COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Hi Tecstatic, what a delightful account of your work. I'm afraid it is all way over my head as I have little if any knowledge of motors. One day I'll try and get my old head around the concepts. But what I lost in the details I thoroughly enjoyed in its sheer energy. If I can get hold of my co-author I'll ask him to comment. It seems that you are progressing on an experimental basis and that's always wonderful.

Many thanks for the welcome. I have been 'glowing' inside at everyone's warmth. And I assure you the pleasure is mine.

[witsend]

Hi henieck - indeed. Battery duration is the most visible benefit. The actual power measurements simply confirm this. It's really usable on battery energy - but the problem is the constraints of the MOSFET itself. We need to get the body diode more robust. With that - all applications could be immediate and universally applicable.

Regarding the lack of interest in capitalising on the phenomenon. It's not generosity necessarily. The simple truth is that once widely used it would be unrealistic to expect to earn royalties. It's like trying to patent a force. Just absolute nonsense. The only reason I took the trouble to patent it is to ensure that no-one else tried to steal the idea and then monopolise the benefits. That would be a really sorry state of affairs. The object is to get the technology used and used quickly. That way we may yet have a future on this wonderful planet of ours. Else - we're dead in the water from what I can see.

[henieck]

Rosemary, there is even better way to exclude different variables and to make this circuit easier to check by people. I think of a situation when you could make and check one more circuit from internationally available components from the web – so everybody can order exactly the same resistor, resistive wire, mosfet, battery - and see.

[witsend]

Well henieck - that's a challenge. Why not try and get a standardised type and source. That would be a first obvious financial benefit to who ever gets that together. Just don't ask me to. I would not know where to start.

I missed your earlier post with all those questions. I'm trying to go through the points and will get back to you.

[henieck]

Battery duration is the most visible benefit. The actual power measurements simply confirm this.

- OK, that was very important statement. Should be encouraging to do research more intensely…

but the problem is the constraints of the MOSFET itself. We need to get the body diode more robust.

- I am not a pro in electronics but as I understand one probably could make an external diode, or connect a bunch o diodes to ensure the right parameters. Instead of transistors - some use mechanical commutators, and for very serious applications thyratrons or similar. Thyratron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Technically there is no problem with high voltage and amperage switching or rectifying, but I don’t know about switching times required...

[Cloxxki]

I don't see why it has to be others to replicate a device off schematics.

How much would it cost to build a half dozen circuits? Once shown to work in the way TK's replication at this stage doesn't (video documentation), there will certainly be researchers interested to compensate your costs by purchasing one such setup from you. Who doesn't want an OU device?
Or look at it this way : who wouldn't want a light bulb fabricated by Edison himself, to verify his claims? Beats figuring out all the specifics yourself.

Once a replicator has a working device in hand, replicating it should be much easier, demanding less of their skills.
All the time I see wonderful research posted with only one device claimed to be working as descibed in the corresponding paper. Replicators are urged to replicate, but rarely manage. Just make a few copies yourself. If doesn't need to have Apple quality casing and dials. Just to present the working of the invention as described. Usually, these inventions don't involve 6-digid building costs, just a lot of magical tuning, best carried out by the inventors themselves.

I'd for instance buy one working device, and one yet to be assembled.
Isn't open source supposed to make things easier on the like minded, rather than to present them with puzzles you just solved?

This thread however is developing nicely, a pleasure to read. I hope TK will soon be able to overcome the hurdles he's hit. His skill and perseverance should eventually be rewarded.

Kind regards,

J

[TinselKoala]

These are copies of posts I've made on OU, I'm putting them here for the record. Interesting results, enough to warrant continuing experimentation.

First post:

Research continues:
(Yesterday) I got hold of two each 12 volt 20 Amp-hour batteries, Ritar RT 12200, brand new and fully charged to 12.8 volts no-load. They do make a difference in the Ainslie circuit. The input current (voltage drop across the 0.25 ohm resistor, point B in the diagram) looks pretty much the same, but the load voltage (point A) doesn't sag nearly as much as it did with my old worn out 2 A-h batteries (duh...) and there's a lot more power in the inductive spikes--both of which makes it harder to notice the inverted duty cycle. In fact, if you are just looking at the inductive ringdown spike at high time magnification, you don't even notice the difference between the FG 3.7 percent duty cycle and the 555 96.3 percent duty cycle. But the load sure notices--when the unit is running on the true 3.7 percent from the FG, the load does not heat up noticeably over the time period tested. But when it's switched to the 555 , the nearly 100 percent ON mosfet causes the load to heat up fast.

