COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

You know,

We (as in the two divided camps here) are probably never going to establish any common ground in terms of the tests, the results, how they were processed and interpreted, and the final conclusion drawn from them.

I will tell you what is likely to happen as this story continues to unfold:

Aaron and Peter will do their tests using an unpublished test procedure. If the test procedure is published, it will no doubt contain several serious flaws that by professional standards would invalidate the test.

Nonetheless, the results will be published, and in all likelihood they will appear "positive" in terms of achieving COP>1. The chances of the results appearing to support a COP=17 are slim to none, but anything is possible where the desire to believe is much stronger than the perceived need for transparency. [NOTE: Bias is going to kill any credibility here. The only way both parties could ever hope to agree on the results, is if the tests are performed by an unbiased 3rd party technically capable and willing to oblige. Does such a party exist? Unfortunately, not very likely.)

The classicists will cry "foul play!" and the new-agers will bite their thumbs at them. Debate and argument will ensue and in the end the classicists will maintain the results are "inconclusive" while the new-age zealots proclaim victory, success, and fulfillment of their grandest dream.

No agreement, and no common ground.

The RA builders thread will continue for a while, the supporting members still enchanted and enthralled by their self-proclaimed victory. All the while the classicists will discuss things a bit longer and TK will have tested the circuit in all it's fantabulous glory beyond the limits normally humanly possible before closing the book and moving on from this cantakerous debacle.

Aaron and Peter will eventually throw in the towel exclaiming that the circuit has too limited an output and is not viable, but nonetheless exhibits "copious amounts of COP" (tongue-in-cheek) or something to that effect. Meanwhile, Rosemary (peace, love, and light to you) will fade back to familiar surroundings once more and continue to develop her grand anti-thesis which by no small measure shall change our view of the very fabric of nature.

And then some time later when conditions allow, the next Rosemary Ainslie will appear and the story will repeat...

.99

No doubt this will be my last chance to post here so good luck to all you new-agers. You've done a fine job

[Joit]

Yawn....

Seriously, i am not in mood for another endless Debatte for nothing.

Build something 99, and look by yourself on it, when you need help at building,
ask here in normal Manner, but please dont start doubting all, before you did even start.

It dont works, when you only look at the things with your Way.
But i doubt you can do that, you still stick only at your classical Training.

As you see, here are no hardcore EE's (anymore), or even less, what look over anyones Work, and guess what, Life is much more easier with that, when everone has an open mind, instead tell you exactly, what it is, because he know it allready after his classical training.
And at the tinkering, you see how open minded you are, because, when you can see something unusual, then you know, you are open minded.

AC made a good Post at Ou.com again, lets see, how it gets debunked again.

I reread the Pretorian Articles, maybe you should do that too again, some interesting Points in there.

Just wonder, why Hoppy did not mention that he did build once something,
seems he did prefer to go the other Way.

Actually i wouldnt do such a long Answer again, well skip it, when you dont wanna read it.

Seriously, when one is gone, it doesnt mean, that there dont come others, its mostly the opposite.

[Joit]

Well i got a new Toy to play with.
A ceramic glass hob, one Spiral has about 35 Ohms, i did take one out and wonder, why my Batteries dont drain down, but it heats up to ~30C.
Just it takes a While, till it gets the Temperatur.

But when you get the best Heat? When a Cover is over the Pot.
More Batteries in Serie would probatly not hurt it.
But they are anyway half empty, but its ok, to see, if they drop or stay.

[poynt99]

Joit,

The only posts that are ever praised and that get classified as "good" are the ones that support your position or that make claims of overunity, no matter how ridiculous, amateurish, silly, or just plain wrong they are.

The main difference between most classicists on these FE forums and the rest who classify themselves as new-agers, are that the classicists are the ones that truly are open-minded, otherwise they would not be here. Both views and both sides of the fence are considered.

The new-agers on the other hand never seem to even consider what the other side is saying is possibly valid. "If it ain't our way, it's no way" is pretty much the motto here. At least the classicists are willing to listen and consider the possibilities presented, and that most likely stems from the fact that they are able to.

.99

[witsend]

You know,

...And then some time later when conditions allow, the next Rosemary Ainslie will appear and the story will repeat...

