COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Well? What's dissipated at the load? Can the sim evaluate this as you've logged in the inductance and it can presumably allow for phase shift?

And can you please show us the waveform from the shunt. Ta muchly Poynt. Why did it take so many posts to get answers? Were you reading my posts? Or is my english just obscure?

[ashtweth]

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

Real work in the real world is whats gonna happen .Guys as you know we set up the non profit Panacea farm for education, awareness, support and security of Open source R and D FOR DOING REAL WORK. Now we have all of Rosie's components on the way as a homage , thank you, video and completion of the forums communal document to support all, we have an incubator on the farm where he uses lights inside to heat the egg's. 120 watt light, its a real power drain. I can set up a meter for time and measure of the heater circuit and run it off DC in. Unless you guys want some thing else, let me know. Please do tests in the real world . My money is on Rosie

Ash

[witsend]

Ash - always the supporter. So good to think of a first real application. I'd love to learn more in due course.

[poynt99]

Well? What's dissipated at the load? Can the sim evaluate this as you've logged in the inductance and it can presumably allow for phase shift?

And can you please show us the waveform from the shunt. Ta muchly Poynt. Why did it take so many posts to get answers? Were you reading my posts? Or is my english just obscure?

There is no shunt. Also this is not pulsing a load coil in a conventional way. There were design reasons for going this route based on Luc's requirements and for flexibility and performance of this resonance stimulator.

The various component powers are noted on the scope shot. Every power trace below the red battery trace, when added together equates to the battery power.

The traces are the running average of the instantaneous power in each.

.99

[Harvey]

I may have to go get some of those NE555's that digikey was out of. The LM and SE versions do not offer the same results I was getting with my NE that blew.

Today I tailored my circuit to enhance the 'Off Time' oscillation to see if I could get the reported heat signatures. I noticed that my inductive resistor appeared to saturate with about a 10μs pulse width, so I upped the frequency, closed down the offtime just past the ringing and fixed the on time at about 10μs. Nada. Then I got brave enough to power the load side with an extra wet cell battery. So I kept the timer on the 12V midpoint and placed the wet cell (car battery) in series with that to the load resistor. I then increased the pulse width to about 20μs and matched that with the off time for 50% duty cycle. Ok, things got a little warmer, but after a few minutes it stabilized at about 2°C over ambient. Next I placed it in Aperiodic Oscillation - now with this chip there are two modes to that. One is full oscillation where the FET drain produces the inverted FWB type wave form while the gate follows the same waveform only smaller amplitude - that one is not really Aperiodic but is just self resonant; and then there is a true aperiodic all over the map different frequencies, pulse widths, re-triggering mahem. The self resonant mode pulls about 680ma from the batteries and heats everything up. The 555 climbed quickly to 10° over ambient, the heat sink on the IRFPG50 climbed up to 15°C over ambient and the resistor loped along at about 8° over ambient. I didn't leave it to run long because I don't trust the IRFPG50 heat sink arrangement (spring clamp) and it seemed that was where all the heat was going. I also did not like the way it was heating up the 555. In the true aperiodic mode all the parts ran cooler and the overall current draw was less. I did not take any serious readings on this because it certainly is not operating in the ranges that Aaron has demonstrated nor those that the White Paper show.

It would seem that this resistor has good dissipation characteristics and that my wave forms are not running in a nonlinear fashion. I think we need the IRFPG50 to switch clean, nice and vertical with very little slope. Somehow the ringing is getting back into my circuit and running that into the FET.

The good news is that when the 24V was applied, we got a much better energy signature on the inductor. The drain prefers to ring either side of the positive rail. So if we have a ring that has a 46V peak to peak, the bottom of the ring will not dip below ground and the energy is free to resonate down and dissipate in the resistor rather than be clamped to ground by the body diode in the FET. Theoretically the performance could be improved by selecting a high side voltage just under 500V and keeping the ringing below 1KV peak to peak. This would ensure maximum conversion of the inductively produced magnetic field into dissipated power.

Looking at the data provided by Rosemary, we find that 17W of power was shown to be dissipated in the load for an extended period. During that same period 1.13W worth of current was shown to be drawn through the current sensing resistor. It seems an alternate path for current to flow may have existed. This would be true even if a separate battery were used for the timer and the negative rail tied to 'ground' as shown in the White Paper. Doing a bit of math, we find that an 80V signal of 200ma could possibly flow through the FET drain-gate capacitance to ground via the 555 output pin. There are several problems with that hypothesis. The measured drain-gate capacitance I have here is less than .01μF, in fact that is the total drain-source + drain-gate capacitance measured actively with the timer in place. The timer adds capacitance to the gate circuit relative to the drain. Another problem is the voltage peaks have been reported to be down near twice rail, or 48V. And the third problem has to do with power dissipation in the 555 running at capacity 200ma.