Again, with the stronger batteries, the inverted duty cycle is harder to detect on the oscilloscopes, but it still has full effect wrt heating the load. No (or little) heating of load at short (FG) duty cycles, ample heating of load in line with Ainslie's reported heating with long (555, Ainslie circuit) duty cycles.

(EDIT: but see below, results from longer testing)

I still don't detect resonant phenomena or non-periodic waveforms, at any gain or duty cycle settings, in the frequency range available from the 555 timer. But I can certainly make the Fluke 199 ScopeMeter go psychotic and report all kinds of things that aren't really happening.

The inductive spikes and the nice ringdown at the trailing edge (going off edge) do not depend at all on duty cycle. I can vary the FG cycle from zero on to zero off, full range, and one doesn't even see it affecting this portion of the waveform. And within the frequency range of the 555 timer, freq doesn't affect it either. This is because this spike doesn't have anything to do with the freq or duty cycle!!! It is a result of the rapid switching off of the load, allowing the stored energy to slosh back and forth between inductances and capacitances until it's lost to Joule heating. As long as the edges of the gate drive pulse are reasonably square, it doesn't matter the freq or duty cycle, the mosfet will switch more or less cleanly and the inductive spike and ringdown will occur.

Some really interesting spikes can be observed on the output (load, point A) when the main 24 volt batterypack is Disconnected Completely and the circuit is allowed to run just on the FG or 555 timer input. To me, these are more interesting than the powered spikes. But of course these do not heat the load, they represent only milliwatts of power leaking past the mosfet.


Second post (this morning):


OK, I have more data.
I have for the moment stopped using the 555 timer circuit, giving Ainslie the benefit of the doubt, as they say, and so I'm just trying to examine the behaviour of the circuit at a true 3.7 percent ON gate drive cycle.
(This is not to say that the 555 issue is unimportant or that it is resolved--I still see a big problem here.)

I've been testing using the new batteries I obtained, the 12V20Ah ones, and I can report that I have finally gotten substantial heating in the load, but still not of the magnitude Rosemary has reported.

This set of data is very much "pilot experiment" stuff--the numbers are rough estimates from my reading of my analog oscilloscopes. (I have the Fluke 199 here and will be comparing its numbers later.)

Running from the FG at 3.7 percent ON and 2.4 kHz, 12 ohm load.
Looking at the input scope trace and calling the top of the flat part of the pulse the instantaneous voltage drop across the 0.25 ohm shunt, ignoring the spikes and whatnot, and figuring in the duty cycle, I get around 1.1 watt average input power. That's around 0.3 volts drop across 0.25 ohms for 3.7 percent of the time at 25 volts battery supply.

This produced heating in the load that went from 28 degrees at 0 minutes, up to 37 degrees at 37 minutes, and remained at 37 degrees until 60 minutes when the power was disconnected and the system allowed to cool down. Load temp returned to 26 degrees at 24 minutes after shutdown.

I was surprised to see this much heating from a measly 1.1 watts input. It's not the 50 degrees above ambient that Ainslie saw but it's not negligible.

Now, the control experiment. I found Ainslie's control experiment to be kind of backwards. She used an adjustable power supply to achieve the same temperature in the load, and then used the voltage and current settings of the supply to calculate the instantaneous power (and for DC that's the same as average power) needed to maintain the load at that temperature, and then looked at a long time period.

I'll do it that way too, but for now, I think the more appropriate measure is to supply the same DC power to the load, as the circuit does in the experiment, and see how warm the load gets. I think the rate of temperature rise is more important than the eventual stable temperature, but that's just my impression at this point.

So I used a regulated, current-limited supply -- unfortunately not quite powerful enough to give the necessary 3.6 volts, 0.3 A in the load to make the full 1.1 watts -- my supply maxxed out at 0.25 A at 3 volts, for an average power of 0.75 watts in the load.

This, too, produced a surprising amount of heat in the load. From 27 degrees at 0 minutes, the load rose to 33 degrees at 21 minutes, and at 60 minutes was at 34 degrees.

Meanwhile ambient temp in the room dropped from 22 degrees at the start to 21 degrees at the end.

