COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[Mark]

Tinselkoala

You had some valid questions but with your antagonistic attitude you will most likely never get an answer.

Why would anyone want to help or answer your question when you are so insulting?

Rosemary has been kind enough to join our forum to help, she has no obligation too.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

From Google:

Your search - zipon fluxmeter - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.
* Try fewer keywords.


Darn.

just put in zipons.biz

[RAMSET]

TK
The little kicky laughy guy?
Mark
Tk's efforts[most extensive here to date] to "PROVE' Rosemary's findings
And his inability to PROVE with the info provided !!
Is what this unnecessary conflict is all about.
He did what he was asked [REPLICATE] ???[Rosemary's open request]
You can't put a man to work .......and leave him hanging
You'll always get grumblings that way!!

Chet

[Aaron]

@ Tk

I see you're having fun answering hard questions. But why don't you answer my easy ones?

1) Did any of your patent APPLICATIONS result in the actual granting of PATENTS, and if so, where are the patent documents available?

2) Was the circuit published in the Quantum article used to generate the data in that article and in the EIT paper, or not?

3) Can you assure us that the energy balance calculations in the article and the paper do NOT suffer from the "duty cycle" problem that I have identified? I mean "assure" not "assert." I'd like to see some original data from the experiment and exact details of calculations. After all, the claim is COP>17. Surely something that robust can survive a little scrutiny.

4) Do you (or other readers) realize that if the data was generated with the Quantum circuit, the energy balance conclusions are Wrong, and so--all theoretical speculation based upon them are, at best, unsupported by evidence..???

Easy questions, straightforward. And all of them are critical this "discussion."

TK,

How many minutes would it take you to modify your the Quantum magazine article to match the one in the paper? I would guess it would take less time than it does for you to keep posting about what is wrong or different with the Quantum article. Rosemary already said to use the one in the paper.

Whether or not the Quantum article needs to be retracted, corrected, etc... is something suitable for a different conversation - and a patent or application status is irrelevant. What about working circuits that are never patented. They're not valid or don't work because they're not patented? She is right here in this thread telling you exactly what circuit to use. Why not use it? She is obviously staking her reputation on this circuit and that carries more weight than trivial nonsense like patent status.

Do you realize how many patents are granted that have devices that don't work? I'm not saying Rosemary's circuit doesn't work, just that a patent is not a requirement to have a valid circuit.

There is a US patent on a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE FROM GOD - go look it up if you don't believe me. So according to your logic, that patent is granted so it must work right?

The Czec govt is about the only one that I know that requires that something has to work in order to be given a patent - the pyramid shape razor blade sharpener is one example because it was proven to work. But again, still irrelevant.

The self-oscillation has been said to increase the efficiency but is not necessary but in either case, Rosemary's circuit went into self-oscillation and yours didn't so you can't say you replicated it. And because you can't, doesn't mean it is Rosemary's fault. You haven't even used the same mosfet.

There have been people that couldn't get the wheel to spin on a Bedini SG circuit and then they blame John. Go figure...

Bedini always said "Don't change it until it works" meaning do it like the inventor says - Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper - then once it works, then change components and do other modifications but not before.

All your questions are NOT critical to this discussion or purpose of this thread. Again, Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper.

[Aaron]

@ debunkers

@ debunkers and disinformation spreaders

The extra work on the off cycle here is really common sense and I'm amazed at what an issue it is for anyone to accept this. For anyone that doesn't buy it, go pull the fuses out of all your surge protectors and put in a hard wire, turn your home power off and on at the breaker box a few times and see if there is any usable work in what the magnetic fields give up AFTER the power is turned off.

It takes WORK to fry an appliance or anything else plugged into the wall from a surge which happens AFTER the power is turned off.

[Aaron]

replicate with info provided?

And his inability to PROVE with the info provided !!
Is what this unnecessary conflict is all about.
He did what he was asked [REPLICATE] ???[Rosemary's open request]
You can't put a man to work .......and leave him hanging
You'll always get grumblings that way!!

