COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[MileHigh]

Glen: Sorry for the whole blurb then. For what TK is doing, I can't imagine it making any difference if he connects his power supply ground to his earth gound. I have to assume that when you play with serious HV that you want to have access to a real earth ground for some of your equipment. Not that you would ever want to ground yourself. Around serious HV your safest bet is to stay floating!

Bringing it back around to Rosemary's circuit - there is no need to use any kind of earth ground or mains neutral or third-prong ground connection.

[Aaron]

variable resistor

Rosemary,

What is the max resistance of your variable resistor in between the mosfet gate and the trigger signal?

[witsend]

Aaron - you're talking switching circuitry. I have no idea. I'll get back to you on this tomorrow. I'ts our time 4.30 am and I can't phone around yet. Or I could. But I'd be unpopular.

Sorry about this. Check your email.

[witsend]

MileHigh - I wish you'd answer the points in my previous post. Regarding your analysis of the oscillating frequency. I cannot comment. What I assure you your explanation is not in line with my advices on this from experts at our Ivy Leagues, in the States. But there you are. Everyone comes up with different explanations. My own take is entirely different and it seems to give some effects which have entirely unexpected results.

Please could you look over my previous post. Would love some comments here.

[witsend]

Hi Fuzzy - some remarkably astute comments - yet again. I think there's a tiger there - lurking behind the smile.

Regarding the need for grounding, and at the risk of prolonging an argument regarding this - I have to see clear evidence of the earth attached to the neck of the probe attached to the meter and across the shunt. This is sadly lacking. And from memory - that waveform looks like a single probe connection. I'm sending the link to experts at Fluke for final comment. I need to put this 'evidence' to bed. We also never saw full benefit of the scope functions. But certainly early suggestions of the Hartley effect.

Regarding your points. Had never even thought of the difference re input voltage. It's just so obvious and just so insightful.

We're all in very capable hands here. Coming in from all over the place.

[Aaron]

variable resistor

Aaron - you're talking switching circuitry. I have no idea. I'll get back to you on this tomorrow. I'ts our time 4.30 am and I can't phone around yet. Or I could. But I'd be unpopular.

Sorry about this. Checkj your email.

Thanks, no rush. I just put a 10k variable there for now.

[witsend]

Hoppy - regarding batteries - I need to clear this point up.

I cannot comment on whether there is a 'real' charge value in that returning energy. I can only say this. The battery appears to discharge at a rate that is consistent with the wattage measured across the shunt. Also, our batteries outlast the controls showing that there's evident efficiency.

But - whatever the charge, real, imagined, measured, fluffy whatever, the point is this. If the measurements, all by themselves, indicate a gain, then, theoretically, whether the supply is from the supply grid or from batteries, the fact is that the gain is measured according to classical protocol.

This is hugely significant. Every acknowledgement also puts paid to electric energy being constrained by the second law. It also means that potentially we can return energy from the house to a general power grid, simply by applying that circuit to household appliances. BUT to get there we need acknowledgement from academics that we are doing this. They cannot refute the evidence on a battery. Therefore why can our utility supplier not discount returning energy?

I'll tell you why. They've got a good argument. We may only need a fraction of their voltage - but we need the full value applied to extract that fraction. It's their real cost related to sustaining a continual supply at the required voltage level. But the amount of energy required will also be systematically reduced. SO. In my view - the only intelligent way of applying this energy, God willing that it ever gets that far, and subject to some combination of this and bedini motors or even something better than this and yet to come to the market - is that it should be possible to run the household supply from the grid. But - again subject to accredition of these principles - it should also be possible to return some of this excess to a general grid. Then, there can be no argument from the utility supply source. And maybe they'll also open their watt meters to allow this returning energy. Apparently, at the moment this is not enabled. Certainly not here is SA. That way the cost of applying our own electric energy supply sources is off set by the cost to the grid for returning energy. Imagine it. All those houses making energy and returning surplus to a national grid. It's got to be a help.

But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery. When there's a braod general consensus on this proof then we should be able to persuade our academics to acknowledge the principle. But, in turn, that's also the difficult part. They wont want to acknowledge it - for just so many other reasons. We've got a fight on our hands. But it's probably worth the effort. And if we fail the argument - it is very evident that progress will not be halted. We can argue later.

[Aaron]

free potential from the environment

We may only need a fraction of their voltage - but we need the full value applied to extract that fraction. It's their real cost related to sustaining a continual supply at the required voltage level.

This is a profound concept that conventional thinking can't get around. Here is the example

lol

You raise an apple 20cm and it takes 1 joule but if there is .8 joules of "potential energy stored" at 20 cm, it really only took .2 j to lift it but we needed the full 1 joule to have only a fraction work for us.

