COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[poynt99]

Indeed, I was in error focusing on the load. The shunts were measured correctly with the probes.

That 5 (or now 7) MHz signal being displayed by the scope is noise. These scopes use the highest available voltage peaks of the wave form to calculate period and frequency. Clearly that is not the frequency of the timer nor the load resonance. It may in fact be resulting from wire ringing.

The term "ambient" should not be confused with "baseline". The 25 Celsius stated is your baseline resistor temperature, not the ambient temperature of the experiment's surroundings.

The ceramic resistors' baseline temperature in an un-powered state will most likely be several degrees below the ambient temperature surrounding the experiment.

.99

[Aaron]

scope probes

Hi Aaron,
For clearification purposes ...... on the RA Heater Circuit (revised: August 12, 2009)

Channel 1, probe to other side of 0.25 ohm shunt on the 555 circuit.
Is the probe between the .25 ohm resistor and the Battery (-) or between .25 resistor and the IRFPG50 Mosfet?

Channel 2, probe to mosfet side of 1 ohm shunt for load measurements.
Is there a 1 ohm resistor in the circuit diagram or is this a additional resistor required "just" for measurement and testing, and how is it connected to the circuit?

Channel 3, probe to positive of battery.
I assume this is the 24 volt battery bank and not the 12 volt seperate battery for the 555 circuit.

I think these answers may help me and other experimenters not totally familiar with what scope connections that were used for the common end results needed or to be found.

Thanks again for your efforts, help and support on this project, I'm afraid with the first harsh negative responses from the few we saw this would have had a much different result.

Best

Glen,

Channel 1 ground is on battery negative side of 0.25 ohm shunt and probe is at 555 negative rail side of shunt.

Channel 2 ground is on battery negative side of 1 ohm shunt and probe is at mosfet source side of shunt. The 1 ohm shunt replaces the 0.25 ohm shunt that I was using for sensing load current. It is exactly between the battery negative terminal and the source of mosfet just like in all the quantum schematics.

Channel 3 ground is on battery negative terminal while the probe is on the positive terminal. I'm using 1 single 12v flooded cell battery - EverStart Lawn & Garden battery. I think these batteries may be from Walmart. I have 2 of these batts but have been using 1 single 12v battery for the circuit. AND, the 555 positive is attached to the SAME battery as the load battery. This does away with any claim that the extra power can be coming from a timer battery since it is powered by the SAME battery.

Basically all three channels have the ground part of the probe all on the negative rail of the circuit - battery negative.

This certainly has been an exercise in many things

[Harvey]

Had a look at the new data provided by Aaron. Performed a periodic selection with 25 samples interim across the data set to determine if there is a voltage carrier present. The raw scope image 'looks' like there is a rider there with some pulses up while others are down making it appear as though we have a consistent envelope just going up and down on the ripple. Not so.



I pulled the image into paint and quickly outlined the peaks both top and bottom. This clearly pops out an energy envelope that is not consistent, but instead it has an amplitude modulation that goes positive and negative during the oscillation with about the same magnitude in both directions. These peaks are derivative of the load inductor itself and are not representative of an injected signal.

It is important for everyone to understand that the analysis we have been working on here relates to the AC coupled power that is added and subtracted in the circuit(s) being monitored. It is not the actual DC coupled power being expended in the device. Those will be the next two tests (I hope). Setting all 3 probes to DC coupling and performing the same analysis that we have already done.

[Aaron]

circuit updates

Hi Harvey,
If that is the case and we now are using the new "Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator" circuit diagram I need some new parts ..... or is this an additional circuit?

SHOPPING LIST

1) (1) 1K ohm 1/4 watt resistor
2) (1) 100 ohm 1/4 watt resistor
3) (1) 0.001 uF capacitor
4) (3) 1N914 diodes
5) (1) 1 ohm ? watt resistor
6) (1) 1K ohm 10-turn pot
7) (1) 12V Liquid filled Lead acid Battery (car battery or small sealed type ?)