Chet

Chet,

Rosemary's information in this thread included the advice to use the circuit in the paper and not the article and she is obviously here to offer support to anyone replicating it - and not leaving anyone hanging.

[Guest]

Since you started this thread you should input your time to verify her claims. Instead of using longer and longer messages that lead nowhere. The other option is to let R-M present her findings in a more concrete form.

How hard can it be for R-M to send a device, make a video or have a presentation for professional engineers in SA???!

R-M or any of her friends have all the options, if she does not want to use either of them and you sit tight typing, how likely is this to work?

Aaron, please waste no more time on rhetoric, show us proof!!

TK,

How many minutes would it take you to modify your the Quantum magazine article to match the one in the paper? I would guess it would take less time than it does for you to keep posting about what is wrong or different with the Quantum article. Rosemary already said to use the one in the paper.

Whether or not the Quantum article needs to be retracted, corrected, etc... is something suitable for a different conversation - and a patent or application status is irrelevant. What about working circuits that are never patented. They're not valid or don't work because they're not patented? She is right here in this thread telling you exactly what circuit to use. Why not use it? She is obviously staking her reputation on this circuit and that carries more weight than trivial nonsense like patent status.

Do you realize how many patents are granted that have devices that don't work? I'm not saying Rosemary's circuit doesn't work, just that a patent is not a requirement to have a valid circuit.

There is a US patent on a PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE FROM GOD - go look it up if you don't believe me. So according to your logic, that patent is granted so it must work right?

The Czec govt is about the only one that I know that requires that something has to work in order to be given a patent - the pyramid shape razor blade sharpener is one example because it was proven to work. But again, still irrelevant.

The self-oscillation has been said to increase the efficiency but is not necessary but in either case, Rosemary's circuit went into self-oscillation and yours didn't so you can't say you replicated it. And because you can't, doesn't mean it is Rosemary's fault. You haven't even used the same mosfet.

There have been people that couldn't get the wheel to spin on a Bedini SG circuit and then they blame John. Go figure...

Bedini always said "Don't change it until it works" meaning do it like the inventor says - Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper - then once it works, then change components and do other modifications but not before.

All your questions are NOT critical to this discussion or purpose of this thread. Again, Rosemary said use the circuit in the paper.

[witsend]

Hi Altair. I did spend the day on the answer. But I was glad of the question. As a matter of interest, how do you guys see the reversal of the voltage - that spike? Do you see it has being more discharge from the battery? Or do you see it as a result of the collapsing fields over the resistor when the battery is not able to discharge?

The part I have the most difficulty with, is the sixth one. First, when you refer to the switch (Mosfet) as closed and open, there seems to be a contradiction of terms. The established convention describes a closed switch as one wich conducts current, and conversely, an open switch doesn't conduct. Your text implies the contrary. Altair

You're definitely right. I'll have to re-read the text. I should indeed have said that an open switch interrupts the flow from the battery and vice versa. Sorry if I implied otherwise. Definitely an error. I'll re-read it and edit.

The opposite polarity point - the magnetic fields over the inductor have first been extruded to allow the path for the zipon flow. That's during the ON period of the duty cycle. Then during the OFF period and they collapse to zero. That collapse - their movement to zero represents changing magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. That, in turn, induces the spike that manifests below zero. Then some ringing as this is repeated until the rining stops and the duty cycle then repeats. That first movement through zero - to me - respresents a change in polarity and a change in the directional flow of current.

But anyway I think that a good test of the theory would be to try in your circuit, a Mosfet that doesn't have the body diode. Then, by placing (or not) a reverse diode in parallel with the mosfet, it would be possible to ascertain the usefulness of that diode. If it was proven to be necessary, that would prove that there is indeed a reverse current going from ground to the top of the circuit.

Not sure what you mean. Is there such a thing as a MOSFET without a body diode? If so, then I guess this may prove it. I really can't comment.

Thinking about it, it would also be possible to check that current by just placing a shunt in series with the Mosfet and viewing it with a scope. (Unless of course that particular zipon current is undetectable with conventional instrumentation !)

