COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

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

All questions are asked because they are relevant, and an answer is expected. You missed, or rather avoided them all. I understand perfectly well why. That in itself has proven a point.

A feeble attempt at twisting the situation around as to which individual needs the tutoring. I choose my mentors carefully, evidently you don't.

I see you are pretty good with magnet motors and such. I suggest you stick to that. Espousing the rhetoric that you do here is doing these folks a huge disfavor, and quite frankly is an embarrassment to the FE community.

I have a number of mentors for which I have great respect for, but the notion of you being one of them is simply laughable. I am sure I speak for the majority of learned electronics folks here and elsewhere.

Hope you're feeling well soon.

.99

[Mark]

Poynt99

I think Harvey has answered most if not all of your relevant questions. Why don't you point out which ones he's missed?

There's only one reason that I can think of.

[poynt99]

Poynt99

I think Harvey has answered most if not all of your relevant questions. Why don't you point out which ones he's missed?

There's only one reason that I can think of.

I'm quite tired and bored of repeating myself here over and over. Get off your asses and do some work yourselves folks.

If you think all my questions have been answered, then you go through all my posts and Harvey's posts and compare. I assure you that virtually none have been answered.

Feel free to answer them yourself if are are able, which is questionable based on your response.

.99

[Mark]

Oh you mean like this one?

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

[jibbguy]

Poynt99:

You are utterly WRONG in your above post attempting to savage Harvey:

You don't speak for the majority of anyone here, or even at the other forum.

And the disservice to the community is yours:

By attempting to set yourselves up as the supreme judges of technology, and dictating to us which circuits should not be replicated and studied, at any cost lol... You and your naysaying buddies have tried to turn this into something that resembles a 15th Century Inquisition court concerned with Heresy.

Lol but for such steering gambits to work, you must hold power. You have none, except the use of endless contradictory posts. Or, you must convince us of your extraordinary intellect and knowledge: That certainly has not happened and is highly unlikely to in the future. All that has been proved is that your group is fallible.

______________

So what will they say when this concept & circuit is properly verified and documented (..again)?

No one will care... We will be too busy doing good work

[poynt99]

All of them are relevant to the rhetoric being served. Unless you have a technical argument, please refrain from addressing me further.

.99

[Mark]

[poynt99]

Poynt99:

You are utterly WRONG in your above post attempting to savage Harvey:

You don't speak for the majority of anyone here, or even at the other forum.

And the disservice to the community is yours:

By attempting to set yourselves up as the supreme judges of technology, and dictating to us which circuits should not be replicated and studied, at any cost lol... You and your naysaying buddies have tried to turn this into something that resembles a 15th Century Inquisition court concerned with Heresy.

Lol but for such steering gambits to work, you must hold power. You have none, except the use of endless contradictory posts. Or, you must convince us of your extraordinary intellect and knowledge: That certainly has not happened and is highly unlikely to in the future. All that has been proved is that your group is fallible.

______________

So what will they say when this concept & circuit is properly verified and documented (..again)?

No one will care... We will be too busy doing good work

Another zealot doing a disservice to the quest for OU. It pains me to see grey matter being wasted on such nonsense. I can assure you that indeed the majority of electronics folks DO side with the viewpoints taken here by myself and others. They are silent as many folks are on these forums. I receive PM's from folks and they can not believe the nonsense here, nor how I am able to maintain some sense of composure. Well, it's a challenge and sadly I'm allowing myself to be drawn into this debacle once again. Anyway, that's my choice.

If you read my post, you'd realize that there won't BE any verification that satisfies all parties, and from the new-agers perspective, they do not care. In the end we'll be basically in the same boat we're in right now; you guys will have shaky results at best and we will be saying "inconclusive".

Enough said, now unless you have something technical to discuss, I'll not respond any further to such banter.

.99

[jibbguy]

Lol you already lied about replying in the above

What is non-sense is you attempting to set yourself up as an expert that we should listen to for some reason.

You went too far, you were nailed. It's as simple as that.

[Aaron]

@poynt

I see you are pretty good with magnet motors and such. I suggest you stick to that. Espousing the rhetoric that you do here is doing these folks a huge disfavor, and quite frankly is an embarrassment to the FE community.

I see you are pretty good with completely closed systems that kill themselves off and that conform to conventional equilibrium thermodynamics and such. I suggest you stick to that. Espousing the rhetoric that you do here is doing these folks a huge disfavor, and quite frankly is an embarrassment to the FE community.

And you have proven it over and over...

There are "points" that your skeptical group bring up - and is on record to show how much you, Milehigh, Tinsel Koala and any other skeptics have a strong consistency in being wrong and making false claims. Over and over and over.

