COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

.99 - I have been looking through the thread and do not see any undertaking by you to do the test in 2 weeks time as I alluded to. I may have been mistaken. If so, I apologise.

Regarding your point regarding PSpice versus whatever simulator programme. Could you please explain the point, if any, in doing a test on a claimed overunity result that does NOT allow for an overunity result. I have an email from Zoltan Szili - where he explains this in detail. If you could give me your email address I'll forward it. I am not sure that I can put it up on the thread because I do not have his specific permission.

Did you see my post that asked you to 'repost' your approval of Luc's results? I would be glad of this.

Could you comment on the measurement protocol applied in our paper regarding the summation of the energy to and from the battery?

[Hoppy]

Hi all

this is not 100% topic but I feel that I need to show this. How many people have seen over unity? how many people believe that over unity does not exist? how many people are undecided? Well I can answer all of this as:- we have ALL seen over unity but have not realised that it is in fact over unity!

Let me explain, it is very simple, this is the experiment:- take several mirrors and position them so that they reflect one to the other and to the other untill you have no more mirrors, place an object in between the first two mirrors, what do you see? yes you see a multiplication of the image as it oscillates between the mirrors. Over unity, yes because you started with one image and ended up with a lot of the same, but each time they are inverted. Now can we extract one of those images? yes, by positioning a mirror carefully in between the others we can extract an image of the original. Now have we degraded the original image? no, have we more than the original image? yes. Now what has this all to do with frequecies and duty cycle and power etc. well the experiment was made at the frequency of light, the duty cycle was the distance between each mirror and I can go on and on but I think I have just proved a point that over unity does exist and is all around us.

Now give me an argument that over unity does not exist and I will start a thread just for this, I am waiting

Mike

Hi Mike

Mind boggling that - overunity in the eye of the beholder then - nice one.

Hoppy

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Hi Hoppy

It is an interesting example of OU at the frequecy of light and this has been done with lasers, but prisms not mirrors, and the funny thing is that it always holds that there is an invertion be it light or current and I am thinking that it is needed to invert the inverted, so to say, to obtain a gain, think about it

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

just a bit of thinking allowed

Sorry Rose, the posts are just a bit of thinking allowed as the mind wanders over many posts here and I am trying to look at some common denominators and possible things which we do not see

Mike

[RAMSET]

Mike

Thanks for that analogy
simple and BRILLIANT [no pun]


Two vids of a very nice man playing with oscilloscopes [ not simulators, the actual circuit]
YouTube - Electric OU 9: Scope Comparisons Part 1: Duty cycle (next: False Triggering)
YouTube - Electric OU 9: Scope comparisons Part TWO.

[Cloxxki]

Now give me an argument that over unity does not exist and I will start a thread just for this, I am waiting

Mike

Intersesting idea certainly worth its own thread. short reply then as its in part off-topic.
Are the extra images not both smaller and weaker? Some images overlay, and you still get only the top layers. I'd love to see an overunity laser experiment. One kW laser in, more coming out. Perhaps though, one laser, after being reflected by a number of mirrors, can be proven to ignite a whole forest fire. Forests are big, lasers are small.

IMO replicators and critics shouldset the rules for establishing overunity in a given circuit, not the inventor. The inventor should, to defend their claim, respond to critics with more elaborate details, measurements, and calculations, rather than giving them a C minus for the effort when theirs don't offer the same result.

Until claims of overunity are tended to unprofessionally (jokes aside), the real great brains of our world will not be tempted to have a go at this. Keep in mind that a mayority of the greatest brains are unable to finance an education, and will likely never become professionals in the field of their greatest talent. Still, if we can get those free thinking geniuses fighting for our joint cause, we can and will get somewhere. Lack of professionalism and basic common sence will also ensure being ignored by those having a scientific reputation to uphold.

[RAMSET]

Luc

Rosemary
LUC is your man

TOP TOP shelf

Chet

[Hoppy]

Hi Hoppy

It is an interesting example of OU at the frequecy of light and this has been done with lasers, but prisms not mirrors, and the funny thing is that it always holds that there is an invertion be it light or current and I am thinking that it is needed to invert the inverted, so to say, to obtain a gain, think about it

Mike

Mike

I'm sure you will recall walking through those 'halls of mirrors' as a kid. My Mother told me that not to be frightened becuase I would return to normal when I walked out the other side. Life could be viewed as a hall of mirrors where reality is but a state of mind.