.99

No doubt this will be my last chance to post here so good luck to all you new-agers. You've done a fine job

Golly Poynt - judgement without a trial? Condemned to oblivion without any test data? Is this wishful thinking perhaps?

This is my take. If the facts are not replicable - then the matter is closed and the claim will be put to bed. The data will not support the thesis and the thesis will die - of necessity.

If the replicated data partially confirms the claim - but at lesser values - then the paper will be published and hopefully with more collaborators and more data - it may merit the review process.

If the replicated data exceeds the claim then there will hardly even be a need to publish as the merits of the test protocol will carry the arguments in the thesis, too loudly to be contradicted.

Until then - let's defer this second guessing. At our side of the table I think we can reasonably entertain all these scenarios.

Meanwhile I would love to see some discussion on MJN's claim that the watt meters show a gain. Is this from returning energy through the meters or is it from a reduction in the required energy levels. This is a significant question if the former.

[witsend]

Joit,

The only posts that are ever praised and that get classified as "good" are the ones that support your position or that make claims of overunity, no matter how ridiculous, amateurish, silly, or just plain wrong they are.

The main difference between most classicists on these FE forums and the rest who classify themselves as new-agers, are that the classicists are the ones that truly are open-minded, otherwise they would not be here. Both views and both sides of the fence are considered.

The new-agers on the other hand never seem to even consider what the other side is saying is possibly valid. "If it ain't our way, it's no way" is pretty much the motto here. At least the classicists are willing to listen and consider the possibilities presented, and that most likely stems from the fact that they are able to.

.99

And this is nonsense. Poynt try and answer some of our questions and I'm sure that your arguments will be considered. At the moment there's a bias that you are not addressing. Let's start with why TK will not use the Fluke. Then let's go to those questions addressed to you. May I remind you that the outstanding among many is your latest where you proposed that 'fair' test with the duty cycle at full blast. What makes this a fair test - for heaven's sake?

EDIT I might add that I think that, historically, this is a first in any debunk procedure where the 'arm waving' is from the debunkers. Let's get some counter argument to all those outstanding questions.

2nd EDIT - Joit's point is good. That's another question. OU.Com post no 866. Hoppy seems to have recorded an OU result. No wonder MileHigh took it off the page with his extensive self-absorbed prattle.

3rd EDIT - You've got to laugh. It's now been edited to less than a third of the original post. Good heavens. And we're accused of what? Faking the data? I wondered how long that post would last. I thought it would be withdrawn in it's entirety. Really guys? You must never forget the 'silent majority' - those readers who notice everything. I'm hoping to get a print out of the original post here

[poynt99]

Rosemary,

You don't answer all of my questions, and skirt around the tough ones. Ask Harvey to answer the questions I have asked him.

As far as answering your questions and in particular the one regarding a fair comparison between the claimed pulsed circuit and the DC equivalent, I have already provided more than sufficient information in my posts here and at OU. No matter how well things are explained, in any number of ways using analogies and such, there still is no understanding. I honestly can not justify any additional time and effort to try to explain any more because it is always met with defiance and/or misunderstanding, and misinterpretation.

Indeed all that you need to know is already posted in the dozens of posts here. Everywhere from pails of water to Electrical 101, and still no connections are being made Rosemary. Honestly, there is enough info here in these pages to make an informed conclusion. I suggested a while back that you create a document with all the posts that you think might help answer your questions. Have you done this, or would you prefer someone to repeat themselves over and over beyond reasonable expectation?

You, Aaron, Harvey, and Joit have tired us all out. You win Mission accomplished I guess...Happy?

Anyway, one day soon you may see my prediction come true, and that it did not require any special abilities to make this prediction in the first place.

The two camps are looking into the same piece of "one-way mirror" on opposite sides, and I know which side I'm looking through.

.99

[Harvey]

Harvey,
you try to point at, to have around the Circuit matching Impedance, and the Body Diode can act as a Pump
and the Voltage can easy as possible circulate around in it ?
Thats what first comes in my mind after a While.

IMHO, any activity of the MOSFET after it is shut off is counter productive - we want to trap all of the energy between the battery and the MOSFET until it is fully dissipated in the load.

