COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Aaron, are you saying not to use the flyback diode now, thought that was part of the circuit. Hmm.

[Harvey]

Poynt, please revisit the schematic and revise your last post accordingly - you have obviously overlooked a few things.

[witsend]

Guys, I owe everyone an apology. I have been advised that the best results are, ideed, without the use of that flyback diode.

In other words, the Quantum article was right all along. To get the full benefit of the oscillation do the test without the flyback parallel to the load. The good news is that both configurations work and both deliver >1 COP. But the best results are simply - LEAVE THE DIODE OUT ALTOGETHER. I have no idea how I overlooked this advantage. I can only blame it on my age.

Like Aaron has proposed. Do the test with both. The advantage of the diode is that it gives proof of battery recharge.

Good luck on replications to all our experimentalists. I'm entirely satisfied that we're going to hear just so much - so very soon. And all of it really good.

THANK YOU AARON FOR YOUR AMAZING WORK. I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO REPAY YOU

And for the support that I've been given on this thread - to all those who stuck by us - MANY THANKS INDEED.

And Jibbguy - a personal favour. Please keep in close touch with Aaron. We really need your talents here - at all possible levels.

[Aaron]

with and without diode

Hi Aaron, are you saying not to use the flyback diode now, thought that was part of the circuit. Hmm.

You can use the flyback and STILL get over 1.0 COP. I simply found an increase without the diode.

It is very, very apparent. If looking at the ac voltage on the load with and without the diode, it will be obvious.

With the diode, you get the on pulse and a spike that is easily 4 times that voltage. Around 100 V.

Without the diode, the ac voltage at the load coil is about 4 times normal. If the voltage on the batteries is at about 25 volts, then with the diode, the AC at the load is about 10 when tuned pretty good. Without the diode, it can be over 40 volts.

That simply shows that the diode did indeed act as a voltage pressure relief valve to divert some to the battery.

The heat is much, much more without the diode and still with incredible running time.

It may be trading heat for battery charge but in either case, both can be shown to have incredible gains.

1. Battery draw down comparison for equivalent heat. Ainslie circuit shows longer running time.

2. Heat production for x continuous average watts into the Ainslie circuit versus resistance across control batt with enough resistance to allow "required" wattage from control for same temp. The draw from battery is less than what the required wattage would be for same temp. Therefore, more heat for less input.

[witsend]

Yes, inductive heaters are very mainstream and directly tied to the frequency of the inductive oscillation. It is explained away using eddy currents and skin effects but the net result is a clear conversion of energy from one electromagnetic frequency to another (or literally others, pl.) both in the visible and in the invisible spectrum. It should be noted that the 'Ice' in the second video is probably not water but some other frozen solution and much of the light seemed to be reflecting off the inside of the coils rather than from the ice itself.

This experimenter gives an interesting analysis on the topic: EDIT: (started the post 3 hours ago and had to deal with interuptions - Thanx Joit for getting in there quicker )
High Frequency Induction Heating

The question we are trying to answer is whether or not some of the photonic energy released in your circuit is derived from the release of structural tension in the inductive resistor itself at the expense of its integrity. If the effect were to diminish over long term tests then that may be an indicator of this being the case. On the other hand, if it continues to perform undeterred by time then we must consider that the energy arrives from elsewhere into the open system.

Harvey have not yet checked the link. I want to answer you before you disappear. Just your last para here. The question is easily answered if you look at the degradation of all resistors over time. Also at the significance of metal fatigue and fatigue generally. But I'll get back to you. AM JUST SO THRILLED AT THESE LAST POSTINGS.

[witsend]

Hi Harvey - I checked through the link. Very interesting. I see that the effect still requires that switching circuit. But it's just such a clean clear application of the electromagnetic principles.

Also an interesting discussion on phase shifts - but I want to re-read.

I think the thrust of this development may be with the shape of inductors generally. But I also think that it should be viable to generate current flow from magnet on magnet interactions. But that's for the future. Right now we seem to have nailed >1 COP. That's got to be a good thing.

[witsend]

What do think Rosemary, is poynt starting to catch on?

Hi Harvey. I'm dying to know what he'll be mocking in a couple of weeks from now. But it's all good. The systematic destruction of an OLD school of thought. Personally I can't wait.

[Harvey]

Hi Harvey. I'm dying to know what he'll be mocking in a couple of weeks from now. But it's all good. The systematic destruction of an OLD school of thought. Personally I can't wait.

