COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Copied over from OU.COM.

Poynt. There are empirical measurements of both power dissipated and power delivered. Did you even read Harvey's post written almost exclusively for your benefit? post no 2077 page 208.

In any event. Here's the thing. There is no confusion with the computation of power delivered and power dissipated provided that the former is done in line with some dc coupled evaluation of energy delivered and the latter is done with reference to the rate of temperature rise. Both are impirical measurements but they fall short of MH's need for some balanced reconciliation of all power measurements. The fact is that there is a hugely complex sum in the computation of the inductive reactance across the load resistor and this is possibly required. I'm actually not sure that this will resolve all the questions though. Still outstanding is the fact that the positive voltage at the drain is in synch with the energy evidently returned to the system and as measured in the shunt on the source. And they are 'out of step'.

My own suggestion - for what it's worth - is that the circuit is pointing to some phenomenon that may have been overlooked by mainstream. I'm well aware how offensive this will read to all those who feel that there are no outstanding questions in electromagnetic interactions. But there are. There are many questions. I've covered these - ad nauseum - in my complaints against conventional explanations of current flow. And it's definitely out of context to enter into a discussion of that here. But what is is appropriate is to point to the waveform and acknowledge the discrepancy.

I'm afraid you cannot logically dismiss all the numbers simply because you cannot do a full power integration of the energy over the load resistor. With respect. This number may yet be resolved if someone can bend their mind around that complex math. But the fact remains that the voltage over the source and drain are diametrically opposed to each other. I sincerely believe that the discrepancey or, as you and MH have termed it, the puzzle, or the mystery needs to be unravelled at this very point. And I'm not sure that it will be a conventional explanation. But I'm open to correction.

[witsend]

Also copied from OU.COM

THIS IS COPIED OVER FROM OU.COM
SUBMITTED BY HARVEY.

Re: Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie
« Reply #2077 on: October 19, 2009, 03:36:35 AM »

* Reply with quoteQuote

Hi all,

Just a few quick points to help keep everyone 'grounded' here:

1. On average, we only have about 434µs of total data for any one 7 hour run.
2. This is a simple circuit operating in a complex mode. We have absolutely no way of knowing precisely what the current is at any given node at any given time within the circuit.
3. All power calculations on the Data are dependent on point #2.
4. Actual accurate integration of the complex waveforms documented is beyond the scope of this endeavor (unless we have some enterprising young minds willing to process it), so only approximate values are possible.
5. Collapsing magnetic fields like those produced by Glen's inductive resistor will definitely induce voltage in all inductive circuit components, including the leads of the carbon 'shunt' resistor and MOSFET
6. When a resistor exhibits a voltage across its leads and no current is flowing, it can be viewed as a single cell battery
7. A 100W resistor, will dissipate 100W of energy continuously without damage. It is unlikely that a single 100W 400ns spike every 3µs (~13% duty cycle) would heat it up all that much. And that would need the the current were 100% in phase (which we are certain is is not).
8. Power measurements relating to heat must include a time dimension. It may be better to convert the power per time to Joules and relate the Joules to heat.
9. When calculating power dissipation for a MOSFET, the instantaneous resistance (or specifically, the transconductance) of the device must be known.



All that being said, this research is ongoing and necessitates further data when the tools become available again. I would also like to add, that a human element exists in the data collection. This will need to be removed for rock solid numbers necessary for most scientists to accept. The data demonstrates a relatively wide range of output averages for this circuit, both positive and negative. The deviation needs to be identified and documented.

So, while the initial observations show a strong inclination toward a negative mode of operation, we cannot deny that the battery energy is still being expended. I believe that when Glen gets a few extra moments in his already over packed schedule, he may post the results of an endurance run that was done just as a matter of curiosity, but possibly valuable as well.