Hoppy

[witsend]

IMO replicators and critics shouldset the rules for establishing overunity in a given circuit, not the inventor. The inventor should, to defend their claim, respond to critics with more elaborate details, measurements, and calculations, rather than giving them a C minus for the effort when theirs don't offer the same result.

Cloxxki we've got a situation here where many people are replicating many variations of a circuit with multiple confusions related to measurements protocols. So far all measurements have been checked against simulator programmes that are constitutionally designed to ensure that results can never exceed unity. We have vagaries related to 'ground' which seem to vary from country to country. And we've got a rear gaurd action being faught at our flanks to discredit any claim that ever presumes to show itself. And all this in an attempt to replicate a single experiment that, in itself, seems to have oscillating properties that appear to be entirely irreplicable.

I am not giving marks. I am trying to set some fair parameters. I do not think that evaluation on programmes that are designed to defeat measurements of our circuit is a fair test. My hope as detailed in the posts above is to get the data from experiment only.

[RAMSET]

Experimental data ,not a simulation

Mike
Thanks for that analogy
simple and BRILLIANT [no pun]


Two vids of a very nice man playing with oscilloscopes [ not simulators, the actual circuit]
YouTube - Electric OU 9: Scope Comparisons Part 1: Duty cycle (next: False Triggering)
YouTube - Electric OU 9: Scope comparisons Part TWO.

A hard working[VERY] experimenter using actual components

Chet

[Hoppy]

A hard working[VERY] experimenter using actual components

Chet

These videos clear up any misconceptions about the relationship between duty cycle and its effect on lamp illumination.

Hoppy

[RAMSET]

Yes numbers will be crunched

Rosemary [left your request]
more from you know who

And I ran an experimental run this morning, comparing load heating vs. time for the 96 percent and 4 percent duty cycles from the FG, using a load of R = 3.8 ohms, L = 82 microHenrys.

Briefly, the time and temp endpoints were:

4 percent ON: about 11 degrees over ambient (target = ambient + 52 as per Ainslie) at 70 minutes.

96 percent ON: experiment terminated at 4 minutes; load temp 103.2 C and rising fast, about 80 degrees over ambient.

I'll give the full experiment parameters (voltages, currents, powers) later on today. I've got to go to work now.

As I continue the temperature testing, I will make the .csv files of the raw data available for public crunching. All comments welcome, pro and con. Of course, if you are too con, I'll send Owlsley to get you.
__________________________________________________ _____________
PS
I think Owlsley is a softy [mostly blind threat IMO]

Chet

[witsend]

These videos clear up any misconceptions about the relationship between duty cycle and its effect on lamp illumination.

Hoppy

Hoppy what are you referring to here? What misconception? Am not sure what you're referring to.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy what are you referring to here? What misconception? Am not sure what you're referring to.

Rosemary,

The possibility that anyone might think that duty cycle does not affect lamp brightness and power consumed.

Hoppy

[Joit]

My suggestion is to take Rosemary's circuit complete with 555 timer design and simply run it for sufficient hours to completely discharge the test battery at its C20 rating and take a before and after ampere hour capacity reading with a good quality battery capacity meter (BCM) on a battery with say a before test at rest voltage of 25.00V battery.

Hoppy

I think, we want waiting right now for the Zultan Szili Challenge
But i will try it anyway once, because i am nosy.

About the Overuntiy prize, there is a PDF attached at the first Post from S. Hartmann with the conditions.
As far i remeber, it should be a Decive, what gives constantly 1W over 3 months.
There should be 2 Units build, one keeps the Inventor, one shall be send to S. Hartman for testing, to show its replicable.
It should not use Power from outside like Solar.
There should be no patent on it, to give it the Opensource community for free.
The Inventors should get some of the Money from the saved E-bill from this one, who did rebuild a unit.

I hope, i didnt start a Hype now.


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...-lighting.html