COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Allcanadian]

@Tinsel Koala
Thank you for keeping the conversation relevent and on topic.

@Dr.Stiffler

Accurately and professionally stated, except you left out the second book on thermodynamics and how to properly construct, calibrate and interpret a calorimetry. I'm now 1000% sure this could take years the way tis thread has digressed, I would think it time for for someone to put a stop to it or it has become just another beat my chest forum.

I agree with the last part, and on that note I will take my leave from here and let you gentlemen carry on with the business at hand.

@All
Now back to business, Rosemary Ainslie states there is extra heat showing up relative to the power input. Irregardless of anything stated we can conclude this heat is generated in the wire wound resistor or certain elements of it. We can also guess that this resistive/inductive heating effect is due to transient energy as she stated. Of the many possibilities it should also be considered that the heating effect could in fact be "inductive" heating. It is well know that modern oven cooking surfaces use inductive heating effects, that is a coil under a glass top will induce currents in any metallic pot or pan above it, this heats the metal but not the glass top. If Rosemary Ainslie's wire wound resistor was ceramic with metallic components and these metals were particulate and evenly dispersed then there is the possibility of micro-currents developing within the metals due to induction at high frequency. These micro-currents usually refered to as eddy currents may not produce aggregate fields as we are familiar with thus could easily go unnoticed.The wire could be considered the "emitter" the particulate metals the "reciever". In any case there are many things which may be taken for granted initially which may hold relevence. Many materials have very different properties when high frequency/high potential currents are involved.
Regards
AC

[FuzzyTomCat]

@Moderator

Why if the 'Edit' button is available and one does an edit followed by a 'Save', nothing happens?

If its not possible to do an edit, should the edit button be there?

Hey Dr

I'm "not" a Mod but .... what your describing is a VBulletin software problem ..... when editing shortly after a posting use the "Go Advance" tab ..... edit there and save as normal.

Hope this help's

Glen

[DrStiffler]

And what is the simple logics of physics for this unit and did you hear about reactive energy and phase angle?

Are you sure you are measuring correctly what you are inputting integrating the duty cycle input, it seems like many experimenters just repeat the same mistakes about true input. Tinselkoala´s results show us the truth, no need to waste your time on this.

IF Peter´s circuit from 2009-02-15(or Rose-Mary´s circuit for that matter) would have worked he would have told us long ago.... Instead he is showing us his circuit designs but not telling us anything about his results when building it himself(if he ever tried to build anything that he drew)....... Funny isn´t it, a guy draws stuff but does not tell us how his circuit is performing.....

Why is it there?..

Peter is preaching about stuff(after we discussed Witts functional water heater with COP of 10 000 he wanted to change focus suddenly) but has nothing to show after months of "work" on the phone with Rose-Mary without building any of her circuits and checking the results before preaching about "thrills" about this super simple circuit performing magics.

Just consider how Peter is working. Many threads, alot of speculations, no experiments, never showing any test results by himself despite drawing alot of printer paper circuits, changing subjects often, refuses to visit Witts COP 10 000 unit in Ohio but he reportedly spends months of work time for free on Rose-Mary Ainsley from South Africa, has spent 20+ fruitless years on FE research... Reportedly lives off FE book revenues. See a pattern anyone?

No wonder we are still stuck with fossil fuels.....

Let´s continue building the Steam resonator shall we...

When Peter or anyone else gets this Rose-Mary circuit working I will gladly take back what I said but not before I see that unit working. Which probably will not be today... I suggest everyone turns their head to logics which is that water is a dipole.

@Gauss
Well, if Dr. Lindemann does indeed make a living selling Books and DVD's I find that commendable. Unlike the circus or carnival, in the FE field the world gets around fast. If Dr. L. had nothing to offer he would have been out of existence some time ago. And indeed, what is wrong with the distribution of information? Are you of the belief that a magazine or news paper null and void because they never did what they report on? How petty indeed.

So all the great thinkers, hear me thinkers are null and void in your mind? Wow!

[DrStiffler]

Hey Dr

I'm "not" a Mod but .... what your describing is a VBulletin software problem ..... when editing shortly after a posting use the "Go Advance" tab ..... edit there and save as normal.

Hope this help's

Glen

@FuzzyTomCat

Hey. thank you, I will try that. I thought the 'Advanced' thing was if you wanted to do the additional thing like why you are making the change. Gee give a clueless person a bread crumb and he wants the whole loaf, what?

Thanks.

[Aaron]

misc

@DrStiffler,

FuzzyTomCat's solution works. When I use the regular edit button, edit then save, sometimes it glitches and doesn't save but almost always saves when I go to the advanced edit.

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

@Gauss,

There is a "logic" to this circuit that is extremely simple.

