COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Not a loaded question. I'm trying to discover the properties in our circuitry that somehow defy natural generation of current flow due to inductive laws?

[poynt99]

Following quotes from .99

The "allowance" of how this circuit operates is largely dictated by nature, not by the "intervention" of some clandestine group of energy-controlling conspirators. You'll need to do better than that to answer that question.
I entirely agree with you. I have never thought there was a clandestine group. Why do you say this? However, I do think that there's a reluctance by academics to evaluate OU claims based on personal experience.

I say that because that is where I thought you were going with your answer. Blaming the absence of "discovery" of this effect on the schools pumping out tech's and engineers, and on government-lobbied corporate engineering entities who are milking us all for our hard-earned cash was my impression of what you meant. I really don't believe anyone is to blame for not making the same discovery as yourself. True most designers don't "expect" their devices to produce overunity, but surely one of them would have stumbled on it by now and reported it if they had.

Indeed, many academics have been burned by the very act of reviewing and giving a positive endorsement for questionable research. Can you blame them for shying away now?

Take a close look at this, overunity.com and any other FE forum and the internet, and I guarantee you will find 1000's of claims of OU on them. Of those 1000's of claims, how many have bared real fruit? Of those 1000's of claims that have not, how many of them came from individuals that didn't even know or understand the very basics of electricity and electronics?

It is no wonder why the academics are nervous about giving serious review to folks making claims of overunity. In the eyes of the academics, the credibility of the FE community is very low, and this is largely due to the calibre, or lack thereof, of the data and reporting of the party submitting the claims.

All too often, people have gotten "Mylow'd". It's too bad really, because when the day comes, "wolf" may have already been deleted from the dictionary.

.99

[poynt99]

Not a loaded question. I'm trying to discover the properties in our circuitry that somehow defy natural generation of current flow due to inductive laws?

If you can re-word the question with more details and specifics, I can try to give you a worthwhile response.

.99

[RAMSET]

A concerned scientist and his comment

@All

I see that MileHigh is making a lot of sense, but there's a minor issue or two that I would like to comment on. .
First, I think the very best evidence that HV (relatively) spikes are making it back to the battery is this: Cheapo DMMs used to monitor battery voltage at the battery (WITHOUT filter caps!! None are shown in the Ainslie circuit!!) anyway, the Cheap DMMs will almost always flip out and show random fluctuations, caused by this HF component coming in from the circuit. You can see this in some of my vids; it was especially severe during the recent experimental run--you can see that I could not even record some readings--and you can even see it clearly with the HUGE inductive load that Joit is using. I love it when my detractors prove my points!
I can see it clearly on the analog scopes, and yes indeed MileHigh is right about the leads picking up signals like that...but the DMM is more remote and is picking up the spikes through its direct connection to the battery.
But MileHigh is also right that the energy in these spikes is miniscule and, even over the long periods we are discussing, cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery. What it CAN do is make what they call over there a "Fluffy Charge" (i love that term) whereby the battery's indicated no-load voltage is anomalously high wrt its actual energy content. Any charge scheme that spike-pulses a battery of certain chemistries will cause this effect. It's fooled a whole lot of folks, even ones with college educations. And it's still doing so.
So I believe the spikes to the battery are real, as .99 says and as Rosemary says. I also believe that they are not capable of significantly recharging the battery, as MileHigh says. So yes, Rosemary, they can both be right.

And to address the "techie" points that MH brings up: You bet these are important. Especially for those who are breadboarding. A close inspection of the pics of my build though will show that I have followed the good practices that MH recommends. For example, there are decoupling caps in the right places, the timer is hardwired on pad-per-hole phenolic board, the FG input is BNC, copper buswire is used for the basic connections; the 555 output to the Ainslie portion goes in by a 2" length of tiny coax, all points are soldered, even the crimpon connections to the header socket wires; I use a 200K linear pot in place of the 100 ohm attenuator in the gate drive line (This pot, btw, has a bad spot caused by an overload while testing a Darlington transistor in the circuit; you can see the noise from this rough spot in several of the vids).
I even put, with appropriate decoupling caps, a 78L12 regulator on the 555 board, since I sometimes power it with a higher-voltage wall-wart (not used in any of these tests!!).

