COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Question for Debate:
I am a big believer in Test Plans; and hope to see them in wide use in our Open Source Energy genre as a means of gaining credibility for the future.

...Since i've done this before, i could help with creating the structure and many of the points, and measurement requirements. Yet it will have to be done in consultation with one or more of our brave & fell Warriors in the "trenches" (Replicators), as this is the only way to possibly get it right

Jibbguy - I'm sure any input here would be welcome. But we still need to get heat off the resistor to satisfy the conditions in the published test. We're hoping that it'll be better evident with Fuzzy's resistors. And the second experiment that Aaron did still needs to be replicated. I think Fuzzy is the only one doing this. But I'm sure that some early outlines might be a good guide here? At least it will show where the measurements are required and how. But maybe wait until next week when we may have better proof of concept. And I think that you, Fuzzy and Harvey should discuss this together - maybe. Gosh. It's so nice to have all this talent available.

[Gre]

Where are the calorimeter measurements? A Scope will never be definitive proof for OU... Just a side show.

[EgmQC]

Where are the calorimeter measurements? A Scope will never be definitive proof for OU... Just a side show.

I dont think there a difference, a Scope is as valid as a calorimeter if the result is outside the margin error by alot.

EgmQC

[jibbguy]

The Freq. show is the main event

Proof of OU, as Ash has often said, is doing usable work. This will certainly be pursued also of course ("heating" is pretty valuable work if you are freezing in wintertime! ).

But the key is in credibility: And it cannot exist without the scope results. Period.

They are no "sideshow", they are the Main Feature in that NO ONE will take you seriously without them. This is going to go "Global" some day: There will then be hundreds of attacks on credibility of the results; by those whose world-views are seriously challenged by the existence of this effect... That is just human nature. Not to mention the increased malevolent shill activity that is inevitable, lol.

And there will be many genuinely curious and open minded people who will wish to study and learn about it closely as well. And of course looking at the waveforms involved will be the first thing desired in all cases.

When the data is analyzed, widely accepted methodology will be required to show what the results are based on. THERE IS NO BETTER voltage & current measurement methodology in this case, than what Aaron has done so far with the scope (as this is still "preliminary"... a much greater body of data with dozens of stored runs under slightly differing conditions may eventually be required i suspect).

If someone thinks there is a better way, please state it... Now is the time to speak out

[Gre]

How about a self running circuit, with open source? It's hard to argue against a self running machine in front of you... With 17 COP (heat) this should be no problem.


Btw, has the 17 COP claim been proven to be legit (i.e. replicated)?

[Mark]

Hello GRE

COP of 17 does not mean it can be a self runner. Heat pumps are around 2-3 COP, how many self running heat pumps have you seen?

[poynt99]

IIRC, TK made a wild assumption that the 3.7% related to an always on output level being turned of 3.7% of the time and that all ties back to his claim that the circuit was not adjustable in the prescribed ranges for the values given. I knew by looking at the circuit that those 50K pots would give plenty of adjustment room provided the proper caps were used. And I could tell quickly that one of the caps seemed erroneous to the operation of the circuit - if you note in Aaron's modified versions, that cap has been reduced to .001μF. It's the one on the drain pin - completely uncessary and probably intended as a noise decoupling - I'd have to talk with the tech on that one.

At any rate, the heat I see TK generating is all about increased on time and his 'spikey' comments do not address the nature of your original works that were specifically designed to self resonate. The implications of the specificity in your original documentation run much deeper than the superficial lab-play presented by TK as mere entertainment. In his case, he doesn't set his hand to something without already knowing the end result he intends to produce. His primary motivation is to boost his own ego by proving he knows more than the average experimenter while he deludes himself into believing he is helping others learn. The overtone of his vernacular and sarcastic tone expose his true motives. I have had recent dialog with him in the Steorn forum that amounts to the same treatment - no real help, just the typical sardonic humor with a slap in the face on the side. So, in short, don't read to much validity in his 'work' - it's 90% showmanship, 8% misdirection and about 1% reality - that last part is left over for Heisenberg.

Rosemary,

As much as you've relegated Hoppy's comments as an "opinion", by similarity the above must be also.

.99

[poynt99]

Hi Poynt.
EDIT I might add that I agree with Joit in describing you as a 'slippery guy'.

That's funny because the sentiment is mutual.

.99

[poynt99]

Hey Mark.

What's your point?

.99

[Harvey]

Rosemary,

As much as you've relegated Hoppy's comments as an "opinion", by similarity the above must be also.

.99

I concur. Of course, being first hand I can confirm that my opinion is truthful.

[Harvey]

Jibbguy - I'm sure any input here would be welcome. But we still need to get heat off the resistor to satisfy the conditions in the published test. We're hoping that it'll be better evident with Fuzzy's resistors. And the second experiment that Aaron did still needs to be replicated. I think Fuzzy is the only one doing this. But I'm sure that some early outlines might be a good guide here? At least it will show where the measurements are required and how. But maybe wait until next week when we may have better proof of concept. And I think that you, Fuzzy and Harvey should discuss this together - maybe. Gosh. It's so nice to have all this talent available.

I did note this when it was posted but forgot already - thanx for the reminder. Sounds like an interesting experiment but I already have two others ahead of it.

Can you send a picture? If so I can post it up. BTW - did the PM make it ok?

[poynt99]

I concur. Of course, being first hand I can confirm that my opinion is truthful.

That's your opinion.

I don't agree. I have first hand as well.

.99

[Joit]

@Mark Looks more like it's a pullet. Thats part two of him, the winding out maneuver

[witsend]

Poynt - you're on your own here. I know the feeling as I've been posting in enemy territory and it calls for some courage to hang around. All the more as it seems that our brave captain has deserted the cause.

However, I at least try to address the issues. Can I impose on you to do the same. What did your simulator show in terms of power consumed - in that test you referenced? I'd be glad of some actual measurements here. And with respect, this tactic of 'not showing the full hand' was precisely where TK managed by innuendo what he couldn't prove in fact. We've never, to this day had a single power measurement from him.

Personally I'm not interested in your gender, your age or your proclivities. Just some actual facts from the sim. Can you oblige here?

[poynt99]

Golly Rosemary.

You want the power input from the battery? Why didn't you just ask. I have nothing to hide. Quite honestly, I'm not even certain why you want to see this. I'm happy to post anything you want about the simulation I posted.

What are you expecting to see? If I was to take a stab at a guess, you are hoping to see that the battery indeed is supplying current rather than receiving it so you can say "see, your simulation is worthless". I had no intent with my simulation and remember it was you that wanted to see the wave form from it.

I can save you the trouble. There is current being used in the circuit and with my present settings the supply is sourcing 200mA each 0.6us pulse. This equates to 30W pulses from the 150V supply.

.99