I hope my 150 Mhz scope is fast enough to catch the wave forms shown from the Tektronix TDS 3054C that Aaron posted

Best

Hi Glen,

That circuit with the 1 ohm inductive shunt on for the load is simply for causing stronger negative effects. Other than that, the circuit is pretty much identical. You can change out the caps and resistors on the timer for different frequency ranges and you can find results in just about any range.

The only other change is that I'm using the same battery to power the timer as the load battery.

And the positive of battery goes through a variable pot for power adjustment to the 555 timer positive input.

[Aaron]

dc coupling

It is important for everyone to understand that the analysis we have been working on here relates to the AC coupled power that is added and subtracted in the circuit(s) being monitored. It is not the actual DC coupled power being expended in the device. Those will be the next two tests (I hope). Setting all 3 probes to DC coupling and performing the same analysis that we have already done.

Harvey,

Actually, all 3 probes have been on DC coupling for the test and for these numbers. They are accurate representations of the dc power. The RMS readings are simply for reference and rms readings are not included in the data dumps.

[Aaron]

temperature

The term "ambient" should not be confused with "baseline". The 25 Celsius stated is your baseline resistor temperature, not the ambient temperature of the experiment's surroundings.

The ceramic resistors' baseline temperature in an un-powered state will most likely be several degrees below the ambient temperature surrounding the experiment.

No, the AMBIENT temperature that I mention is AMBIENT, literally, and the baseline temperature is the SAME as ambient as everything is at the same room temperature. The ceramic resistors are sitting at room temperature - they are NOT cooler than room temperature.

I think you're confusing the fact that just because some things feels colder to the touch, it doesn't mean they are.

I'll post a video on this because I can see where this is going.

[Harvey]

Indeed, I was in error focusing on the load. The shunts were measured correctly with the probes.

That 5 (or now 7) MHz signal being displayed by the scope is noise. These scopes use the highest available voltage peaks of the wave form to calculate period and frequency. Clearly that is not the frequency of the timer nor the load resonance. It may in fact be resulting from wire ringing.

The term "ambient" should not be confused with "baseline". The 25 Celsius stated is your baseline resistor temperature, not the ambient temperature of the experiment's surroundings.

The ceramic resistors' baseline temperature in an un-powered state will most likely be several degrees below the ambient temperature surrounding the experiment.

.99

I'm not sure why I feel compelled to correct your mistakes here - I usually let a person run with as much rope as they want before I tie the end to the tree, but ... I guess I like you for some reason. There are at least 3 scope readings showing MHz, 1.579MHz, 3.982MHz and 7.822MHz. I must have missed your resounding 5MHz you keep referring to. You are incorrect regarding how the scope reads the frequency. In this case it is reading each transition from rising to falling and vice versa regardless of whether it is a peak or not. You may wish to review the term 'Peak'.

You are also incorrect in your reference to 'baseline'. A baseline is a control reference that is produced from a very specific set of known variables that are configured to produce that reference for comparison. The baseline never changes, once set it is a solid constant used for reference. Ambient temperature, however, is a floating dynamic reference. If the room temperature rises 10 degrees, the ambient temperature matches it. Often, Room Temperature and Ambient Temperature are used synonymously - but they are different. Room temperature relates primarily to the mean temperature of the air volume in a room, while ambient relates to the normalized temperature of everything in the room. Room temperature can change rapidly (all you need to do is replace all the air with air of a different temperature), while ambient temperature does not change quite so fast (you must change the internal temperature of everything in the vicinity under test).

So, clearly, Aaron is using an Ambient reference, not a baseline or room temperature reference. Furthermore, his reference is designed to track the ambient changes in a way that his sample would under the same conditions. It is as close as you can get to ensuring that ambient changes are fully considered in the data.

Now, if your trying to be helpful here - that's great - but it is coming across as a type of trolling and that is counter productive. Now that I have slapped you around a bit...

