COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

[witsend]

TinselKoala - I see you still read posts on this forum - failing which I am sure that Ramset will copy and post for you if you no longer have access - I would like to re-iterate that I am sincerely sorry for blaming your interpretation of the inverted waveform if, as it seems, the switch was incorrect.

Abject apologies - for what it's worth. It is thanks to Joit that this matter has been cleared up. If you continue to do the experiment - I suggest you build your own 555 switch.

And for the record - the claim relates to a frequency that is variously described but best known as a Parasitic Hartley Effect. I have this information from experts. The point is that it is an oscillating frequency that is damped down or clamped out, not sure of the correct term - as it interferes with signals which is when it's manifest. We show that that effect adds to the efficiency when it is NOT clamped out.

BUT the flyback principle, whether with inductive resistors or resistors in series with inductors - always give evidence of a gain. It can be at any frequency tested between 60Hz all the way to and beyond 600kHz. All work - some with more efficiency than others - and at extreme frequencies - with losses rather than gains. It can use just about any variation of the flyback principles as described by gotoluc as a reticulated current. And it does not need the induced Hartley Effect to realise a gain. In other words you can get the over unity performance on periodic waveforms.

Nor do you need specialised MOSFETS. And you will always see a gain if you run batteries on control tests.

The misrepresentation of the 555 in the Quantum Article I think has been proved by Joit. I sincerely apologise for the error. Hopefully with this admission you'll at least continue with the testing. You see now how wide is my claim. You can then disprove it on many bases.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Rosemary, thanks for the updated info. Hi gotoluc, by the way I also want to thank you for all your efforts thus far. Yes I forgot the main test circuit of Rosemary's was just using an inductive resistor and I plan to run more tests using higher frequencies and lower duty cycles with just the resistor. Gotoluc, regarding the circuit I posted, as I said it gives a little better heat output, however the indicator bulb on the input actually has a tad less intensity. I used the same frequency, duty cycle and voltage to compare the circuits. So actually as far as heating the output resistor goes the circuit I posted seems better, but may not be when it comes to levitating the magnet as you show.
Anyway that's what I am seeing so far.
peace love light

[Hoppy]

Hi Rosemary,

sorry for the delay. Like I said! I was out for most of the day.

I thought you were asking about the circuit in the new video! I now see you were inquiring about test 4 video.

I made a schematic of test 4 circuit. I also just saw for the first time your schematic. Looks like the same thing ... the only difference is your flyback is created by the small inductance of a heating element and mine by a coil. My original circuit was less the resistors as I was demonstrating the effect of just flyback re-circulated to the coil that created it. I added the resistor after seeing your topic to see how it would perform. I think it's doing very well at producing heat also.

Anyways, you should see the circuit attached below.

Luc

Luc

I noted the temperatures you read in video 4 and have listed them below: -

Mosfet: 29C
R1: 34.5C
R2: 109.4C

There is a discrepancy of 45.9C between input and output. However, this is not taking into cosideration the heat in the inductor. Also, you may find that the middle to end of the mosfet heatsink is much hotter than the face of the mosfet after the circuit has been running for a while. I was wrong to disregard the mosfet in my earlier post because this clearly has a temperature that adds to the total. This would normally be low but a poor switching waveform can cause mosfets to run unecessarily hot. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the sum of the individual temperatures relate to the total energy input, not the heat from one component in isolation. This is because the input voltage is dropped across each component in a ratio governed by each components resistance. The only accurate and reliable way of determining the power levels in a complex waveform circuit, is to do an integration on the waveforms.

The bottom line is that the output energy will not be found to be higher than the input energy.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Luc

I noted the temperatures you read in video 4 and have listed them below: -

Mosfet: 29C
R1: 34.5C
R2: 109.4C

There is a discrepancy of 45.9C between input and output. However, this is not taking into cosideration the heat in the inductor. Also, you may find that the middle to end of the mosfet heatsink is much hotter than the face of the mosfet after the circuit has been running for a while. I was wrong to disregard the mosfet in my earlier post because this clearly has a temperature that adds to the total. This would normally be low but a poor switching waveform can cause mosfets to run unecessarily hot. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the sum of the individual temperatures relate to the total energy input, not the heat from one component in isolation. This is because the input voltage is dropped across each component in a ratio governed by each components resistance. The only accurate and reliable way of determining the power levels in a complex waveform circuit, is to do an integration on the waveforms.

The bottom line is that the output energy will not be found to be higher than the input energy.

Hoppy

Your opinion that the output will not be found to be higher than the input is, presumably just that, an opinion. I have discerned enough about you, Hoppy, to know that you'll defer a conclusion until you've vetted experimental results. You have no idea how much I respect that. It's not always even evident in our local universities where I've literally had academics refuse to look at a test demo. But, surprisingly, the real interest in these claims is always where the real talent lies. I'm pointing to some of the ivy league numbers on both sides of the pond. Unfortunately they are adamant that their involvement is not official - precisely because the claim needs to be published in a reviewed journal. That's the tricky part.

