COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

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?

Aaron, please read my post to Hoppy. The measurement of the total energy delivered by the battery is the amount delivered - less the amount returned in that spike. The tricky thing is to compute the energy in the spike.

The amount of energy in the spike is invariably some fraction less than the input. But if you work on one third of the input you've way understated the actual return. But work on that number. You'll already see a gain that goes through the roof. Can you get a scopemeter that can determine that energy on a dc coupling? Otherwise - can you just measure the voltage rise on two batteries - as I've explained. One battery to run the test. A second linked only at the negative terminals of both batteries. Then take voltage readings of the second battery. I promise you - you will see a dramatic recharge at low duty cycles. And there will be no evident decrease in the output over the resistive load. Try using a light for the resistive load to show this.

[witsend]

Aaron, sorry I keep trying to edit the previous and my old jinx. I think it lurks at the edit button.

Anyway - I forgot to add. Take the flyback to the positive of the second battery.

And please, please, test this configuration. It'll puzzle you and it'll blow you away. No cap. Just the flyback. I would love to see this video'd because it would encourage those, Joit and SkyWalker and others - to see this. It's very significant.

[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 its 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.

Rosemary,

You and your testers are clearly convinced that the test method is fit for purpose but I am not. Mine and other peoples opinions on this forum do not really matter in this. If you have an official OU validation report and certificate in your hands from a world respected academic establishment, you are justified in telling those people that criticise the test method etc., that they are wrong.

Hoppy

[Joit]

Hi,
I still play around with some toroid bifilar Coil But still get some Problems to set it up proper.
Now i do change the Transistor to a 600V one.
But i still have to do some things for a upcomming B-daypardy from a Friend.
/btw hope Owsley is there, see, if he got good stuff, but i doubt that, that he has/

I think anyway, this Batteriecharging part is secondary, because its very difficult, and most Batts act very bad at the charging/decharging Cycle.
There are not much Batteries here, what like it to get loaded and decharged.
Even at the Car its like it, you need the Energy only for starting the Engine,
after that, the Current comes from the Alternator, and the Batterie is in resting/charging Mode again.

Its more like, to have a unit, what has a high Cop, and, as Aron says,
deliver 90% work with 10% Input, to keep the system running.

[witsend]

Rosemary,

If you have an official OU validation report and certificate in your hands from a world respected academic establishment, you are justified in telling those people that criticise the test method etc., that they are wrong.

Hoppy that's a bit tough on one isn't it? An OU validation from a respected academic establishment - when my paper isn't even allowed to go to review?

And where have I said anyone is wrong? On the contrary. I've only shown why it is right. And - with respect - it is my claim that's being discussed.

[witsend]

Joit - so sorry you're struggling. I can hardly understand the problem. But perhaps Hoppy - someone - could help you here?

Nice to see you on line though.

[Joit]

@witsend i am not struggling, thanks, i am only just playing around.
Its ok, i dont need support, just seems, more Time

[Hoppy]

Hoppy that's a bit tough on is isn't it? An OU validation from a respected academic establishment - when my paper isn't even allowed to go to review?

And where have I said anyone is wrong? On the contrary. I've only shown why it is right. And - with respect - it is my claim that's being discussed.

Not tough at all Rosemary; this is the way claims are validated in the scientific community. Please read my post again; I did not say that you have said that anyone is wrong.

Hoppy

[Joit]

@Hoppy Girls prefer more to have straight Sentences

[witsend]

Hi guys. We've got rare sunshine. I should be outside enjoying it. But I sort of undertook to try and do some work on my physics thread.

Hoppy - find me someone with a rare tolerance for the amateur and ask them to re-write our paper to get it past first base. You seem to have academic interests - maybe contacts? If I could quarrel with reviewers over results I'd be happy. It's not being allowed to quarrel that I find unfair. And I didn't realise you were so familiar with the vagaries of batteries. I've given up many valuable hours of my life to such testing.

And Joit - glad your enjoying whatever it is your testing.

Aaron - still can't raise a number. Probably tonight. I'll keep trying.

[MileHigh]

Rosemary: You asked me to comment on one of your posts. If you give me the number of the post I will be pleased to do so.

> The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.