OK, to reiterate: The Ainslie circuit supplied 1.1 watts average to the load and the load stabilized at 37 degrees.
A regulated DC source supplying 0.75 watts to the load caused the load to stabilize at 33 degrees.

I'll have to graph the power vs. time curves to approximate the energy, but it sure doesn't look like I've gotten anywhere near COP>17, or even overunity, yet.

But at least I am somewhat closer to getting the Ainslie numbers. The "eyeball" method almost certainly underestimates the input power, but if conditions warrant I can pull out some "big guns" here and get much more precise input power measurements. Not with what I've got at home!!

Still seeing nothing like "aperiodic resonance".

(EDIT: I really would like to see some scope shots showing just what is meant here. If I can get some idea of the waveform I can reproduce it.)

Now if someone will only send me a couple of IRFPG50 MOSFETs...



(There sure are a lot of 37's, aren't there? But that's what the numbers say...)


That's it so far.
--TK

[henieck]

isn't the wire important?

further specification of readily available resistor or at least wire type would tremendously help to eliminate few variables from the equation at once. This would help to make exactly the same circuits for everybody and accelerate the whole project. Bearden says that wire properties are extremely important and even proposes special, difficult to make alloy containing 2% Al... Meanwhile Ms. Rosemary specifies every element except the wire of the inductor – isn’t it important? Rosemary – have you ever bought few meters of certain, known type resistive wire from internationally recognizable producer and checked what results it gave in your setup? Can you specify any widely known type/brand of wire which gave you good results?

[witsend]

Actually it is important to notice that in your way of hooking up the secondary battery – if it is of lower voltage than primary – it will get charged even without running the transistor at all henieck
I'm not sure how? The flow of current during the ON cycle would only go to the source battery's negative terminal - where there's least resistance. In any event - if you run the test you'll see that the current flow to the second battery is only in phase with the OFF cycle.

Regarding that anagram. Do you think TinselKoala was testing us? Nokola Tesla would turn in his grave to think that his name was being mangled by someone out to defeat the full potential of electric energy.

Not sure how charges go from one terminal to the other but not through the battery itself? Whatever it does henieck - the questions persist. What happens when we recharge the battery? Do we add more electrons? If electrons are replenished to the 'system' as Armagdn03 describes 'system' - then sooner or later there's got to be a HUGE surplus of electrons. They simply do not decay and classical physics does not provide an explanation for their required replenishment in the recharge of your standard battery. But it's a moot point and not that critical. Far more important is that, whatever comprises current flow - it's a really useful commodity and its uses have been pioneered by some really skilled experts.

Loved your 'freakuency' term. I'm going to use it if I may. Just so funny. Waveform analysis is critical to determining the gains. But you could also use that battery draw down to give you a ball park result. Just relate the energy dissipated to the watt hour rating of the battery and check the difference. But it would certainly help if you could get hold of an accurate meter from somewhere.

Your average household watt meter is certainly a guage but they are usually designed to measure at a slower frequency - I think supply is 120V 60Hz in USA. Not sure where you live. But it may not be able to deal with the frequency. But the point is excellent. If you could use the rectified circuits in the patent - you need only run the system on half power. The problem in SA is that our watt meters are specifically designed to ignore returning energy to the grid. So there's no benefit. I see you go on to ask more about the AC applications. Our tests here were distorted due to the need to clamp down the current to cope with the MOSFET requirements. I'm looking forward to studying your solution to this. I see you deal with it in your last post.

Regarding the wire on the resistor - the trick is to try and get thick wire with a single layer of turns. That usually gives the best inductance for these purposes. It's not difficult wiring it - but may be problematic getting the base to wire it on. But all wire wound resistors are, theoretically OK. It's just that I would not know its inductance and you'd have to look for that 'sweet spot' if you want it to into oscillation. But you only need it to produce collapsing fields during the off cycle to get a gain. I'm going to post again on this point when I've dealt with this one.

The optimum frequency? I can't answer this. What we do is sweep through the duty cycle until it first goes into resonance. But the problem here is that it seems the experimenters on this forum have not yet seen it go into oscillation. I need to ask my co-author if there's a trick to this. We ALWAYS and immediately get it to oscillate.

Hope that answers everything henieck. Sorry if some of the replies are sketchy - but it's the best I could do. I'll definitely get hold of Donovan and find out about the oscillation. It's not critical to overunity - but it is just such compelling evidence when you get there.