But then the .8 of stored potential can STILL do further work when the apple hits the ground, etc... But when the bounce or flyback is recovered in a spring or capacitor, or diode to a battery, we only used a little bit and the greater part we get back can do work again and again and again. All the combined work that is exhibited in measurable joules of energy is more than what we paid for.

Each recycled cycle has a diminishing amount of potential and this is why the battery will drop eventually but all the work done is still MORE than what can be accounted for from the loss in the battery. lol

This is why your circuit is not only completely logical but is REQUIRED by the way nature gives us the free potential back after we expend some. This over 1.0 COP concept is happening all around us all the time every single day.

[witsend]

This is a profound concept that conventional thinking can't get around. Here is the example

lol

You raise an apple 20cm and it takes 1 joule but if there is .8 joules of "potential energy stored" at 20 cm, it really only took .2 j to lift it but we needed the full 1 joule to have only a fraction work for us.

But then the .8 of stored potential can STILL do further work when the apple hits the ground, etc... But when the bounce or flyback is recovered in a spring or capacitor, or diode to a battery, we only used a little bit and the greater part we get back can do work again and again and again. All the combined work that is exhibited in measurable joules of energy is more than what we paid for.

Each recycled cycle has a diminishing amount of potential and this is why the battery will drop eventually but all the work done is still MORE than what can be accounted for from the loss in the battery. lol

This is why your circuit is not only completely logical but is REQUIRED by the way nature gives us the free potential back after we expend some. This over 1.0 COP concept is happening all around us all the time every single day.

COPIED THE WHOLE THING. ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON

[Hoppy]

Hoppy,

You're describing the "fluffy voltage" thing that I mentioned. I've experienced that a lot too. But it doesn't always have to be this way and Rosemary's circuit isn't necessarily getting this fluffy voltage either. Only part of what the battery gets is fluffy, there is some real charge even though it may not be much.

If the battery receiving spikes is the sole power source for the input - meaning all the necessary power to run the circuit is coming from the battery, even if there are spikes being sent to it, the power battery has full view of the output, it will run longer than normal and of course will still go down but the efficiency is absolutely increased to a certain degree.

However, this is not totally the case with my circuit because the primary source of power is first taken from the output cap and whatever else is needed is then taken from the battery, while at the same time, the battery receives part of the spike. There is a HUGE difference.

The difference is this. Even if have spikes to the front battery, the battery will be giving full current for the operation at whatever voltage. Lets say 1 amp. With my circuit, the SAME work is being performed while the battery gives less current at whatever voltage.

On an SG, it is easy to do this method and drop the front current by 50% while doing the exact same amount of mechanical work. On these oscillators, over 90% can be reduced from the input doing this.

The spike isn't the only way to send power to the battery.

Charge a cap with the spikes and when the cap is a few volts above the battery discharge it - preferably with a mechanical switch but the discharge must be when the battery is disconnected from the circuit. With a fast high capacitive discharge, there is a VERY STRONG punch the battery receives.

This vid:
YouTube - Bedini SG | Mechanical Switch

You can see the left two leads on the switch are putting the front battery in the loop. Then it is disconnected and the cap is dumped straight to the battery. It wasn't running in this video, I was just showing how to take the output and dump it back to the front with the battery disconnected for that brief moment. You can do a lot with an empty cd rom container and pieces of copper. lol

Aaron,

I have setups that return the flyback energy to source in different ways. I have oscillators in many different configurations. I can charge a battery from all of them and its not all a 'fluffy charge' with methods I use. What I'm trying to convey is that IMO, using a very non-linear battery as the source of power in Rosemary's test setup, makes it it essential to use 'before and after' battery capacity measurements to determine if her circuit is running OU. I don't want to argue about this as its just my opinion based on a lot of experimentation.

Hoppy

[Joit]

Thanks, no rush. I just put a 10k variable there for now.

Thats something, what i did think around too.

Since different Transistors have different resistance or Requirements for the Base,
just put a higher ratet Potentiometer there for the random Oscillation?
Maybe you can quick answer that again Milehigh?
But i played a bit around again yesterday with, and seems its a larger Area where the Transistor switch and dont.
I guess, it only should not to low, or the transistor act as the Heater.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - regarding batteries - I need to clear this point up.

I cannot comment on whether there is a 'real' charge value in that returning energy. I can only say this. The battery appears to discharge at a rate that is consistent with the wattage measured across the shunt. Also, our batteries outlast the controls showing that there's evident efficiency.

But - whatever the charge, real, imagined, measured, fluffy whatever, the point is this. If the measurements, all by themselves, indicate a gain, then, theoretically, whether the supply is from the supply grid or from batteries, the fact is that the gain is measured according to classical protocol.