1. TK's (Tinsel Koala) claim the Quantum article timer is wrong (FACT - it works)
2. TK's claim the Quantum article circuit won't oscillate (FACT - it does)
3. TK's claim the oscillation is a red herring (FACT - it isn't)
4. Poynt99 and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is in the load inductive resistor)
5. All claims the diode can't help charge input battery (FACT - it does)
6. All claims the spikes will damage the mosfet and that the ringing should be stopped (FACT - this mosfet IRFPG50 is designed EXACTLY for this kind of application)
7. All claims that the spike would be too small to be significant (FACT - on a decent circuit the voltage is 4 times the input voltage, it charges batteries or caps - it is VERY significant)
8. All claims that when the mosfet is off, the battery cannot conduct and therefore won't receive a charge (FACT - the diode in the mosfet allows just this exact current conduction as it is designed to do this!)
9. All claims that the spike will disappear with improved circuit connections, etc... (FACT - it only makes the spike bigger)
10. All claims that the inductive resistor will change resistance as it heats up will throw off all the numbers (FACT - these resistors are made to be VERY ACCURATE at these operating temperatures. That is the whole point. They can be within 5% across a WIDE range of temperatures but the most discrepancy will be when they are extremely cold (way below ambient - or way too hot - this demonstrates the skeptics knowledge of this kind of resistor is completely lacking)
11. Skeptics claim that a battery capacitance analyzer is an accurate way to determine battery capacitance for load testing and this supposedly makes the actual draw down tests unnecessary. (FACT - they are good only for sorting through batteries to see which ones need replacing or not. They are in NO WAY AT ALL - an accurate way to see what a battery will deliver.)
12. When skeptics analyzed my waveform of the shunt - it was determined all the ringing was above the 0 line in the positive including the bottom half of the ringing. (FACT - The middle of the positive and amplitude of the ringing after the negative spike is in fact the zero line - and by not knowing this, they admit they don't understand how to read a waveform.)
13. The skeptics claimed that the ringing cancels out any charging effect the negative spike will give. (FACT - The negative spike reduces what the battery delivers in net - the ringing down itself cancels itself out as far as battery charging ability but provides extra heat to the coil.)

[witsend]

If you read my post, you'd realize that there won't BE any verification that satisfies all parties, and from the new-agers perspective, they do not care. In the end we'll be basically in the same boat we're in right now; you guys will have shaky results at best and we will be saying "inconclusive"


Poynt this is hardly showing the impartiality required of a scientist. Who are these mentors that teach you to prejudge the outcome of an experiment? Really, in everyone's best interests including your own, I would recommend you stop second guessing. That's all you're doing and it's transparently evident.

Any input that is disinterested or, at it's least fair minded, will always be welcome. We'd appreciate some evidence of such. I'm sure you're equal to it.

[Aaron]

oscillation with aperiod frequency

I posted this in response to the rhetoric about my oscillation video and it tells the whole story - edit to be to the point:

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

I saw TK's vid talking about using coil with really high inductance (compared to these inductive resistors) and made it sing. LOL

These little resistors sing and are extremely loud, if he hasn't figured that out...it took him almost a month to get nowhere?

Here is the difference...

When these resistors sing with a very steady note - it is not in oscillation as the frequency is very periodic.

When in oscillation that DOES cause aperiodic frequency - the sound of the coil turns into one that sounds like an aerosol spray can. sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That is the "RANDOMNESS" caused by the oscillation and the sound is not evidence, it is proof of an aperiod frequency.

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

Anyway, I'll post the sound so you all can hear the difference.

[Aaron]

Rosemary Ainslie schematic 3 update

Hi Everyone,

Here is an updated schematic.

1. Use 12 volts for the timer.

2. Change 2n2222 npn transistor on timer circuit to 2n4401 to better match
the 2n4403 pnp transistor.

3. Change the resistor at the base of the npn from 5.1k to 4.5k.
(I may keep dropping this if it makes any difference - just wanted
to drive it a little harder).

The circuit will oscillate with the 2n2222 but I made the change anyway.

Do the above and it is virtually guaranteed for you to get oscillation.

I am doing what I can to make this as foolproof as possible.

Please take this updated schematic.

[Harvey]

Poynt99:

You are utterly WRONG in your above post attempting to savage Harvey:

You don't speak for the majority of anyone here, or even at the other forum.

And the disservice to the community is yours:

By attempting to set yourselves up as the supreme judges of technology, and dictating to us which circuits should not be replicated and studied, at any cost lol... You and your naysaying buddies have tried to turn this into something that resembles a 15th Century Inquisition court concerned with Heresy.

Lol but for such steering gambits to work, you must hold power. You have none, except the use of endless contradictory posts. Or, you must convince us of your extraordinary intellect and knowledge: That certainly has not happened and is highly unlikely to in the future. All that has been proved is that your group is fallible.

______________

So what will they say when this concept & circuit is properly verified and documented (..again)?

No one will care... We will be too busy doing good work

No worries Jibbguy,

After raising 3 rather intelligent sons I am familiar with Poynt99's mentality and approach. There is little he can do or say that will have an impact on me - except for the inevitable "So why aren't you a skeptic?" that I often hear from colleagues. It stems from not completely understanding the full knowledge set that another possesses and the assumption that they know more. I particularly recall my middle son, proud of his GPA and having the distinguished honor of unseating his high school physics teacher in a 'Flat Earth' debate for which the teacher had successfully defended for 12 years prior. This son was certain that he knew more than I did at his graduation and I politely let him alone with his prowess. Now 5 years later (he took a year break before) he has graduated from UCSD with his Bachelor's Degree in hand and is amazed at how much I have learned in the last 5 years . He has recently bought a car, used, low miles, apparent electrical problem. He came to me and said "Can you help with this? - you know more about this stuff than I do" Naturally I obliged and traced the problem down to a faulty trunk switch position that intermittently triggered the security system which in turn caused the PCM to prevent starting the car.

The point is, guys like Poynt99 always come around eventually once they realize there are some things that they are still learning. If we were not still learning about how magnetic field interact with materials, universities would not have entire departments allocated to Magnetics Research. At UCSD, their magnetic research facility is targeted specifically at data recording, and thus has the name Magnetic Recording Research. Clearly, the more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.

[poynt99]

[*]Poynt99 and Poynt's claim there is NO AC in this circuit at all (FACT - there is in the load inductive resistor)

Sorry to impose Aaron, but where exactly did I supposedly say or imply this?

.99