By the way - can you comment on the measurements protocol applied in our paper? Obviously you won't comment on the actual results - but just the way we reached those results? I'd be really glad of this - if it's not too much trouble.

[witsend]

Hi SkyWalker. Always a pleasure to see your contribution. I've gone to the trouble of posting an elaborate apology - because I could not quite understand Joit's conclusion. is he in fact pointing to an error in the article or not? Can you work it out? Neither Donovan nor I could quite get it. Just in case - therefore - I've apologised.

I see you plan to change your test parameters? If you do get a curly wound resistor - then you'll need to do some tricky voltage measurements or use battery draw down as a gauge to efficiency. If the former the best is a good storage scope. Can you perhaps borrow the use of one from somewhere? Unfortunately the whole argument is wrapped in those numbers. And it's a long argument if you use battery extension - and a short argument with those storage scopes. Not sure what you can access.

Whatever you use, just as a warning, ammeters are NOT ABLE to give the required measurement as it cannot compute reverse or 'reticulated' current flow - (the recharge cycle).

Can't wait for you to see those test results. I'm sure they'll blow you away.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Hoppy. Would it not be more accurate to consider what the ambient temperature might be in the circuit components in question and then calculate the differences because you will get a different number for sure, higher.

[Joit]

Joit - is your waveform proving TinselKoala's point? Is that 555 switch wrongly presented? To me it looks like it is. In which case, I must apologise to all concerned. Clearly the Quantum article was wrong.

So, to all concerned - to everyone who built the circuit as presented in that article, and if, indeed, it is wrong, my abject apologies. I had a shrewd idea it may have been wrong because, thinking back, a university professor kindly edited the quantum paper prior to presenting it to the IET. And his first recommendation was that we omitted a detailed circuit of the 555 switch as being irrelevant to the claim. Which is why I was reluctant to endorse the Quantum article as being a correct presentation. I just wish, in retrospect, that he had pointed out the error if he had seen such. In any event, it seems that I have been entirely at fault. My own objection to it was due to the lack of the feedback diode - which was the entire subject of the exercise. I knew it was in the apparatus. It certainly was not in diagram.

I would point out though, that my reluctance to admit this prior to ascertaining the fact was due to the person who presented that diagram and assisted me in that first article. He is a good friend and he, like all of us, was 'giving' his time. I was not keen therefore to expose the problem unless I also knew it was a problem. So, if you're reading this, don't even worry. In any event, the blame was not his. I should, at least, have had the circuit vetted - considering my own inability to read such.

So. Many apologies, even to TinselKoala and anyone in the entire world who duplicated that circuit. It is wrongly presented. I am sincerely sorry that I have wasted so much of your time. And Joit - you've put the question to bed. I would be very glad to refund you for your time and trouble - if required - and if I can get the money to you with our exchange control. Just send me an account on the PM system. You've done a very good thing here.

What I do assure you all is this. The switch may have been wrongly drawn. Our own duty cycle application is NOT. I have the experimental apparatus available and it has been checked by EE's even at universities. We have also, over the years, built many different 555 switches and by different people. And there are replicated experiments by others using nothing but a functions generator. And all this prior to publication. More to the point is that the battery duration is consistent with measurements based on the duty cycle. But, in point of fact, after publication I never experimented again for a period of 7 years and I certainly never even looked at the article again. The only reason I could scan a copy for the blog when I eventually did this, was because my children kept a copy of the original publication. I was just so dejected at the entire lack of interest it seemed to generate. I had no idea that the test would really ever be duplicated.

Therefore, please take this admission as a sincere apology to all those who have tried to build the switch according to the quantum article. I see that the Quantum article was the primary reference point as the IET paper was only posted to the blog after July. It seems that Ramset and TinselKoala started their thread on OU.COM in mid June. Unfortunate. But there you are. Sorry guys - It's all I can say.

@Witsend
it only prooves, that you are RIGHT and Tinselkoala is WRONG, and all his discreding and debunking Post here and at OU.com.
As i did write, the Timer does what IT says, not what HE(TK) says.
But they turn my Words allready at OU.com, as if TK is her God, what can not fail.

I know, the importend Things from here will go 1:1 over there to OU.com Thanks Ramset, to copy ours Posts and past them there to Ou.com
to feed the Trolls and her further insulting Comments.

You dont have to excuse to anyone, for me, you are right Witsend.
But what bother me is, that they still read here, and complain at OU.com
call it an idiotic Circuit, think they know all about Coils, and that we are a religious Forum, when we dont want to have such Troublemakers here.
Thats just another Proove and a bad Advertising for OU.com, what a crap comunity there do build up.

Thanks to the Admins, to take some Action in that Case.
I dont miss one of them.