I have to agree with you on the noise statement in that it is not part of the primary energy signature. But, I still reserve room to say that the high frequency component of that noise appears to be coming from the inductive resistor. This could be related to resonance within the material subject to the Barkhausen effect. Or it could even be sympathetic reception from the computer radiation across the room. Either way, it is present in an isolated circuit very close to B(-) potential and if my guess is correct, doesn't seem to exist when the circuit is idle.

[witsend]

Harvey - I'm a bit confused. If one needs to evaluate the energy delivered by the battery my assumption was that it would be determined as the difference between the two voltages? The DC coupling on the scope gives this value. I thought that the data dumps simply prove this. Am I missing something? The RMS value is way too complex to resolve without detailed analysis including the induction on the resistor.

As I see it the relevance of the circuit is that it is acting like a DC to AC converter? Is that right? But - obviously - the second half of the waveform comes from the collapsing fields on the resistor itself and not from the battery. At this stage of the cycle the battery is effectively not delivering energy. One half therefore is courtesy the energy from the battery and the second half courtesy collapsing fields from the inductor.

I take your point that the energy delivered is negligible. I think Aaron wants to explore this effect on higher voltages and with pure inductance on the negative rail.

SORRY. EDIT I think I see your point here. I was thinking that there was some concern as to where Aaron was placing his probes.

[jibbguy]

Great results & work, Aaron! You have done us all an important service

______________

Fuzzy / Glen, regarding your Question as to whether the "150 MHz" Frequency Response of your 'scope will be fast enough to see all the waveforms: It appears to be an analog scope; so even if they are a little faster than that (perhaps as high as "250 MHz") you will see "roll off attenuation", meaning you will still see the waveforms as a band envelope, but not at the proper full amplitude (...or the properly expanded time base to see each cycle clearly). The built-in low-pass filter will cut the amplitude down considerably but not all the way, or very sharply either

At "200 Mhz" it would likely be around 50% of the proper amplitude, then roll off fairly quickly after that. The F Response roll-off curve is often given in the instrument's Manual (or in the "Theory of Operation", if it has one).

A digital scope on the other hand, is usually much more dependent on the Max Digital Sample Rate, than the Analog Frequency Response. If sampling too slow then Digital Signal Aliasing can give badly false readings, where one cycle can be full amplitude, the next totally missing, the third at some percentage of full; all depending on how the samples "line up" with the actual signal. That's why newer ones often have built-in self-adjusting low-pass filters linked to the time base or sample rate to make sure that doesn't happen. But that is not the issue here....

The bands of higher frequency noise seen on the lower part of Aaron's scope shots prove that the Tek was sampling more than fast enough by a large margin. In fact it acts as a great little trump to stop the "aliasing" card cold before they could even try to play it

His screen shots of the expanded waveforms also sent the "false triggering" non-sense to where it always belonged: To the trash can.. Along with several other "brilliant" and "self-evident" theories of "why it could never work"

[Harvey]

Hi Harvey,
If that is the case and we now are using the new "Negitive Dominant Waveform Generator" circuit diagram I need some new parts ..... or is this an additional circuit?

SHOPPING LIST

1) (1) 1K ohm 1/4 watt resistor
2) (1) 100 ohm 1/4 watt resistor
3) (1) 0.001 uF capacitor
4) (3) 1N914 diodes
5) (1) 1 ohm ? watt resistor
6) (1) 1K ohm 10-turn pot
7) (1) 12V Liquid filled Lead acid Battery (car battery or small sealed type ?)