I would also like to address the matter of over unity, perpetual 'motion', and coefficient of performance. First, over unity (OU) is simply a term which indicates that we can get more out of something than we put in. It is always matter of reference. If I put a 1 gram coin into a vending machine and get a 10gram product, its OU by weight - if that is my only reference. When we attempt to close a system to factor all possibilities, we learn that OU simply does not exist in reality, and we have to include more than our universe to accurately close the system. Therefore, we approach the OU term with very relative measure applicable to the system and the desired results. We generally do not apply the term 'perpetual motion' to charge related phenomena, otherwise all electrons orbiting a nucleus could be viewed as perpetual motion, as can be the planets etc. So, we often will see the term 'self running' instead. Taking the output of a system and re-routing it back to the input in an effort to 'self run' would be an obvious test of getting more out than we put in, OU. However, the failure of such a device would not be conclusive evidence that OU was absent. For example, it was suggested that a battery charger be used as the feedback device. One must consider the efficiency of the charger, which is often less than 60%. If the circuit under test were at 17% gain and the feedback were at 40% loss it is easy to see it could not self run. Finally, I would like to address the difference between over unity and a COP > 1. Like a heat pump running at 350% efficiency, the RA circuit may run at 1700% efficiency. This does not mean that it is an over unity device. It only means that it is able to produce heat much more effectively than a standard electric heater (100%). So trying to take the heat it produces and push it back into the circuit as a self runner would be an achievement in itself as most thermoelectric generators are not very efficient (the reverse process needed for the feedback).

So, if we are seeing negative power dissipation (i.e. cooling from a thermal perspective) then we can almost be certain we have interfaced with a power conversion process external to our circuit. Like a magnetic field perhaps.

Cheers,

8)

[Harvey]

Thanks Rosemary - I hope my post there is not too terse, sometimes I get a bit short when trying to be concise. Hopefully the main points will come through to help us move forward progressively here.

I've learned that Office 2007 offers some Calculus tools, but I'm not holding my breath as to the scope of their accuracy. Still, I may upgrade my old XP version (2002), I do have a copy of 2007 available here. It would seem however, that the average of the points as we have been taking comes quite close to the approximate integrand using those methods mentioned prior.

Regarding the timing of the inductive spike at the drain being synchronized with the negative spike at the source, it does beg an answer. In discussing the matter with R.A. Silks, an associate researcher, he did give me some food for thought, but we are still left wondering for sure. Part of the query is related to what is really happening from the perspective of viewing the electrical current in time. If the potential that has been measured on the source pin was the result of the drain going negative, we would expect it to be later in time, after that reversal had occurred...not before as is recorded. I did read in the manual, that the scope has several trigger modes, and in one case you can trigger each waveform separately. Could it be that? Mayhaps the source and drain are separated in time by the trigger mode? I have seen this on my scope even though it is supposed to only have a single trigger for both channels, I have watched the one trace shift in time when it should not...but then...maybe it wasn't my scope, maybe it was the circuit...hmmm. Well, from a conventional approach, the source current would need to be leading the load collapse negative by 180°. Another part of the puzzle is: If the negative on the source, is not related to the negative on the drain, where is that association in the data? And another, if the traces are out of alignment, then what does the 'negative before positive' spike on the source align with if not the gate high to low transition?

Has anyone put together the COP values based on Glen's baselines? If so, will they be posted soon? If not, are they being done or has the task been assigned? As you may know, my time is spread thin ATM, but I can perhaps do that if need be.

Cheers,

[witsend]

Golly Harvey. Thanks for everything.

[Harvey]

Golly Harvey. Thanks for everything.

No worries...did you get the PM's regarding the 'listener' from our last Skype convo? Well, got that sorted out. Sweden of all places...crazy.

I still want to do a harmonic overlay...don't let me forget.

Also, any word on the current probes?

Cheers,

[witsend]

No worries...did you get the PM's regarding the 'listener' from our last Skype convo? Well, got that sorted out. Sweden of all places...crazy.

I still want to do a harmonic overlay...don't let me forget.

Also, any word on the current probes?

Cheers,

Two probes shown to be correct. Another calibration run to set the DOS - may have helped. Not sure of all the probes though. Lisa is able to sort out the connection to the internet thing as required - and in due course. Am waiting to hear from their marketing division - I think European. Ace agreed to forward the unit at month end. Saw your brief on off appearance and understand there's problems. Wonder how much of it is actually also at this end?