A "spike" output through a regular coil of copper wire will simply pass the spike and not allow the coil to "charge" up. I do this all the time with my various experiments with the Gray type circuit setups. The inductive spike from a coil or even the output of an ignition coil will simply go through a coil like it isn't there. Maybe at a small level there is something but for the most part and for any practical use of what I'm doing it for, there is nothing to speak of.

But if you take these hv potential spikes and put them into a coil of resistive wire, the coil will charge from current. To me, this one simple fact makes this circuit totally feasible. And if the mosfet goes into self-oscillation, which hasn't been shown yet, it might reveal more.

I appreciate your support of the Meyer technology as I've spent quite a bit of time on it myself but telling people here that this is a time waster and they should do something else is not what this forum is for.

And with the Witts heater, there are zero schematics, zero third party credible replications, zero details published, etc... that are all right here with the Rosemary heater. There may be some problems with the schematics, I don't know but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot more to go on here than the Witts and therefore this is what I would choose to spend my time on between the two.

The most effective way for you to get more people interested in Witts and Meyer's methods is for you to post positive messages in those threads instead of being negative in threads you don't agree with.

[DrStiffler]

Edit Works

@All
Yes, thank you again, going to advanced does work.

Now for a scope shot. Using the text description I have duplicated the circuit in Toto!. (Not the Quantum diagram).

The attached scope shot is what I see and it does not show an oscillation in the Gate. There is a worthless spike on the Gate, but the Drain is not abormal for what we are using.

I am using the correct components. Should I order more? Is this like my Exciters where only the MPSA06 from certain vendors work?, or is this maybe a layout problem? Like some parasitic C that causes the oscillation?

Damn this is like lying on a bed of nails, yes, lower carefully and have tough skin.

[TinselKoala]

@All
Yes, thank you again, going to advanced does work.

Now for a scope shot. Using the text description I have duplicated the circuit in Toto!. (Not the Quantum diagram).

The attached scope shot is what I see and it does not show an oscillation in the Gate. There is a worthless spike on the Gate, but the Drain is not abormal for what we are using.

I am using the correct components. Should I order more? Is this like my Exciters where only the MPSA06 from certain vendors work?, or is this maybe a layout problem? Like some parasitic C that causes the oscillation?

Damn this is like lying on a bed of nails, yes, lower carefully and have tough skin.

Why don't you duplicate the circuit IN TOTO like you say, and use the PUBLISHED CIRCUIT of Rosemary Ainslie, including HER published 555 circuit? Otherwise you aren't doing a replication, are you?
Hint: if you DO use her circuit, exactly, you will be able to duplicate her heating results. If you continue to use a FG, or some other 555 circuit that actually does produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, you will NOT get the heating in the load that Rosemary got.

Go ahead and prove me wrong.

[TinselKoala]

Damn, it's like pulling teeth or something.
We are at the point where somebody claims to get a certain result using a definite specified circuit. The circuit is built and performs like the somebody said--it heats the load, etc. BUT it turns out that the circuit as specified cannot produce OU because it doesn't produce the duty cycle that the first somebody said it does.
So the conclusion that you seem to come to is that the original circuit as printed, over and over, is WRONG and isn't what was used to produce the results in the first place. Even though the results produced by the "wrong" circuit, in terms of heating, are actually right....

Come on, this makes no sense at all. If the circuit is a misprint it would not work at all or it would produce some random combination of frequency and duty cycle. If the circuit is built as the diagram shows it definitely does produce the heating claimed--it just doesn't produce the OU numbers because of the duty cycle.

So the error MUST be in the interpretation of the results. The mistaken duty cycle, from the circuit in the diagram, was used to produce Ainslie's heating results, and the MISTAKEN duty cycle figure was used to produce her COP>17 figure. Nothing else makes sense--unless of course I am wrong about the duty cycle that her circuit produces.

Why doesn't anybody just put the silly circuit together and check it? Are you perhaps afraid of what you might find?

[TinselKoala]

@All
I have a problem in the accuracy of the diagram of the 555 PWM that is shown in the Quantum 2002 Article, my primary concern is Pin#6, the Threshold. It is connected to nothing but the capacitor as indicated.

(snip)
I doubt very, very much that a number of people made the same Electronics 101 mistake.

I'm just re-quoting you to make the point that you might not always be seeing correctly what is right in front of you.

[TinselKoala]

Where's the error here?

[ashtweth]

@Gauss
Well, if Dr. Lindemann does indeed make a living selling Books and DVD's I find that commendable. Unlike the circus or carnival, in the FE field the world gets around fast. If Dr. L. had nothing to offer he would have been out of existence some time ago. And indeed, what is wrong with the distribution of information? Are you of the belief that a magazine or news paper null and void because they never did what they report on? How petty indeed.