This leads us to an unconventional hypothesis, that energy was extracted from the batteries in the form of current and converted to RF energy that was dissipated in the load. In other words, the wired return path did not exist, nor was it necessary for power to be dissipated. Also, the voltage was not expended, but instead the current was used. The batteries would have been left with a static charge where the voltage still read good, but there was no current associated with it. When power is transferred inductively, voltage can be traded for current and vice versa. This hypothesis would still need to be evaluated and tested. If it is true, it would still conform to mainstream but would apply in a very unconventional way. It would also exonerate Rosemary because here COP claim would still be valid - only the power source would be from the batteries and that would be bad for her theory.

Whatever the case, I believe they did show a 17W dissipation and I believe they did show that only the IRFPG50 moved 1.13W worth of net current through its sensing resistor. Therefore there must be an alternate means of supplying the power that was shown to be dissipated. The clue seems to be in the frequency and odd waveform produced during the aperiodic oscillation. However it worked, it was not destructive to the components in the timeframe that they were operated in.

[Harvey]

@Ash,

It's interesting that you say that, regarding the real world application. I was talking to my son who is very good at dimensional analysis and tried to persuade him to look over the White Paper to see if perhaps we all missed something there - I couldn't persuade him but he did offer a suggestion. He said, simply place a 1 watt lamp in place of the shunt resistor and place 17 of them in place of the resistor. Then he said, "if they all burn the same, you have your COP of 17". That 17W could be just as easily 170W or even 3,000W with this IRFPG50 (500V @ 6A). Of course I then had to tell him that the 17 lamps would need to have an inductance of 8μH and a resistance of 10 ohms combined, if it would even work the same. He said "Oh well" and walked out the room. I fear he's been brainwashed by his professors

At any rate - I may put a lamp on this thing and see what it does

[quantumuppercut]

@Ash,

It's interesting that you say that, regarding the real world application. I was talking to my son who is very good at dimensional analysis and tried to persuade him to look over the White Paper to see if perhaps we all missed something there - I couldn't persuade him but he did offer a suggestion. He said, simply place a 1 watt lamp in place of the shunt resistor and place 17 of them in place of the resistor. Then he said, "if they all burn the same, you have your COP of 17". That 17W could be just as easily 170W or even 3,000W with this IRFPG50 (500V @ 6A). Of course I then had to tell him that the 17 lamps would need to have an inductance of 8μH and a resistance of 10 ohms combined, if it would even work the same. He said "Oh well" and walked out the room. I fear he's been brainwashed by his professors

At any rate - I may put a lamp on this thing and see what it does

I've done that with my circuit a while back. Though it's just a concept circuit but I covered most the things happened in Rose's circuit. I attached LEDs instead of lamps. The LED to the battery is much dimmer than serveral LEDs I attached to the main coil in induction style. I measured the voltage accross LEDs and they all verified as seen. I didn't bother to show it because even if people see it, they still say "oh well" and walk out.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...wer-input.html

[witsend]

Hi Harvey - what excitement. You replicated my circuit but flushed my thesis? I'll forgive the latter if you can find a use for this. I think you should have taken an active hand in your son's eduction. I regret that I didn't in mine. But like your own he's excessively indulgent in allowing me my eccentricities here. It's just a new learning curve to be patronised, in my case matronised by one's son.

[Harvey]

Hi Harvey - what excitement. You replicated my circuit but flushed my thesis? I'll forgive the latter if you can find a use for this. I think you should have taken an active hand in your son's eduction. I regret that I didn't in mine. But like your own he's excessively indulgent in allowing me my eccentricities here. It's just a new learning curve to be patronised, in my case matronised by one's son.

I wouldn't say I've replicated the circuit, it more of a simile than a replica and from what I can tell, far from a duplicate - which is what we need. Do you recall if the MOSFET heated up during your tests?