If you are referring to your test where you disconnect the diode from your source battery and connect it to an extra battery to confirm the recharging process in your standard setup, then unfortunately you are incorrect in your assumption. The extra battery will indeed get charged because you have set up a full electrical loop for the current to go through the extra battery and back into the coil. You are changing the circuit to something that works. In essense, you have set up a Bedini motor configuration. I think that someone would have to run some bench tests like I suggested to convince you that there is no power being returned back to the source battery in the form of a spike, I hope somedody does. I won't argue this point anymore.

Joit: A very high resistor connected to a MOSFET input (not an NPN or PNP transistor) will put the MOSFET at risk to spontaneously oscillate in a random way. From a search,"CMOS inputs may never be left open circuit. There is a chance that the input ends up at half the supply voltage and the current consumption of the IC will increase enormously. Besides, it can cause noisy interference that can be detected throughout the entire IC or surrounding circuit."

> The sum of the energy delivered is less than the product of the energy dissipated.

I have a hard time wrapping my brain around that. I can suggest a way to measure energy into the circuit vs. energy out of the circuit for your consideraton later on.

Certainly I understand that by "sum" you mean output energy less any returning energy and that's fine. If there is any returning energy is arguably in question. A voltage measurement across the shunt resistor will clearly show it one way or the other. By "product" of the energy dissipated, I hope you are not implying some kind of multiplication. The energy dissipated can simply be measured. If you have set up some kind of recirculating current in any circuit that's fine, both "halves" of the current recirculation will generate heat.

MileHigh

[jibbguy]

Differential Op-Amps go into oscillation all the time.

I remember from my days working with analog low-level DC amplifier circuits either based on discrete transistors or Op-Amps, that there is indeed a constant possibility of encountering astable runaway oscillations (and the "danger" was much more with the former than the latter). We of course tried hard to eliminate them whenever seen in the design phase, using almost exclusively added CAPACITANCE to solve it.

As for later repairing/calibrating them; in some extreme cases with the very old stuff, we would have to carefully match the "Betas" of the transistors used, to stop it from happening (this is with cascaded discrete transistor amplifier circuits using first-gen commercially available semiconductors from the late "1960's"). Lol I'm not that "old", the circuits were around for 20 years at least when i worked on them .

I thought of that very common runaway oscillation effect when someone above suggested using 2 MOSFETS instead of one: It may indeed allow the oscillations to happen more often (maybe two of slightly different specs would be even better for this).

When you look at the internal schematic of an Op-Amp (such as an "LS301") it has 8 or more transistors, cascaded in pairs. But they all have a very low current rating so peeps around here rarely use them (they are really only good for low-level signal conditioning or "Comparator" circuits).

Although this is a fairly commonly seen issue with the design of low-current analog electronics, no one i ever heard of really bothered to find out exactly why it happens, as it was just a serious problem to be eliminated (...as was previously well said above).

So i suspect any use of Caps at either the input or output end for power collection could significantly hinder the transient effects across the resistive element that appear to be so desired here for the anomalous heating: Because the capacitance will either act as a "low-pass filter", and attenuate the desired spikes... Or more likely, simply keep the circuit from going into oscillation to begin with.

But i guess the only way to see this for sure is get the condition to happen reliably first (which apparently no one here has been able to do yet with this circuit); then try out the caps.

I don't know how to induce the oscillations with a MOSFET, but with an op-amp or transistor amplifier circuit you can often "force" it by pushing for maximum Gain.... I do remember tweaking trim pots too far and suddenly seeing it (this with the inputs shorted, pretty much eliminating the possibility of high impedance or "noise" coming in on the open inputs causing it).

Sometimes, it was odd in that once it started, tweaking the pot back didn't stop it; the device had to be power-cycled to get back to "normal"... This proves the oscillations were an artifact of the transistors, imo. Often if it was pronounced, we would simply change out the transistor or op-amp and it would stop happening... Although the component was not really "bad" by most other standards... It must have been something very subtle and not noticeable under normal conditions (when being Calibrated; often they are made to do things not seen in usual operation).