So all the great thinkers, hear me thinkers are null and void in your mind? Wow!

Gauss, Peter doesn't just jump on any thing i know this from emails a few times, i would rather he scout out things he finds have promise and we help him investigate , not to mention with Peter we always learn some thing in the process, this is far better then giving money to witts or arguing about the caliber of info Peter was able to obtain.

If you want perfection then please CONTRIBUTE to it, this is far more objective then elevating your self from defaming others.

Respectfully
Ash

[DrStiffler]

Oscillation, Not Correct one, but interesting

Well after going through a number of the same brand MOSFET I found one that under certain conditions would produce an oscillation, although it is orders of magnitude higher than described, yes of value in seeing how the LR reacts under the conditions.

The scope shot was adjusted to separate the gate and drain traces so they can be seem more clearly. There is another shot on my web page for this attempt if you want to follow it. It can be reached from my index page.

[TinselKoala]

Well after going through a number of the same brand MOSFET I found one that under certain conditions would produce an oscillation, although it is orders of magnitude higher than described, yes of value in seeing how the LR reacts under the conditions.

The scope shot was adjusted to separate the gate and drain traces so they can be seem more clearly. There is another shot on my web page for this attempt if you want to follow it. It can be reached from my index page.

These of course are very similar to the shots I posted last week on OU forum.
I note a couple of things: First, you don't seem to be using the voltages specified by Ainslie. Second, if you are monitoring the Source and Drain pins of the mosfet you aren't at the same places that Ainslie was monitoring. This will make a difference. Third, if your bottom trace is set at 20 volts per division, the bottom valley should read "2 volts" not what appears to be "0.2 volts" as your annotation appears to show. Of course your scope is a lot fancier than mine so I might be wrong here,,,
And fourth, these oscillations are normal, they don't look like the "random chaotic" oscillations that Ainslie describes. Of course if you use the actual Fluke 199 scope you may see some false triggering....

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Well after going through a number of the same brand MOSFET I found one that under certain conditions would produce an oscillation, although it is orders of magnitude higher than described, yes of value in seeing how the LR reacts under the conditions.

The scope shot was adjusted to separate the gate and drain traces so they can be seem more clearly. There is another shot on my web page for this attempt if you want to follow it. It can be reached from my index page.

@Dr. Stiffler and all
I refer to my posts 77 and more so at 81, as you have found Dr. I also found that you can use the same mosfet number and maker and not all work the same. If this is the case and we want to produce a salable model for all to use, how are we going to do it, there are so many, "works only if's", to produce a production model will be so expensive due to a mosfet that has a 1 in possible 1000 flaw, which normally is not a problem, but in this case is a must.

I have moved on to look at how to produce the oscillation required without the need for the mosfet, possibly in 10 years time, if I am still around , I will have the answer

Sorry no scope shots as I have blown my scope and it is in for repair

Mike

[TinselKoala]

I see that it is futile to attempt to have an actual dialog or discussion on this forum, so until that situation improves this will be my last posting.

Here is a summary of my findings and opinions in this matter:

1) The Ainslie circuit as described in the Quantum article produces a 96.3 percent ON duty cycle at 2.4 kHz and with the component values specified cannot be made to produce a 3.7 percent ON duty cycle.
2) This high ON duty cycle produces heating in my load that is similar to the heating reported by Ainslie in her papers.
3) When the circuit is triggered by a function generator or a properly-made 555 circuit at a true known 3.7 percent ON duty cycle, no heating of the load or the mosfet is evident. This finding seems to be independent of the MOSFET used, although I have not been able to find the exact mosfet she used, the IRFPG50. I used IRFP450, 2SK1548, 2SK5138. All gave similar results, with the exception that the IRFP450 showed long turn-off times on the order of 2x gate pulse width at the short input cycles.
4) All mosfets could be made to show inductive spikes, ringdown and parasitic oscillations, but none showed "chaotic" or "random" oscillations as described in the Ainslie papers. It is my opinion at this point that she was seeing false triggering of her oscilloscope and interpreting it as random oscillation.
5) Because of the error in duty cycle, the power calculations in the Ainslie paper, which were done "by spreadsheet" (instead of by the Fluke software integration routines, apparently) are also in error.
6) It has been maintained that my findings show, not an error in the OU calculations, but rather an error in the published circuit diagram of Ainslie. I reject this explanation because an error in the diagram would not have produced a functioning timer, and for other good reasons.
7) Regardless of whether the error is in the diagram itself or in the duty cycle used in the experiment, the paper is wrong and should be corrected, if the diagram is at fault, or retracted, if the duty cycle (as I believe) is at fault.