I have alluded to the fact that different materials have different response characteristics to the oscillating magnetic field. When EM energy of a particular frequency interacts with the material it can cause the EM energy to be converted into other frequencies of EM energy. There are two components to be considered; the actual propagation of the particle itself, and the wave energy particles striking each other. An LED is an example of a device that converts the EM energy into real particles that propagate away from the junction as visible light photons. There is a third thing, but I feel it is beyond the scope of this thread to discuss space-time energy exchanges even if there is some aspect of it pertaining to Rosemary's claims.

When a material gives up energy without going through a state change it is generally accepted to be a thermodynamic process. I have alluded to this as well regarding magneto-caloric materials. Now, we are all aware of nuclear decay and the trade off between the nuclear bonds and the energy released. But we seldom discuss in electronic circles the possibility of structural degradation and the energy released. We know that a material in solid form can have various shapes and orientations - carbon for example can be transparent diamond or soft dirty soot. It takes a lot of energy to produce a diamond; is there a way to release it? This is part of the question for which an answer is being sought.

But what if Hawkings and Dirac are correct and there is Sea of energy of which electromagnetic field could penetrate? What if the right materials, the right frequency of energy and the right temperature provided a means for some particle to be formed?

Naturally, we can surmise all types of things - like air molecules being charged and attracted to the ceramic preventing proper dissipation of heat etc. but we need to focus on the real events and the real data. If the delta power across the load for a specific period is greater than the delta power from the battery for the same period, then we know that excess energy came from somewhere. If the test is poly-cyclic then we eliminate circuit storage and release. The funny thing is, everyone here knows that but the skeptics have convinced themselves that the non-skeptics are somehow deficient in their ability to accurately determine these things.

A careful review of the quantum article will reveal that Quantum replicated the circuit and confirmed the results. Oh well, water under the bridge and new tests on the horizon.

Cheers,

[Aaron]

How to Oscillate IRFPG50 on Rosemary Ainslie's circuit

Here is a video to show you how to oscillate the mosfet on
this circuit:
YouTube - How to Oscillate IRFPG50 Mosfet on the Rosemary Ainslie circuit.


Here is a pic of some details:
The image in this post is larger than it appears. Download it to see it
bigger.

[Harvey]

Rosemary,

You don't answer all of my questions, and skirt around the tough ones. Ask Harvey to answer the questions I have asked him.

As far as answering your questions and in particular the one regarding a fair comparison between the claimed pulsed circuit and the DC equivalent, I have already provided more than sufficient information in my posts here and at OU. No matter how well things are explained, in any number of ways using analogies and such, there still is no understanding. I honestly can not justify any additional time and effort to try to explain any more because it is always met with defiance and/or misunderstanding, and misinterpretation.

Indeed all that you need to know is already posted in the dozens of posts here. Everywhere from pails of water to Electrical 101, and still no connections are being made Rosemary. Honestly, there is enough info here in these pages to make an informed conclusion. I suggested a while back that you create a document with all the posts that you think might help answer your questions. Have you done this, or would you prefer someone to repeat themselves over and over beyond reasonable expectation?

You, Aaron, Harvey, and Joit have tired us all out. You win Mission accomplished I guess...Happy?

Anyway, one day soon you may see my prediction come true, and that it did not require any special abilities to make this prediction in the first place.

The two camps are looking into the same piece of "one-way mirror" on opposite sides, and I know which side I'm looking through.

.99

I apologize if I missed any non-rhetorical questions - most of what is saw seemed either like argument bait or hidden pleas for free training. If you have a genuine question you would like answered that has any constructive merit please point it out and I'll do my best to answer it.

If I were in a facetious mood (which is often the case when I'm not feeling well) I would ask what it is you see in your reflection there but I share this comment with a light hearted tone

[Aaron]

Tektronix

I have stated gains are possible and that some gains appear to have been visible by
various testing procedures that have been discussed in this thread.

Any tests that are done with the Tektronix scope will be reported as DATA.

Anyone is free to interpret the DATA as they please.

The testing procedures will be whatever we determine to be valid. Anyone wanting other
procedures to be done can simply buy their own Tektronix scope, build their own circuit
and test it. It is a fun circuit to experiment with and a lot can be learned. And it is pretty
easy to do. Just takes some time to learn how to tune it and GROK the circuit overall.