I hope my 150 Mhz scope is fast enough to catch the wave forms shown from the Tektronix TDS 3054C that Aaron posted

Best

I'm sorry Glen, we seem to have two aspects running together here. Your rig is setup for the orginal circuit tests - I thought you were asking about Aarons current scope posts. Aaron was simply providing a means to track all current for both the timer and the load circuits - that's why he has the extra sensing resistor. He has also added a pot for changing the timer supply voltage (that can cause odd current variations, but the timing is immune). The actual function of the circuit is very similar to the original design, but 1 ohm resistor does raise the source voltage during on time and increase the need for higher gate voltage to 'hold' the on condition during the 'on-time'. IOW, running the chip at 6V and the power stage at 12V can result in about 0.9V across the 1 ohm resistor during the On-Time. The gate requires 8V for a clean 'on' switching in the HEXFET, and this arrangement would starve it at only 5.1V relative to the Source pin. Running a FET in this linear region turns it into a voltage controlled resistor and the energy is dissipated in it instead of in the 10 Ohm load. This may be why the DC coupled peaks were lower than I expected which led me to think they were AC coupled. My misteak er mistake.

[Aaron]

Ainslie DC Coupled Scope and Ambient Temp References

Another vid - I saw your post Harvey but already did this vid.

Important point of ambient readings is that the ambient control temp probe is in an identical resistor in the same ambient as the load resistor. As ambient changes, margin of load temp difference remains same.

YouTube - Ainslie DC Coupling on Scope and Ambient Temp reference

[Harvey]

Harvey - I'm a bit confused. If one needs to evaluate the energy delivered by the battery my assumption was that it would be determined as the difference between the two voltages? The DC coupling on the scope gives this value. I thought that the data dumps simply prove this. Am I missing something? The RMS value is way too complex to resolve without detailed analysis including the induction on the resistor.

As I see it the relevance of the circuit is that it is acting like a DC to AC converter? Is that right? But - obviously - the second half of the waveform comes from the collapsing fields on the resistor itself and not from the battery. At this stage of the cycle the battery is effectively not delivering energy. One half therefore is courtesy the energy from the battery and the second half courtesy collapsing fields from the inductor.

I take your point that the energy delivered is negligible. I think Aaron wants to explore this effect on higher voltages and with pure inductance on the negative rail.

SORRY. EDIT I think I see your point here. I was thinking that there was some concern as to where Aaron was placing his probes.

I had incorrectly thought that Aaron was AC coupled because I expected much higher voltage drops across the 1 ohm shunt. From a DC perspective we have about 13 ohms in the load circuit - 10 ohm res, 2 ohm FET, 1 ohm 'shunt'. 12V / 13 ohms = 0.92A which should translate to the same voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor. But I was only seeing less than 0.6V. (See my previous post to Glen regarding what could be the reason for this).

So in short, the probe location is great - especially for those of us with grounded channels on our scopes - and the DC coupling gives the true picture of the integrated power. In that revised circuit I have to agree then that the power is negative through the two return legs. Could there be an alternate return path for the current? Yes, it could be converted to RF at the load resistor which is then absorbed by the battery wirelessly. Adding a single current sensing resistor at the B(+) and comparing its results to the other two will tell us if this is the case. It would also be solid proof to classical electrodynamicists that the current going in does not have to equal the current coming out of the wiring in the circuit. Those trained in RF are already familiar with this concept from a voltage perspective, but it takes a little mind bending to see it from a current perspective.

Of course, if all 3 sensing resistors agree, and power is negative, and the load resistor increases in temperature, then we would have conclusive evidence that energy is being extracted from elsewhere - sort of like our plate of food in a microwave oven. From the plate's perspective, energy just enters its domain from somewhere else. Of course we know where that comes from because we put it there, but if your inductive resistor heats up and we didn't put the energy there - then we will all have to admit it came from somewhere and your explanation is as good as anyone's.

Well I have a lot to do (on this circuit too) as 15 hours from now the power is shut down to move a nearby street. So...off tomorrow, back Sunday.

[witsend]

Harvey, thanks for the explanation. I think Aaron's about to post the waveform from the 0.25 Ohm resistor directly behind the negative rail of the battery. His problem is that he only has one such. But it's the same value or rather, the same symmetries.

I'm not sure that 'heating' only constitutes the proof. I think 'cooling' is the same argument. But I'm open to correction. I'm very happy with both effects, but never knew of this potential to cool things down like this. Am still trying to understand it in terms of the net negative or positive voltage?