This is hugely significant. Every acknowledgement also puts paid to electric energy being constrained by the second law. It also means that potentially we can return energy from the house to a general power grid, simply by applying that circuit to household appliances. BUT to get there we need acknowledgement from academics that we are doing this. They cannot refute the evidence on a battery. Therefore why can our utility supplier not discount returning energy?

I'll tell you why. They've got a good argument. We may only need a fraction of their voltage - but we need the full value applied to extract that fraction. It's their real cost related to sustaining a continual supply at the required voltage level. But the amount of energy required will also be systematically reduced. SO. In my view - the only intelligent way of applying this energy, God willing that it ever gets that far, and subject to some combination of this and belini motors or even something better than this and yet to come to the market - is that it should be possible to run the household supply from the grid. But - again subject to accredition of these principles - it should also be possible to return some of this excess to a general grid. Then, there can be no argument from the utility supply source. And maybe they'll also open their watt meters to allow this returning energy. Apparently, at the moment this is not enabled. Certainly not here is SA. That way the cost of applying our own electric energy supply sources is off set by the cost to the grid for returning energy. Imagine it. All those houses making energy and returning surplus to a national grid. It's got to be a help.

But the first and most important point is to prove that the battery is being recharged. The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery. When there's a braod general consensus on this proof then we should be able to persuade our academics to acknowledge the principle. But, in turn, that's also the difficult part. They wont want to acknowledge it - for just so many other reasons. We've got a fight on our hands. But it's probably worth the effort. And if we fail the argument - it is very evident that progress will not be halted. We can argue later.

Rosemary,

It matters little whether your charge is fluffy, deep or a mix of both. The important thing is using a method of measurement that will conclusively convince the academic world that the circuit is running OU. IMO the method you have adopted does not achieve this. With our varying levels of knowledge and skills, we can test and measure the circuit your way or in different ways but it matters little whether we agree or not over the result. The final decision rests with the academic world and the jury is out until your circuit has 'done the rounds' through recognised testing establishments and a consensus reached by them on the validity of the claims made for it.

Hoppy

[Aaron]

use cap

What if a supercap was used to supply the front end power? 24v at whatever capacitance. If it is charged up to a certain level, there is little mistaking what it is SUPPOSED to deliver as it is much simpler with few variables without the complicated photochemistry happening in a battery. It is easy to calculate the joules of potential per voltage for a specific capacitance.

Based on that amount of joules, wouldn't it predict a certain amount of heat that should manifest from that many joules of input of potential used up?

After x amount of time, check the voltage of the cap and that will show how many joules of potential was used up.

Compare joules needed to make the manifested heat with joules taken from cap.

Now measuring all the heat accurately is another topic, but I think a cap is easier to pinpoint. Even if the heat accounted for is only 1% more than joules that left the cap, it is a successful test. 1.01 cop is successfully beating the math.

Comments?

[witsend]

Rosemary,

It matters little whether your charge is fluffy, deep or a mix of both. The important thing is using a method of measurement that will conclusively convince the academic world that the circuit is running OU. IMO the method you have adopted does not achieve this.

Hoppy

Fair comment Hoppy. But then you must argue with the experts - those academics. To a man they have approved that the sum of the energy returning by the supply source is the measure of the energy delivered. I'm not at liberty to quote their names. But I can, at least quote those accreditors. And their own analysts boasted pretty hefty expertise.

We've stressed the system to ensure that counter electromotive force is extreme by using an inductive resistor. That it's returned to the battery is unarguable. And it doesn't take genius. The sum of the energy delivered is less than the product of the energy dissipated. That is the point. Not so easy to argue with inductors and resistors in series. But very evident with an inductive resistor.

Please just try and digest this one point. By your own admission we can get the spike to the source. By your own admission this may constitute a recharge. Therefore total discharge is the sum of the first and second cycle.

This measurment has been very carefully evaluated by experts prior to submission of the paper. The article was based on the same methodology. We have simply configured a circuit test that returns this energy at a value that shows a gain on just about every possible duty cycle and at every frequency. Our actual test description relates to a bazaar oscillating frequency. But we've taken away the inductor - so there's less confusion as to how much energy was first delivered

Herein lies the significance of the this test experiment. I would so like you to get your head around this. This is simply classical protocol. I don't need my zipons to argue this. I only need the zipons to explain the inevitable overunity result. Again. An appeal to the logic - notwithstanding the pre-conceived opinion? I know the classicist expects a loss - notwithstanding. It's very hard to find that loss on this configuration.

[witsend]

Aaron - still can't raise anyone. It's a beautiful Saturday - and I think all are out enjoying the rare winter sunshine. I'll try again this afternoon.