I cannot and will not flush anyone's thesis. Even if we were able to ascertain conclusively that this circuit behaved in accordance with known physical laws while effecting a COP > 17, that still would not invalidate your thesis. It would simply mean that we need to establish a test that would conclusively prove the theory. In the event that this is impossible, then it would be necessary to set out a falsifiable hypothesis that in the absence of falsification data from rigorous testing could then be considered accepted pro-tempore. An example of this is the theory of evolution. It is an unproven theory, but it lacks falsification data and therefore stands as accepted, pro-tempore. That may be upsetting to those that really believe in the theory, but those are the facts.

Now, if we have your device in hand, and it is producing 17W of heat, and we are monitoring all nodes that current can flow through in and out of the circuit, and we find that the sum of the currents relate to only 1.13W being delivered, then that is a reasonably conclusive test that demonstrates energy exchange from an open system. From that point, further tests would be done to pinpoint the nature of the exchange and eliminate possibilities that are not part of your theory.

Some other possible reasons for the COP > 17:

1. Particle Entrapment; High energy particles become entangled in the field and are dragged back with it during the collapse

2. Microwave Lensing; External Radio energy that normally would not cause heating is focused by the magnetic field and is concentrated on the resistor.

3. Atomic Decay; The particular materials and energy procedures result in radioactive decay that gives off energy to heat the resistor

4. Trapped air insulator: Ion attachment of air particles trap the air and create a thermal blanket around the resistor prohibiting proper heat dissipation and skewing the results

The probability of these things being the cause is so low, just raising them as possibilities is almost laughable. But, they would have to be eliminated nonetheless. And I am sure the bright minds of the skeptics will be sure to add a few more to the list. There are two things I know for certain: 1. Change is inevitable 2. The World will resist the change.

When we have eliminated all the possibilities, we will be left with the truth.




EDIT: Yes, I agree on the Sons. I do ok on dimensional analysis, but I still need someone to look over my shoulder as I am prone to making mistakes. I've learned to provide myself with 3 different means of checking my work and usually when I get lazy and don't do that is when I make the mistakes. I have been involved with them as much as they will allow. I have to keep reminding myself that at their age I was already married and carrying more responsibility than I imagine they could handle (of course I'm wrong). I guess they are always just kids to us.

[Harvey]

I've done that with my circuit a while back. Though it's just a concept circuit but I covered most the things happened in Rose's circuit. I attached LEDs instead of lamps. The LED to the battery is much dimmer than serveral LEDs I attached to the main coil in induction style. I measured the voltage accross LEDs and they all verified as seen. I didn't bother to show it because even if people see it, they still say "oh well" and walk out.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...wer-input.html

That is interesting - so you did build it and measured the input energy and output energy? You should video that information and put a link to the video in your thread - many people would enjoy experimenting with that.

Cheers,

[witsend]

Harvey - It seems you're still on line and it's another really late night. I took the trouble to read your previous post in greater depth and this one. You referenced 'we' and I had an idea that you and your son had proved this on a 'theoretical basis'. I must admit I assumed that you'd been playing with Spice.

I want to tell you that I sincerely believe you're putting a 'constructive' slant on a negative result. I am touched by all that consideration and sensitivity. Always the gentleman Harvey. Truly appreciated by me. But I don't need protection from the facts. If you can't actually replicate then I'm happy to take the knowledge - on the chin. I really much prefer to deal with the situation head on - so to speak.

Could it be that the resistive wire needs to be 'thicker' as I proposed? Certainly your reference to the waveform going 'all over the place' is what we saw - so that much of your deductions are on the right lines. The FET did get hot - but the heat sink kept it at reasonable levels. But we also demonstrated this at MTN Sciencentre - in Cape Town over an extended period of 5 or it may have been 7 days. That's many replications of the published effect. And we never changed those batteries. And more to the point - we never, never changed the chip. We replaced the entire switch a couple of times for various reasons. Some because we sent it to demonstrators - others because we wanted increased sensitivity. I know at one point Brian gave me 3 separate pots. But our 555 number always seemed to take the strain.

Regarding the possible rescue of my model? It's only value is in the unlikely event that someone, some day understands it. I have the unhappy certainty that it is right in every particular. But that's only one opinion and it hardly constitutes an argument. But I've resigned myself to it's being incomprehensible until I learn how to describe it in a language that you scientists can understand. And I think I'm way too old to get my head around the math.

May I say how grateful I am that you've applied yourself to this question with such thoroughness and, indeed, such tolerance. It was above and beyond and it simply catches at the throat when I write this. Luckily I'm writing and not speaking here.

So. Where do you propose we go from here. Has it been put to bed? I'd be glad of your comments.