And Harvey - thanks so much for all your input and guidance. It is greatly appreciated by me and, I'm sure, by all on the forum. I think we're really privileged to have the kind of input that you, Jibbguy and Fuzzy bring to the table. I'm also very aware of how much time it all takes. Hopefully you boffins will find ways to exploit these effects. Just know - you're all greatly appreciated.

[Aaron]

normal shunt 0.25 calibrated - same results

@all,

I replaced the 1 ohm inductive resistor back to the 0.25 ohm non-inductive calibrated current sensing resistor. The effect is still there.

Watch this video first:
YouTube - Ainslie circuit waveform analysis regular 0.25 ohm load "shunt"


This is chopped to one waveform:

-0.21974464 555 watts
-0.07462627 load watts
-0.29437091 total watts

Three spreadsheets:

single waveform data raw
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...a20090828a.csv

Of course RMS of this shunt will be much lower but dc average is what counts. With inductance on shunt, tuning will be magnified to see more precisely where we're at. but with this normal shunt, everything looks good still.

single waveform chopped to 1 whole waveform:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...a-crunched.csv

10us division multiple waveforms of regulars load shunt - raw data, anyone can crunch if they want.
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...a20090828b.csv

single shunt waveform:



multi shunt waveform:



Schematic:

[Aaron]

evidence

I'm not sure that 'heating' only constitutes the proof. I think 'cooling' is the same argument. But I'm open to correction. I'm very happy with both effects, but never knew of this potential to cool things down like this. Am still trying to understand it in terms of the net negative or positive voltage?

Rosemary, even if the load stays perfectly at ambient, I do have a 555 timer RUNNING and the mosfet is SWITHCING and the 555 is up to 8C above ambient and the pot (actually up to 10C above) at the positive power side of the 555 timer. And my 555 is the NE555N so is a high power draw timer compared to the low powered ones.

At 4.5v and 3ma around minimum specs for this chip, 0.0135 watts up to 15v at 15ma max input needed is 0.225watts. Both positive wattages so what is negative -0.29 watts total input compared to any of those positive wattages the timer needs?

So,
Add timer watts needed to run the timer and get it to 8C above ambient.
Add the watts needed to run the mosfet at 1C above ambient.
Add the watts needed to increase 555 power pot to 10C above ambient.

This is absolutely work done and is valid since the 555 timer is running on the SAME battery

If you add all those up, conventional theory will require that it is definitely in the positive wattage range at whatever watts. To know the wattage needed is irrelevant to the point that definite heat is produced on the circuit at negative wattages.

That is all real work even if load stays ambient. There is very obvious positive work (heat) shown and is absolutely MORE than the negative wattage that is the net draw on the circuit. So that COP is what? Do we divide positive watts the circuit is showing by the negative input? In any case, it is a very clear and very straight forward proof of concept that more work is done than input.

So, I believe that because there is heat and the battery is showing gain as the circuit is running negative, the argument stands no matter what.

No matter what, there is clear evidence that heat is being dissipated on the circuit (mosfet up to 1 above) (timer up to 8C above) and (timer power pot up to 10C above) while the circuit total draw is around negative -0.3 watts.

That is heat produced on the switching side of the circuit - even without any cooling or heating on load - for negative wattage.

That appears to be free energy to me and I don't know that this has been shown at this precise of detail with the high sampling data dumps openly before. What is the COP? I don't know but it is over 1.0 for sure.

Does RF come into play? Even with my computer off, I get the same results. But there still is RF all over the place. In either case, this shows classical electron theory of electricity may need some serious revisions.

Rosemary, all the evidence points towards your theory as being much more accurate to describe the electromagnetics than conventional electron theory.

Personally, I think the negative is a break in the symmetry of the vacuum and this causes a potential difference that acts as a sink for negative energy to move into the circuit from the active vacuum. Instead of lifting the board at one end to break the symmetry, you're taking one end of the board and pulling it below ground.