Current flow is detectable and that's all that's needed. Again, as I understand it, an ammeter simply measures current from the extruded magnetic fields on a wire - which, in turn, measures the rate of transfer in the wire. But my problem with ammeters is that they don't usually measure at fast frequencies. And they do not distinguish between the direction of current flow. The circuit is intended to induce a reverse flow of current precisely to recharge the battery.

I'm going to try and get my head around why it could possibly be that current flow 'tries to hold it's direction?' I just don't understand it. Can you explain this?

[TinselKoala]

@Aaron: I would be very glad to see your replication videos and data and hear your explanation of why the duty cycle problem that I have identified, makes no difference to you.

But regardless of that, if you would bother to actually read my posts you would have seen that I am NOT using the INCORRECT 555 timer circuit from AINSLIE's publication, and instead I am using a FG that can deliver a duty cycle that is known and trusted. And I have replicated some heating in the load. I have also compared this heating with heating produced by a straight DC source providing the same continuous power input as the Ainslie circuit provides on average at 3.7 percent ON.
There is no observable difference in the final temperature reached or the rate of temperature rise.
Thus, there is nothing that my build of the Ainslie circuit does, WHEN DRIVEN CORRECTLY AT 3.7 PERCENT ON, that isn't also done by straight DC at the same average power level.

This much at least is true:
"The self-oscillation has been said to increase the efficiency but is not necessary but in either case, Rosemary's circuit went into self-oscillation and yours didn't so you can't say you replicated it. And because you can't, doesn't mean it is Rosemary's fault. You haven't even used the same mosfet."

In several of her publications she says that the mosfet isn't critical. Nevertheless I have tested now 4 different mosfets, and I will be glad to test the IRFPG50 as soon as I obtain one. And the "self oscillation" -- which has been variously described as "random non-periodic" "chaotic" and yet at the same time "resonant"...how do we know what's being talked about here, if there isn't a screen shot of a scope trace, and nobody else, NO MATTER THE MOSFET, is unable to reproduce it???? How do you know that I'm not seeing the same thing she was, but labelling it differently (like false triggering of the DSO)???

Would anyone care to place a little side wager? I say that the IRFPG50 mosfet will produce substantially the same results that I have gotten with the 2sk1548. Anybody say different? I'll even give odds.

Now, if someone would only tell me what the correct circuit is, that made the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper--because they both describe the SAME experiment but describe DIFFERENT CIRCUITS---??

Something isn't right here, and it has nothing to do with my attitude.

Now-my question again:

It's a simple question: Is the circuit diagram in the Quantum article correct or not?

Please answer yes or no.


If the answer is "Yes, it is incorrect", don't you think it's appropriate to make a correction?
Especially since that article has been around since 2002, and who knows how many people have tried to build it, find what I found, and then go on to simply dismiss Ainslie as someone who doesn't know what she's talking about---

If the answer is "No, it is the correct circuit used in the experiment"...then there are some more severe problems.

So which is it? Is the circuit correct or not?

[Aaron]

@ gauss

Since you started this thread you should input your time to verify her claims. Instead of using longer and longer messages that lead nowhere. The other option is to let R-M present her findings in a more concrete form.

How hard can it be for R-M to send a device, make a video or have a presentation for professional engineers in SA???!

R-M or any of her friends have all the options, if she does not want to use either of them and you sit tight typing, how likely is this to work?

Aaron, please waste no more time on rhetoric, show us proof!!

It has been made abundantly clear that YOUR posts are no longer welcome in this thread.

The experiment discusses a self-oscillating effect, which you and TK have not shown. To claim that is a "replication" is not true and the same parts were not used.

Gauss - do NOT post in this thread again. I started this thread and I'm asking you to leave. You are combative and have been attacking members of this forum. If you cannot contain yourself, go post in some other forum and in threads where your misunderstanding and bad attitude is appropriate. This thread and forum is not appropriate for that.

[TinselKoala]

Tinselkoala

You had some valid questions but with your antagonistic attitude you will most likely never get an answer.