Hi Rosemary,
It's all a learning process - I know I argued 'the facts' with a few over the years before I got it in my head how little we all know. All it really took was a couple guys from IEEE and JPL to show me some wierd stuff and then I started looking at things a bit differently. In another thread Poynt99 clearly stated with absolute certainty that an isolated charged inductor will ring down on its own. But in making that statement, he never came to the realization that current has to flow for that process to exist and that heat is produced regardless of the direction of flow. These guys have pretty good heads on their shoulders and if they would work together they could learn something.

Well, I caught the flu - mid summer, go figure I'll check in tomorrow...or erm, later today. Cheers,

[witsend]

Guys. I'm actually answering a point here raised by spinner on OU.Com. Poynt and Hoppy and just about everyone on this thread and off it will be proposing something different to explain the gains on our circuit. My own answers are different to Peter's, Aaron's and probably everyone's. In any event, I think the answer will eventually have to be resolved by mainstream as that is where the authority lies.

But for the record. If any explanation is attempted that resolves OU around some strange interaction of electrons - in any way, shape or form, then I'm afraid we are still going to be banging our heads and going nowhere. It is critically important, that at it's least, it is conceded that current flow has nothing to do with the flow of electrons. We really need to move beyond this - regardless as to which hypothesis eventually carries the day. When that theory is eventually put to bed, then physics can get back on track. The flow of current being attributed to the flow of electrons is quite simply nonsense.

[witsend]

Its not difficult for one to claim superior knowledge and understanding Harvey, but please use your wisdom to explain to us less fortunate individuals, exactly what COP17 means to you because this is the claim for this circuit. I certainly cannot understand how this is arrived at for this circuit, can you? By definition COP17 means that 16 times more energy is being produced by this circuit than is being taken from the user / operators battery power supply. Where is all this extra energy coming from?

Hoppy

Hoppy that's the correct definition. The argument is that the energy from the battery only gets returned to the battery. The energy from the load actually comes from the load. The dissipated energy is a secondary reaction to the passage of current flow through the material of the load. But I can't be argued if the current flow is electrons. It can only be argued on some other basis. And COP> 17? I'm reasonably certain that Aaron et al will greatly improve on this number.

[Aaron]

Quantum Article

Basically, all anyone has to do is simply do what the Quantum article describes to begin with. It is all there and has been correct from the beginning!

Anyone that has experimented with the diode, consider it an incredible blessing because you could see the front battery really charges up while running and you can see how another battery, capacitor, etc... can be charged to store the inductive spikes to do work on the same circuit or elsewhere.

This is incredibly profound for the fact that while capturing all that recovered potential, heat was produced with less joules of energy than is normally required at the exact same time.

Simply disconnect the diode and see the difference.

[poynt99]

Poynt, please revisit the schematic and revise your last post accordingly - you have obviously overlooked a few things.

It would serve you better from your perspective (since apparently you are the only one that sees it) if you pointed it out directly. I know the circuit well enough, do you?

.99

[poynt99]

Already Noted

Guys, I owe everyone an apology. I have been advised that the best results are, ideed, without the use of that flyback diode.

In other words, the Quantum article was right all along.

I suggested this was possibly the case in a post almost a month ago.

http://www.energeticforum.com/60567-post654.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/60578-post659.html

I can see now the possibility that with the Quantum circuit, they may have intentionally left out the flyback diode. If what you want is large spikes back into the battery, then it would appear leaving the diode out maximizes this effect.

.99

[poynt99]

Hi Harvey. I'm dying to know what he'll be mocking in a couple of weeks from now. But it's all good. The systematic destruction of an OLD school of thought. Personally I can't wait.

I'm looking forward to some solid results also.

.99

[poynt99]

Hi Rosemary,
It's all a learning process - I know I argued 'the facts' with a few over the years before I got it in my head how little we all know. All it really took was a couple guys from IEEE and JPL to show me some wierd stuff and then I started looking at things a bit differently.

Where's your OU device? Surely you'd have one to show the world by now?

In another thread Poynt99 clearly stated with absolute certainty that an isolated charged inductor will ring down on its own. But in making that statement, he never came to the realization that current has to flow for that process to exist and that heat is produced regardless of the direction of flow.

Rest assured, I know exactly what I was saying and know the implications therein. That changes nothing. Where are your legs to stand on Harvey? You espouse all this nonsense yet offer nothing to back any of it up.

These guys have pretty good heads on their shoulders and if they would work together they could learn something.

That's your opinion only and it's somewhat insulting. Fortunately, I don't put much faith in your opinions based on what I've seen you post. Get well soon.

.99