) and cause a large current to flow for a very small period of time."

I don't see a third option, what I really see is more corroboration between the Quantum article mentioning the oscillation starting at 143kHz and Harvey's investigation reveals the SAME information about this particular mosfet's oscillation properties.

This particular mosfet happens to have everything built to take advantage of exactly what this circuit does. There is ringing all over the place on this circuit. Zoom into the lines connecting each pulse and you see they're ringing.

And of course batteries can cause resonance.

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

I think this is from 1984 - Bedini's old book.

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, vcuum 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 imbedded 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".

Look at it this way. Conventionally "electrostatic scalar potential" is composed of work or energy per column of charged particle mass. So if we add potential alone, without the mass flow, to a system of oscillating charged particles, we add "physical energy" in the entire charged particle system. In other words, the "potential" we add is converted directly into "ordinary energy" by the imbedded ions in the system. If we are clever we don't have to furnish any pushing energy to move pure potential around. (For proof that this is possible, see Bearden's "Toward a New Electromagnetics; Part IV; Vectors and Mechanisms Clarified", Tesla Book Co,, 1983, Slide 19, page 43, and the accompanying write-up, pages 10,11. Also see Y. Aharonov and V. Bohm, "Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory", "Physical Review", Second Series, Vol. 115, No. 3, Aug 1, 1959, pages 485-491. On page 490 you will find that it's possible to have a field-free region of space, and still have the potential determine the physical properties of the system.)

Now this "free energy resonant coupling" can be done in a simple, cheap system. You don't need big cyclotrons and huge laboratories to do it; you can do it with ordinary D.C. motors, batteries, controllers and trigger circuits.

And that's exactly what I have done. It's real. It works. It is running now on my laboratory bench in prototype form.


But that's not all. I am also a humanitarian. I am concerned for that little old widow lady at the end of the lane, stretching her meager Social Security check as far as she can, shivering in the cold winter and not daring to turn up her furnace because she can't afford the frightful utility bills.

That's simply got to change and I may well be the fellow who changes it. By openly releasing my work in this paper, I am providing enough information for all the tinkerers and independent inventors around the world to have at it. If I can get a thousand of them to duplicate my device, it simply can't be suppressed as so many others have been.

So here it is. I have deliberately written my paper for the tinkerer and experimenter, not for the scientist. You must be careful, for the device is a little tricky to adjust in and synchronize all the resonances. You'll have to fiddle with it, but it will work. Keep at it.

Also, we warn you not to play with this unless you know what you are doing. The resonating battery electrolyte produces hydrogen, and if you hit it too hard with a "voltage spike" you can get an electrical spark inside the battery. If that happens, the battery will explode, so don't mess with it unless you are qualified and use the utmost caution.

But it does work. So all you experimenters and pioneers, now's your chance. Have at it. Build it. Tinker with it. Fiddle it into resonant operation. Then let's build this thing in quantity, sell it widely, and get those home utilities down to where we can all afford them - including the shivering little old lady at the end of the lane.

And when we do, let's give men like me the credit and appreciation they so richly deserve.

The Institute Of Electrical And Electronics Engineers, Inc

John C Bedini has constructed a laboratory model of a machine in which output energy exceeds input. It consists of a lead-acid battery which powers a small DC motor, which turns a magneto-like dynamo, which provides output energy to an electronics package, which in turn feeds timed (scalar?) pulses back to the battery terminals for recharging. As a demonstration, Bedini then removes the good battery and sequentially inserts fully discharged, dead batteries. Each of the dead batteries eventually receives a full charge. Stated differently, He starts with one good battery and four discharged batteries. At the end of the demonstration all five batteries are fully charged. This author has personally visited Bedini's lab many times , in company with technicians and professors of Physics and Electrical Engineering. None of us has been able to fault Bedini's findings. Each of my professorial friends, however, has requested that their names not be used for attribution, the inference being that their respective universities would not be understanding of heretical concepts.

[Aaron]

diode

And today's test using NO flyback diode and same test circuit. I could keep my fingers touching indefinitely because the load resistor never became hot enough, so some kind of temperature measuring device will be needed to see more accurate results, however this proves to me that we can get much more heat in an inductive resistor using the flyback it generates and any other effects occurring.

I agree skywatcher. I connected the ringing with exceptional heat production compared to no ringing or super scrambled ringing. Without diode, the good smooth ringing gets scrambled at the higher amplitudes and smooths out at the lower ones.

Definitely the diode is crucial for max heat with minimum input according to my tests.