In circuit design, these kinds of "oddities" are often because the operational ranges of the semiconductor device are set too "close to the edge", simply changing a set of resistors to change the range can solve it. But if not (because a certain gain is needed), then the added capacitance will solve it nearly every time. The problem with the latter solution of capacitance is that there is nearly always a trade-off in Frequency Response.

These circuits i am referring to were usually high-gain, Differentially Isolated signal amplifiers... With the "High" and "Low" inputs both "active" and floating off-Ground (... Meaning they had either cascaded discrete transistors or op-amps on both "+" and "-" input legs); which are designed for instruments that can read a voltage difference down to "25mV full scale" at up to 500 V DC Off Ground. In this they differ significantly from audio amplifier circuits or other DC signal amplifiers which are usually "Single-Ended to Ground".

These astable runaway oscillations were seen much more commonly with the Differential / Isolated circuits (although i have seen it with single op-amps as well, usually when they went "bad" somehow probably meaning one of the internal transistors failed)... Imo, this increased "danger" with them is because there is a lot more "balance" going on in regards to the transistors involved. All of them will differ slightly in manufacture (especially those old discrete transistors); if these diffs are large enough then when cascaded, then there is the much larger chance of the oscillation effect happening... Especially when pushed near the edge of the max specs ratings.

There is one more effect i wanted to mention: That of thermally stressed semi-conductors. I have seen dozens of times that transistors or CMOS devices WILL act quite a bit differently after being over-heated in the past (sometimes going into oscillation), while they are in the process of slowly failing. Some folks will try to tell you: "They either work or they don't"... That is total "Bull"!! So there is also the small possibility that the MOSFET used 6 years ago was stressed and was slowly on its way to failing... And that's why it oscillated as it did (...and another possibility why the effect hasn't been reproduced yet).

But i guess the point of this long post is that we CANNOT blithely discount the oscillation effect; and i am quite sure from my own experience that it is entirely plausible and can be reproduced.

Also, i would state that adding capacitance to the circuit could stop it from ever happening.

Basic info on op-amps & some circuit schematics that use them:

http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/sloa064/sloa064.pdf

http://www.national.com/onlinesemina...ivia_Notes.pdf

[Hoppy]

Hoppy - find me someone with a rare tolerance for the amateur and ask them to re-write our paper to get it past first base. You seem to have academic interests - maybe contacts? If I could quarrel with reviewers over results I'd be happy. It's not being allowed to quarrel that I find unfair. And I didn't realise you were so familiar with the vagaries of batteries. I've given up many valuable hours of my life to such testing.

Rosemary - I don't understand why you need someone else to re-write your paper when you insist it it is worthy of review. I think you just need to strike lucky and find an establishment somewhere in the world prepared to review it. I cannot help out here because with respect I do not find your paper convincing. Yes, I've learnt much about the vagaries of batteries.

Hoppy

[witsend]

the post I was referring to is 712 - but I actually think all the points have been answered in your subsequent posts. So don't worry. However, these new points.

> The quickest proof is through the flyback diode to the battery.

If you are referring to your test where you disconnect the diode from your source battery and connect it to an extra battery to confirm the recharging process in your standard setup, then unfortunately you are incorrect in your assumption. The extra battery will indeed get charged because you have set up a full electrical loop for the current to go through the extra battery and back into the coil. You are changing the circuit to something that works. In essense, you have set up a Bedini motor configuration. I think that someone would have to run some bench tests like I suggested to convince you that there is no power being returned back to the source battery in the form of a spike, I hope somedody does. I won't argue this point anymore.

MileHigh

I'm sorry you won't argue this. It goes to the heart of the matter. Could you reconsider? I'd be very interested in your comments here. If this is wrong then indeed my claim is wrong.

[witsend]

Jibbguy - your post is excellent. I would be so glad to get Hoppy or MileHigh to look it over and give your input, if it's not asking too much. I think Jibbguy is showing us that those cascading aperiodic waveforms have been repeatedly evident and always dealt with through some means to obviate their effects.

Maybe .99? It seems to point to some means where the cascade effect can be engendered.

Hoppy - I have never said that my paper is worthy of review. But since this has been brought up - I think it is. It is using a very simple circuit to prove overunity. Whether it's presentation is adequate is at question. That's why it may need a rewrite. But I won't know this until it is reviewed. You see my point?