Why would anyone want to help or answer your question when you are so insulting?

Rosemary has been kind enough to join our forum to help, she has no obligation too.

Do you want to read back through the posts since I've joined, and see who started insulting whom?

And why is it so difficult to give a straight answer to a simple question?

Why would anyone not say either

"OOPS, you're right, the Quantum diagram is wrong, it doesn't include the flyback diode, thanks for pointing that out, I'll publish a correction right away, and I'll also have my tech people look at the duty cycle issue"

OR

"You are wrong TK, the Quantum circuit is indeed correct and you can't even build a simple circuit and test it properly."

Why, after her talking about "patents that were allowed to lapse for the public good", isn't my question about the patents vs. patent applications answered simply with a link to the granted patents?

Has anyone actually been "helped" by the things Ainslie has posted here?
Has anyone actually been "helped" by the things I have posted here?

[witsend]

TinselKoala, I will leave my personal comments about you out of this post but will address it later. Here's the thing. You claim that by providing the same amount of power to a control using a continuous power input you gets the same temperature rise as is evident on the circuit using a switching device at 3.7% ON. Well then.

The energy at 3.7% on our circuit is delivered in two phases. The one relates to the ON cycle when the energy is delivered by the battery. The other relates to the OFF cycle when the energy is delivered back to the battery. Take a sample range of the voltages in both cycles, preferably in excess of 1 200 such samples and ideally over a reasonable sample range as your waveform seems to be periodic. If you use a tektronix - I believe you have one - then the sample range could be as great as 10 000 such samples.

You will see that some of the voltage samples will be represented as negative, and some will be represented as positive. Clearly the energy that is positive has come from the battery. And wherever the energy came from that is represented as negative voltage - it did not come from the battery. Then make a sum of all those voltages. Divide that sum by the number of samples. Then do your wattage analysis with that sum. If you're measuring across that shunt - from memory I think it is 0.5 Ohm - then the sum of the voltages divided by the Ohms value of that shunt resistor x battery voltage will give you the wattage that was delivered by the battery. You will find that that sum of the wattage delivered by the battery is LESS than the wattage dissipated at the load.

If you do the analysis like this you will find the gain. If you do not believe it is the correct way to do the analysis then I'm afraid you must argue with the experts.

And that is all that is required to prove the over unity claim. It will not matter what duty cycle you use. It will not matter what frequency you run the test at. The sum over the shunt resistor will always be less than the product over the load resistor. That's strictly in terms of classical analysis of energy delivered by the battery and dissipated at the load. You do not need to be a genius to see that the one will inevitably be greater than the other.

But your instruments need to be accurate enough to take in the full value of the negative voltage. And. If you do a measure of the rate at which your battery delivers its energy you will see that it is consistent with this sum. If you need to see if the battery in fact recharges - then do the two battery test described in this thread. And if you need to finally check the advantage to the battey then run a control along side the test. All these points have been repeated throughout all my postings and you continually choose to ignore them. Why?

[TinselKoala]

Is the circuit in the Quantum paper correct or not?

What circuit was actually used to generate the data in the Quantum article and the EIT paper, since they describe the same experiment?

What are the links to your actual GRANTED PATENTS?

These are very simple questions. Yet you dodge them like a politician.

[TinselKoala]

You say that I am not paying attention to your "explanations". Far from it. I am truly trying to understand several things. Such as why you have allowed an article with your name on it, which clearly contains several errors, to remain standing for 7 years without a correction being published. And I am trying to understand why, and how, you who are not an EE and who have said several times that it is not your area, yet you presume to teach us whose field it IS how to do power measurements--without even considering the effect of duty cycle--which you seem to think is handled automagically by the computation routine you have described. Do you understand what is meant by the phrase, "integration of the instantaneous power waveform"?
I find that extremely ironic. Your work is riddled with clear errors, some of which have been pointed out to you and many more which have not.

The assertions you make in your last post are unfounded and unsupported by data. Not just my data--yours as well.
And those of other researchers who have been trying this same scheme for many many years.

[Mark]

Because he only see what he wants too!