There is no substitution for doing the experiments that allows one to grok what is happening.

Simply building a circuit and getting it to "run" is one thing but studying the circuit and it's
properties and grasping the subtle nuances are another and that takes a lot of hours. It
also takes the ability to simply BE with the circuit and drop all preconceived ideas (basic
classical EE training - aka. skeptics).

I realize that classic EE is very helpful in knowing how the mosfet is supposed to work, etc...
and the open minded EE's clearly are aware of fundamental flaws in some of the training
but it suits the purpose when building things within the training. Why not? My computer
is a luxury I wouldn't have otherwise.

This circuit will teach one about oscillation and resonance as well and even oscillation in
resonance (more tricky). If you already know about resonance, you 'may' learn something
from this anyway.

[witsend]

Hi Harvey - had another good laugh at the poynts made. Hope you're feeling better.

EDIT I might add I'm not feeling quite so lonely with this perspective of mine. It's a comfort. But we still need to present a cogent argument

[witsend]

Aaron the video looks excellent. Many thanks for doing this. Still some tweeking but so, so close.

[Aaron]

From Hoppy at OU.com

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

« Reply #866 on: August 06, 2009, 11:11:24 PM »


My circuit is a replication of Aaron's & Peter Lindeman's circuit diagram as posted on the Energetic forum. Using just an AVO analogue meter to do some basic measurements with the circuit running at the shortest duty cycle available by adjustment of the pot , the circuit power is 0.28W * battery voltage which was 25.5V = 7.14W.

Heating an identical resistor using a variable PSU to the same stabilised temperature consumes 7.83w.

Although these are basic measurements, there is a very close correlation of control and circuit power dissipation here. There was very little heat being dissipated in the mosfet and given that the inductor / resistor is mostly resistive, the true efficiency if measured very accurately with a DSO would probably be quite high.

Hoppy

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Reducing Fuel Bill

Regarding MJN's setup:

First: Normal operation of the heater, no triac, straight utility power, water temp 1 > water temp 2 for a specific time period = Baseline 100% Power, 100%Temp value, 100% period

Second: Introduction of Triac and control circuit = 70% reduction in duty cycle and a 1.3% differential in the period. So now we have 30% Duty Cycle, 40% Power, 100% Temp and 101.3% period.

Now all we need is to compare the manufactures original COP to the new COP and determine the gain in COP.

Keep in mind that we still don't have anything in the readings that show a COP > 1, but as MJN points out - it is the "cost savings" that makes the difference because that's the true bottom line for his case.

Now...what was Mile High 'alluding' to? Real life physics? Something to do with efficiency perhaps?

Hi all,

Yes I am looking at this from a different angle, one at the moment of reducing fuel bills. All though I am trained to a certain level in ee, I leave all the design work to my associate who is very qualified and we have been working together for some years. I give the idea and basic design and he comes up with a possible working model. We work together in the heating and ventilating industry, that is what pays us.

The idea of a 12kw electric boiler that only consumes 7.2kw is very interesting but we have to make sure we are not manipulating the company meter

We have gone to great lengths to make sure that we are not doing this, we are using triacs as we can switch high inductive and resistive loads and they will also act as a diode blocking the reverse path.

The inductive heating element is not in direct contact with the water, it is in a sleeve of copper 5cm dia: The resistive heating element is the type that is used in most water heaters and known as an immersion heater

The triggering circuits, there are two, switches the triacs, one for the 30% on duty and the other 70% off duty to supply the back emf to the resistive element, at the moment we can not drive the triac at less that 30% due to the type of triac we are using. Triacs have a problem of switching at harmonics of the gate frequency but can be smoothed out if need be. We are very used to using triacs for high power switching.

We are very much in the early stages at the moment as there are a lot of factors to be considered especially when we have an inbuilt capacitance with the coil and resistor in close proximity in the water, something that my ee pointed out to me that it is working possibly in our favor.

Well that is it at the moment and just to say again, there is no back feed to the meter, it is totally isolated and the inductive element is drawing 60% only of its actual rating, which was another base line that we set, now we have to find out how the other 40% is being produced to power the secound element, it shows that it is not coming from the power supply!

Mike