Seeing in a bright mid morning - the first for a couple of days.

edit - only 1 pm - but understand the problems

[quantumuppercut]

From MileHigh:


I think that you are really close and your comments about the load resistor acting like a delay line and/or transmission line got me thinking last night and I hope what I say here is going to advance the cause.

One thing that I was forgetting is that there is a fairly long piece of wire required to make the load resistor, whether home made or commercial. Let's keep it simple and say that there is three meters of wire in the load resistor.

We know that a signal propagates 30 centimeters per nanosecond in free space. But inside the load resistor the permittivity is much higher, and we are going to take a wild guess and assume that a signal inside the load resistor will travel one-fifth as fast, or 6 centimeters per nanosecond.

Therefore we are guessing that it will take (300/6) = 50 nanoseconds for a signal to cross the load resistor. It could be more, it could be less...

Now I am going to be bold and also throw in the fact that this is an inductor, and the distributed capacitance and inductance act as a passive delay line also, further slowing down the signal by let's say... one half. So now we are going to assume that it takes 100 nanoseconds for a signal to cross the length of the load resistor.

Now comes the fun part. The big high voltage spike is about 100 nanoseconds wide, and it takes about 100 nanoseconds to cross the load resistor, so we are in transmission line territory. The equivalent-time length of the conductor in the load resistor is comaparable to the time width of the big spike. This makes all the difference in the world.

Let's simply say that relative to the MOSFT drain pin, the closer end of the load resistor is a bit "upstream" and the farther end of the load resistor is much further upstream, about 100 nanoseconds further upstream.

So, when the MOSFET shuts off, is does not get whacked right away by the voltage spike generated by the inductor at all. We see this in the DSO captures.

Here is the key: when the MOSFET switches off, the inductor has to discharge its stored energy, there is no two ways about it. So, let's make a very very simple model. Let's say that the tangible energy in the inductor has to start from somewhere, and it has to go somewhere, those are givens.

It starts upstream from the MOSFET inside the load resistor itself. The inductive energy gets pumped into the distributed capacitance inside the body of the load resistor. Then it travels downstream out of the load resistor at 1/10th of "c" - the speed of light in a vacuum.

Lets turn this into a very simple visualization: At the instant of time that the MOSFET shuts off, the bulk of the spike is sitting in the load resistor itself. The part of the load resistor closest to the MOSFET is already at about 100 volts. However, the center of the load resistor is at about 500-600 volts, the peak of the spike.

In other words, the main peak of the voltage spike is upstream from the MOSFET and barrelling down the coiled wire transmission line at 1/10th "c" on a collision course with the MOSFET drain pin like a bat out of hell.

When the peak voltage spike hits the the MOSFET, the MOSFET has already been shut off for about 70 nanoseconds.

I want to emphasize also that this is not a "voltage spike", it is really an energy spike. You can't forget this, the inductor that is embedded in the load resistor stores energy through moving current. If you stop the current flow, this stored energy becomes an energy spike - high voltage across the distributed capacitance inside the load resistor.

Back to the action, when the MOSFET switches off, the load resistor generates an energy spike that starts upstream and travels downstream, and about 70 nanoseconds after the switch-off the MOSFET is being hit by the peak of the spike.

Now back to transmission lines - the spike slams into the already-switched-off MOSFET so it is modeled as an open circuit at the end of the transmission line. We know that when a voltage spike travelling down a transmission line hits an open circuit termination it is reflected back without being inverted in polarity (that happens for a short-circuit termination). That is part of what we see that explains the reversing current.

If we look at it in terms of the MOSFET drain-source capacitance, then of course it gets charged to a very high potential because of the energy spike that hits it at one tenth the speed of light. This capacitance at very high voltage then contributes to the reverse current pulse as it discharges.

We do not see a propagation delay between the high voltage spike and the reverse current that we observe through the shunt resistor. There are a few reasons for this. In contrast to the energy spike travelling downstream through the transmission line to smash into the MOSFET, the reverse current does not necessarily travel through the load resistor transmission line. Note the voltage of the spike goes up about 400 volts in 20 nanoseconds, for a slew rate of 20 volts per nanosecond. That sounds pretty fast to me.