On all tests I show, the 555 timer is always powered by its own separate 12-volt sealed lead-acid battery of 2A-h capacity. Which of course by necessity shares a common negative with the rest of the system.

[Aaron]

more than spike

If the current DID reverse direction as you propose in your model, wouldn't we be able to get more than just a brief (20ns) spike back into the battery? I would think so.
We would and do. You must remember your result is based on your simulator.

The inductive resistor should RING when turned off until the next on cycle. All the ringing is free potential added to the initial spike that is all recoverable.

[MileHigh]

Ramset: Yes I think that the concerned scientist's points are all valid and he indicates that he is taking care of the circuit issues related to analog setups and propagating square wave signals properly. You can imagine a scenario where someone has a 555 timer on a small breadboard a few feet away from the MOSFET setup and they are interconnected with a long separate light-gage wires for signal and ground. They might not be aware that there is a "whol' lotta' shakin' an' bouncin' goin' on" in the signal levels between the 555 setup and the MOSFET setup which would wreak havoc with the results.

Anyway, hopefully somebody will crunch some watts!

To be serious: IMHO, if there are results that indicate extra energy, the circuit would then have to be picked apart some more by the first reporter with a scope and such. In parallel with that you would need at least three other replicators that then verify the results. Everybody's results would have to be shared with everything reasonably documentated as far as procedures and measurements go. Everybody should be able to generate an Excel spreadsheet or other document for others to review. In my case, I simply suggested a test procedure that if properly documented should stand up reasonably well unless I made an oversight or mistake somewhere.

A biggie documentation issue for example that I did not touch on is the error tolerance in every one of the measurement steps made. As you process the data the error tolerances typically add up, so +/-1% becomes +/-2% and so on. That means if you measure 1% excess energy and your error tolerance is +/-2% then you've proved nothing.

Now we can't forget that the paper states a COP of 17. For every watt of electrical power you put in you get 17 watts of heat power out. If the results are indeed this good, then the data should leap off of the page. Keep in mind the recent Gotoluc experiments with the dim bulb and the bright bulb or the cool resistor and the hot resistor. I believe that in all of those experiments the input power from the battery was not measured. Therfore the relevant data for drawing conclusions from wasn't even there in the first place. If you document and measure correctly you should be fine.

[Aaron]

fluffy charge

But MileHigh is also right that the energy in these spikes is miniscule and, even over the long periods we are discussing, cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery. What it CAN do is make what they call over there a "Fluffy Charge" (i love that term) .................

I also believe that they are not capable of significantly recharging the battery, as MileHigh says.

Not sure why this disinformation keeps popping up.

I'm the one that started the term "fluffy charge" or "fluffy voltage" over 5 years ago to explain that with some radiant spike charging, the voltage is "fluffy" (mostly a light static charge) that gets popped (usually) as soon as applying a load to it (if it is a straight inductive load).

About 6 years ago, I was using my Bedini circuits to charge caps. Microwave caps for example with super low capacitance. 2uf or less. The cap was connected to a separate battery with an SCR in the circuit. Neon bulb triggered at 90v and dumped the cap. THOSE spikes from that circuit gave my battery a "fluffy charge" where the voltage went up then was unable to power a load. The load I was trying to power from it was a strong inductive load so no wonder. If there is a resistive load, you will see power from it. In a mixed component like an inductive resistor, that "fluffy voltage" will see resistance and you'll have some real watts.

So, it CAN and DOES supply measurable power in real wattage over time. And, NOT all charging with spikes is fluffy. Look at the Bedini chargers, that is far from fluffy. Of course that is with a real coil. With the inductive resistor, it is simply scaled down and proportionately, the spikes are just as good.

You say: "cannot sum to anything like a significant charge return to the battery" but that is your opinion not based on fact or experimental evidence and if you insist it is, then that is only based on your experiments that have not been able to produce results that Rosemary, myself and others have achieved.

The term SIGNIFICANT is 100% subjective to what you believe to be significant but overlooks the fact that ANY volume of potential can do work and if it supplies 1 single nano joule of work, then that is ABOVE what the math says. Take those spikes and charge a cap, you will see that REAL work can be had from it.