Sorry I took so long to answer this. I've been out.

[witsend]

The good news is that Donovan has agreed to join this forum. He can answer those really technical issues that are way over my head. And better still he'll be able to advise how to take the frequency into oscillation - or resonance - not sure which is the right term.

So. I'll leave the question until then. But I believe it does have something to do with the MOSFET with an applied frequency that is too fast? I better leave it to him to explain. It's entirely beyond me.

[Armagdn03]

@ Rosemary


Sounds great, time for the group to get down to the nitty gritty.

Also, I have sent you a personal message over the forum giving you my personal contact information, had a couple things you might be interested in. When you sign in you can see a small area on the top right of your screen where it says "welcome witsend" then below that a cm or so it says "private messages"

@TinselKoala

Tinsel, I think we all got off to a bad start. Thanks for pointing out the inaccuracy, You are very qualified, would you consider re building the circuit from your know how only? your specs, your build? I think you might find more success.

Take care all.

Andrew

[DrStiffler]

Disgraceful as usual

I find it totally appalling that this thread is so diluted by 'Tech-Nots', the group of people for whatever reason and many times (no real reason) are attempting to take over and cause failure.

I applaud Ms. Ainslie for holding her own when attacked by such dis-functionality.

Now another topic. Ms. Ainslie you asked a question about which the cause might be found why there has not been prior awareness. You did ask a a couple specific gentleman, to aid in the answer I hope you will not be upset if I make an attempt?

I took the question to be more philosophical than technical and can offer from my own experience of so 50 years in the RF field.

Our classical education has a (large) number of rules of thumb so to speak, (they call it laws). One specific one is anomalies and artifacts outside of their narrow realm. The treatment is to filter everything out, bypass, restrict and totally eliminate. As an EE I would design with a margin of error (say for resistor wattage) and the cost engineers would reduce it back down to save cost. Anyway if we experienced a continuous set of failures it would be assumed the cost boys were at fault and the part was bumped back to the specification.

Never in my career did I ever or did I ever hear about doing calorimetry.

If oscillation were present, you never explored them, you engineered them out.

For you I have included a picture I was able to get from a run this AM and its from your circuit that is far from optimal, yet I would think it will help you in the battles you are yet t fight.

26.15'C -> 41.25'C in 10 minutes and the divergence is self evident.

[witsend]

I've had a few private messages. I had no idea about this facility. I think I've answered them - but if not, forgive me. I'm not sure how its done. If you've received your replies - well and good. If not - then let me know and I'll try again. I'm a dinasaur with these forums. Really struggling here. Anyway - I do hope you've all had replies. And delighted to hear from you all.

[witsend]

Hi Dr Stiffler, many many thanks for the explanation.

I undestand that the first point is that if anyone sees an anomaly they immediately change the material specs? How interesting is that! I can tell you that I very often speak to academics - none of whom would thank me to reference their names as they would be bracketed with my own eccentric reputation and thereby marginalised. However I've had quite a few admissions of seeing anomalies. I just wish they'd acknowledge that repeated evidence of a phenomenon disqualifies it as an anomaly.

And I've noted your own special expertise at testing calorimetric values. It's just such an unassailable and excellent measure of power. I'm afraid our own system of temperature measurement was not ideal. I excuse it on the basis that the gain was so extraordinary we could allow for a large margin for error. But I know that this would not pass your own high standards of measurement. Which is a really good thing.

I'm afraid I simply cannot see that picture you presented. Is there a way that I can enlarge it?

26.15'C -> 41.25'C in 10 minutes and the divergence is self evident. SO SO GOOD.

[witsend]

Hello Cloxxi - your point regarding the manufacture of the circuit makes really good sense. I'm hoping Donovan will be able to give his input here - in due course. But the precise components aren't the problem. I've had many different circuits built, different 555 switches and different fets. The thing I cannot understand is why you guys cannot get that osciallating frequency. And as I mentioned - we get it - as day follows night.

But - it's not that important. As I explained the benefit is immediate provided always that there is some energy returned during the off period of the switching cycle. I'm going to try and explain this again. But right now I'm exhausted. I'll try and deal with this again tomorrow. The trick is to take the product of the on and off cycle as the energy dissipated at the load, compared to the sum of the cycle as energy delivered by the battery. But to make these measurements one possibly needs some reasonably accurate oscilloscopes. In any event. I'll try again tomorrow.