This high slew rate is probably fast enough to completely bypass the load resistor transmission line in the reverse direction through capacitive coupling - effectively giving the high voltage spike a "short circuit" around the load resistor so that the reverse current can start instantly.

When you add up the capacitive bypass of the load resistor plus the reflection from the end of the open-circuit transmission line and the drain-source capacitive discharge you get a reverse current that is proportional to the spike voltage. I am a bit shaky here and my modelling may not be perfect. The bottom line is we know that we have a reverse-current spike.

Note that the various timing diagrams on the 100 nanoseconds per division time scale that clearly show the big positive spike are showing you the delayed voltage spike coming out of the load resistor where the delay is around 70 nanoseconds. To repeat the simple analogy: The MOSFET switches off but the big energy discharge from the inductor happens upstream. 70 nanoseconds later the spike has finally traveled downstream and hits the MOSFET.

These 100 nanosecond per division timing diagrams clearly show that the MOSFET drain pin is at a very high potential and current is flowing out of the pin. (i.e.; current is flowing out of the MOSFET drain-source capacitor) This explains why the DSO records the MOSFET power as being negative, which indicates that power is flowing out of the MOSFET. The DSO data shows negative MOSFET power because that's what is really happening. However - we now know that the source of that power is a delayed energy spike that travels along the roughly three meters worth of load resistor wire at about 1/10th "c."

Again, I am probably not completely correct in every statement that I am making, but I really think that this is on the right track. Perhaps .99 and Hoppy can add their corrections/additions/deletions if I messed up somewhere.

Assuming this mini treatise is correct, it gives us insight into the energy flow vs. time.

Finally, for the COP > 17 or COP > 1 people, we are converging on getting a good handle of what's happening, and this will help us make accurate battery or power supply power output measurements. We have already noted for a few trials that the 3.7% 2.4 KHz waveform is not showing any special heat production in the load resistor. Honestly, it does not look too good but the jury is not completely out yet.



For a short version
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post69253

Just a reminder
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post63200

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Steap

@ MH and all

I have gone a lot further with that circuit by using poly phasing and I will be putting up a video tomorrow.

I will explain what is that I think is happening then, only to say now that the tests to date on the new circuit, not published yet, are very encouraging, the figures are here:-

input: 12.6v @155ma tuned with loads below
load: drive circuit with no output 30ma
load: drive circuit and 5w load, 155ma current draw

Now a 5w load at 12.6v would normally draw 397ma, but this circuit is drawing in total 155ma of which 30ma is the frequency generator so the 5w load is only drawing 125ma.

Before it is asked, the load is a 5w 12v bulb and the circuit is tuned to show 12.6v at the bulb under power and it is to full light.

Mike

[Joit]

Again some useless Statements from MH? Omy.
Why dont he get finally a real Life, and stop dreaming around with his classical Junkbooks.
And seriously, who need this self-appointed Jury over there, they did only become useless.
He should stop posting as he would do, after his very first Post there,
and stop stealing other Peoples Time with his screwed Theories,
but i dont think, he has the Balls for that.
The Circuit will spread anyway, if this bunch of Whiners at OU.com now agree with it or not.

[quantumuppercut]

Again some useless Statements from MH? Omy.
Why dont he get finally a real Life, and stop dreaming around with his classical Junkbooks.
And seriously, who need this self-appointed Jury over there, they did only become useless.
He should stop posting as he would do, after his very first Post there,
and stop stealing other Peoples Time with his screwed Theories,
but i dont think, he has the Balls for that.
The Circuit will spread anyway, if this bunch of Whiners at OU.com now agree with it or not.

Joit,

I wouldn't say that. He described it perfectly. It is just what coming out of the resistor is proportional to the energy transient store in the resistor and is independant of the cycling current. It's hard to see because we never trained to see it that way.