Witsend the Wave is right, because the Peak from the Pulse can be adjusted with the Pot at the Base from the Transistor,
in what lenght it hits the Base, so alot Transistors should work.
I can adjust the Peak to a standing Triangle or a laying Triangle,
The Peak, what hits the Base can get adjusted over the Pot at the Base,
and therefor you get different Duty Cycles.
And i bet, when i play further around with it, i even get the same Results, as you did at your Tests at the Table from the Quantum Article.
I know, it works, because i had a different Thread about How to get extra Energy from a Coil, where the Point is, that you have to pulse the Coil at the right Moment, and get very much better Results from it.
But the Magneticfield, what is build up in the Coil does matter, when that Point of Time is.

And well, i use a RGP02-18 Diode here for the Timer, fast switching Diodes too, but i dont hink, that does matter.
My Circuit is easy and exactly adjustable from 0 - 11Khz right now.

[Hoppy]

Your opinion that the output will not be found to be higher than the input is, presumably just that, an opinion. I have discerned enough about you, Hoppy, to know that you'll defer a conclusion until you've vetted experimental results. You have no idea how much I respect that. It's not always even evident in our local universities where I've literally had academics refuse to look at a test demo. But, surprisingly, the real interest in these claims is always where the real talent lies. I'm pointing to some of the ivy league numbers on both sides of the pond. Unfortunately they are adamant that their involvement is not official - precisely because the claim needs to be published in a reviewed journal. That's the tricky part.

By the way - can you comment on the measurements protocol applied in our paper? Obviously you won't comment on the actual results - but just the way we reached those results? I'd be really glad of this - if it's not too much trouble.

Yes of course, its just my opinion until a full consensus opinion from the 'experts' is reached based on the best possible accepted measuring techniques. In the same way, every claim stated in this forum is just an opinion based on personal observation and unfortunately it appears to me in some cases, little or no 'at the bench' observation, just blind faith in another persons claim! What really annoys me is people who consider that EE principles are flawed and yet clearly display little or no understanding of even the basic conventional principles of electricity.

I'm happy to look at your paper and comment in due course.

Hoppy

[witsend]

Joit, you sweetheart. I thought you were pointing to an error. What an idiot I am. And what a relief. MANY MANY THANKS INDEED. I was so concerned that the Quantum article was INDEED wrong but it's RIGHT.

Cannot begin to tell you how relieved. I now really owe you. I'll post a retraction later. Just want to enjoy the moment.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi Rosemary, Thank you, it is my pleasure to try and help in any way I can since it seems not many can grasp that you cannot eat money and we need sustainable ways and technologies. I do plan to try some different tests with the wire wound resistor i used before, although I could not say if such a scope will be available to me any time soon. Would be nice though. To tell you the truth it matters not what talent a human being has, it is the intent. Granted one must have a mind in working order, however a quick overview of our technological state of affairs and knowing many advanced energy devices and just plain common sense simple devices are not in widespread use, points to the fact that something else is needed to establish these technologies other than the requirement of talent or smarts as some call it. It's up to each of us to find our truth in anything. And that is precisely why I am testing your circuit and anything else that appears to have usefulness.edit: So it seems we have yet another know it all in our midst, par for the course on planet earth it seems.
peace love light

[witsend]

Yes of course, its just my opinion until a full consensus opinion from the 'experts' is reached based on the best possible accepted measuring techniques. In the same way, every claim stated in this forum is just an opinion based on personal observation and unfortunately it appears to me in some cases, little or no 'at the bench' observation, just blind faith in another persons claim! What really annoys me is people who consider that EE principles are flawed and yet clearly display little or no understanding of even the basic conventional principles of electricity.

I'm happy to look at your paper and comment in due course.

Hoppy

Many thanks. I think I detect a note of disapproval here - but hopefully - over time - you may think differently. I'm at least prepared to try and show that I know a little bit more than may be entirely evident. I've said it before - I'm happy to point out how much I do not know. But don't thereby discount what little I actually do know. But that's for me to prove. You're in good company with your opinion. It's just such a pleasure for me to talk to an open mind. With it I sometimes get my logic understood. Such a challenge.

[Hoppy]

Hi folks, Hi Hoppy. Would it not be more accurate to consider what the ambient temperature might be in the circuit components in question and then calculate the differences because you will get a different number for sure, higher.

If very accurate above ambient temperatures are required to be measured in a controlled environment, then yes but for just rough comparitive measurement purposes required in this exercise, the ambient temperature can be assumed to be equal for all measured components and therefore treated as a constant.

Hoppy

[witsend]

And many thanks for those kind thoughts SkyWalker. I entirely agree. We MUST DO SOMETHING. It's just so so hard to deal with when we have to also wade through prejudice.

I'm having anothe wonderful day. Thank you God.

[Hoppy]

Many thanks. I think I detect a note of disapproval here - but hopefully - over time - you may think differently. I'm at least prepared to try and show that I know a little bit more than may be entirely evident. I've said it before - I'm happy to point out how much I do not know. But don't thereby discount what little I actually do know. But that's for me to prove. You're in good company with your opinion. It's just such a pleasure for me to talk to an open mind. With it I sometimes get my logic understood. Such a challenge.

Disaproval - not all, just respect! Its a refreshing change to see a technical report on an experiment. These are rare things in the FE community.

Hoppy