And many thanks again. For everything.

[Joit]

Hi Harvey, just a reminder.

About the 5W Lamps.
There are 2 Docs out atm. The Quantum article and the Patent Application.
And as Rosemary did mention earlier, nowhere is a claim to get the Battteries been charged.

That is something, that only Aaron did figure out and imply it.
I could tell, why this is, but i wont, for this one, who did not figure it out.

The Claims at the Article are done over Energie taken from the Batterie,
and Heat is created.
The Duty Cycle is considered and divided.

Quote Page 5 at the Article
Watts per Control Watts x time Calorific Control Test determined that 17,74 watts represenst a temperature of rise of 52 degrees centigrade over ambient.
(See paragraphs Measurements of Energy Dissipated in Load Resistor and
Caloric Test).
Therefor, 17,74/52=0,34 watts as a factor per Degree centigrade over ambient. Power(watts) is therefor determined as the difference between test and ambient temperature times this Factor, to ive a broad indicaton of power (watts) dissipated at the load Resistor.

Therefor the only way is, to calculate the Heat compared to the Energie what is taken out,
and, with the Fact, that you use the BEMF, you need lesser Energie to create the same Heat as with a similar Circuit, without BEMF.

The proove the Claims the Way would be,
Measure the Heat what is dissipeated,
Compare the Energie what is taken from the Batteries, and calculate, what is usual needed, to hold a Resistor at the same Temperature with direct Input from a Source.

It will show, that you can create this way, and even with lower Duty Cycle
longer Heat, which is even considered at the calculations, as you can do in a normal Way.

There are no Claims about charge up a Source same Time as running the Circuit.

If you follow the Claims, as they been made at the Patent and the Article,
it should show it more clear.
Again, the Calculations refers to the Heat, not the Voltage, what is running or created.

You see, how far we are back at Stoneage, where you first need to show,
'Look there is something else, as only, what you Guys know'.

And witsend, when i look over at OU.com again (Oh my),
then i only can say, its damn easy to trow a LOT of Dirt on others, and then Point
with your Finger at others.
Especially, when you wanna feel like an Angel.
I only remember the first Post there, "i only do stop by", and since then,
just a lot of Dirt, what is created there.

And i can tell you, usual its You, what 'Sign off from a Thread', when they start picking on you,
because this selfclaimed Experts feel like, they are sooo right.

The Batterie Voltage climb, what i measured, was taken BEFORE start Testing,
after a time of Resting from the Batteries,
and again after stop the Circuit, and again AFTER Time of Resting from the batteries.

And i know for sure, that this dont happen, when i run something with Batteries at a normal Way,
without BEMF, that they end with higher Voltage, as before i do start with it.
No winding out on this.

[Joit]

About creating nice heat, i do think about around, which Element would be needed, what you can heat up well with 12V, 24V or maybe more Voltage.
Heat i can get a lot, i played around yesterday again with the Quantum Timer,
and its plenty, at my Wire and at the Transistor, even burned my Fingers close.
For beeing save, i put a 10W wired Resistor into the Circuit,
where i can reduce the Power a bit, and adjust it more.
But the Element seems is some oversized for 12V/24V.
Or need to add something else.

Anyhow i think, there must been added some more things into the Circuit,
that it runs pleasant, but so far,
we seem still have to bother with some Claims, till some will stop to debunk and torpedo this Circuit.

[witsend]

Hi Joit. Over the past - what is it? 2500 odd postings I've learned one thing about you and that is the extent of your loyalty. Truly amazing Joit. I'm just so glad that we're friends here. You'd be formidable if you weren't.

But I also know that we need to focus on facts. And I'm inclined to trust Harvey's summation here. Implicitly I might add. And I'm also reasonably certain that we all need to familarise ourselves with possible errors in the inital claim. I think Harvey has been excessively gentle in not pointing this option out.

So guys. It's not the end of the world. It's just another perspective. Perhaps the truth is somewhat more modest and perhaps Aaron's waveforms still point to some hope. And if not - then better to learn this earlier than later.

[Joit]

Hi witsend,
Actually its not my (only) loyalty for you or any one else, its my Opinion.
A lot know of the BEMF, and try to use them, other still only deny it.
Thats the Stoneage.
And its not my fault, when Peoples hear or see COP17 and think,
Ooooh a Power spitting Device, what Powers our Cities.
They should read more the Facts as to start dreaming, and see, what they CAN have, not what they want have.

Oh well, got to run.