[Joit]

Quantumuppercut
First, you cannot sure say, it is the same Amount of Energy, what is comming out.
You can measure something with a Meter, and say it is equal, but you dont count the Fluxfactor from the Field.
Therefor, you can not sure say, how much Energy does move in there.
Second, his assumptions about how long current moves in Wires is taken from
classical View, but it isnt the same in a collapsing Field.
Its pure Speculation, when he claim something, what maybe match at a Labor Experiment once, but not anymore, when you use different Wires and Coils.
Even not sure. if the Mosfet is switching like he assume, but he do anyway no practially things,
just spam the Threads full with Junk.
Therefor, his whole Guessings what he do, he can trow it in a Ton.

And the worst thing you can do is use a Powersupply, because the Spikes are lost in there. You maybe can measure a lesser consumption, but it is not the same.
Most do know it, but they allways try to drag back to Caps and Power supplys,
that the Results surly are not good.
Its a Troll, nothing else, and everyone can see it. Nothing, like ' A Jury'

[ashtweth]

Just noticed. This is the 3000'th post. You've got a mamoth task here Ash.

Hi Rosie/ALL

Yes the threads can get up there, but at least here un like OU.com they have some relevance LOL. The PDF's make it easier and quicker for the new engineers on board. I remember going through 300 pages for Dr Stiffler that was so much fun! At least now all the critical stuff like contemplation of the size of the load resistor and Glens test are there with Aarons/Harvey's etc stuff for the NEWCOMERS. keeps getting updated.

Just talking with Glen now what to do with the heat on the 555 timer (in the former post), i think we need to re wind our resistor and lay out the board like Alex and Luc. There is some nice fancy equipment at the university i am gonna "raid" when we get it performing properly

Ash

[witsend]

Hi Rosie/ALL

Just talking with Glen now what to do with the heat on the 555 timer (in the former post), i think we need to re wind our resistor and lay out the board like Alex and Luc. There is some nice fancy equipment at the university i am gonna "raid" when we get it performing properly

Ash

Good stuff Ash. Can't wait for the results.

[witsend]

Hi Quantum. You've no idea what a problem you've caused me by posting MileHigh's post across. I can't leave it unaswered now but frankly I hardly know how to answer it. Here's my best shot.

The argument is based on the premise that the event - the evident waveform - propogates over time. I won't argue this. What I will argue is the time frame in which the event occurs. What is known is that when conductive components are made available through circuitry to stored energy, then that stored energy is able to INSTANTANEOUSLY transfer its energy through space. In other words - even our 'rolls royce' of a DSO can still only record the event some moments after the actual event. We are tracing a time frame that has effectively come and gone. In effect we are grappling with concepts of non-locality which, of themselves are also counter intuitive.

So. From an engineering perspective all makes good logical sense - provided only that the following is also conceded. The current flow must first travel towards and then 'slam into' the MOSFET. Which also means that it must be an 'open terminal event' as MH describes it. Then it must reverse direction and somehow bypass the opposing voltage in its path back to the battery postive - at a speed that also exceeds the time it takes for the DSO to record the spike at the drain. And - back within the time frame of the drain and co-incident with the time frame of the DSO's ability to retrospectively record the waveform - it must then also show that returning energy at the source. This is wholly and entirely illogical.

My own interpretation does not need that open terminal explanation. But I can only account for the returning energy if there is also some event that preceded the spike at the drain. And frankly I haven't been abe to reconcile this unless I bring in a hidden event that exceeded the DSO's measuring capabality.

EDIT And with a reluctant need to also answer MH's edited comments - to the best of my knowledge no-one on this side has danced a victory jig. We're still only pointing to the event and suggesting a date for the proposed dance. What I'm pointing to is that we're all being excessively constrained.

[eternalightwithin]

... to the best of my knowledge no-one on this side has danced a victory jig. What I'm pointing to is that we're all being excessively constrained.

Because it's better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Eh, Rosie

My grandma always say, "Don't dcount your chickens before they hatch."

David

P.S. My board is finished and I got 6 batts ... problem is only one is at 12.6 volts. And my 10MHz scope is useless for this effect. Selling crap to get gold (500MHz Tek.)