I've already done the test and the spikes from the resistor can charge a cap quite nicely and even a second battery. I have the recovery diode and it charged the FRONT battery (2 X 12v 7ah bank) to as high as 24.65 when the resting voltage was 24.45 before the test. 24.65 is above the resting voltage before the test was started and over 12 hours later, the circuit is STILL running from the "fluffy voltage". Every bit of wattage I'm getting through the circuit until it gets back down to resting voltage is ALL above and beyond (totally free) what you claim I can get.

[MileHigh]

Aaron: Even if you can do something with the feeble return spikes, you can't forget the banking analogy. So what if the bank gives you a check for $10 every year for being a good customer if your banking costs for your enterprise are $15,000 per year.

For the fluffy voltages for whatever projects are going on, I can suggest that everyone use measurements of a battery's output impedance as a second way of describing the condition of their batteries before and after charging, running load tests, etc. All that everyone needs to do is standardize on a few key values of 10-watt resistor to use as the output impedance testing resistors. You could determine and agree on the right resistors to use for various standard battery sizes and types. Then everybody could exchange data about the voltages, fluffyness, and output impedance measurements and be on the same playing field. The higher the output impedance, the fluffier the battery, so why not measure it? All that you have to do is connect the resistor across the battery, measure the voltage drop, do some basic calculations, and you have your data. Who knows, perhaps there is already a Java applet online somewhere or somebody could create it.

Just a comment about battery resting voltages and seeing a battery's voltage rise while you run an experiment or whatever. You should be very cautious when examining this data. A voltage increase for example may be related to the tempreature of the battery itself. Either the ambient temperature increases or the battery simply heats itself up as it drives a load. This self-heating results in slightly more active battery chemistry, which gives you a higher voltage, which obviously means nothing. If I ran the test first go round I would use a decent quality bench power supply and stay away from all batteries. They are just one more variable that you don't need making your testing more complicated. I am no expert on batteries, just expressing my opinion.

Final add on: Re: COP vs. efficiency, at least for this project it's electrical watts in vs. thermal watts out, so it is pretty straightforward.

[Aaron]

cop vs efficiency

Aaron: Even if you can do something with the feeble return spikes, you can't forget the banking analogy. So what if the bank gives you a check for $10 every year for being a good customer if your banking costs for your enterprise are $15,000 per year.

Everyone's rebuttal on this concept is arguing efficiency, which is different than COP. There is a difference and everytime Over 1.0 COP is shown, the argument immediately goes to efficiency. That means that it is a distraction or the classic viewpoint is clueless of the difference between COP and Efficiency and mixing them up reveals a misunderstanding of energy, potential and what the definition of work even is.

[poynt99]

I've already done the test and the spikes from the resistor can charge a cap quite nicely and even a second battery. I have the recovery diode and it charged the FRONT battery (2 X 12v 7ah bank) to as high as 24.65 when the resting voltage was 24.45 before the test. 24.65 is above the resting voltage before the test was started and over 12 hours later, the circuit is STILL running from the "fluffy voltage". Every bit of wattage I'm getting through the circuit until it gets back down to resting voltage is ALL above and beyond (totally free) what you claim I can get.

Aaron, If you've already had what you believe to be overunity for 5 years, may I ask why you haven't yet demonstrated it with a video and data? If you have already done so, I would like to take a look at it.

You are making a claim and I would like to see the data etc. that supports it.

.99

[Aaron]

Rosemary Ainslie Heater Circuit Replication Attempt #1

Explains my circuit:
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_ener...slieheater.pdf

Youtube video demo:
YouTube - Rosemary Ainslie Heater Circuit Replication by Aaron

[Aaron]

cop vs efficiency

Aaron, If you've already had what you believe to be overunity for 5 years, may I ask why you haven't yet demonstrated it with a video and data? If you have already done so, I would like to take a look at it.

You are making a claim and I would like to see the data etc. that supports it.

.99

99,

Please tell me in your opinion the difference between COP and Efficiency.

[Aaron]

99.9999% burned off?

This circuit burns off 99.9999% of the energy stored in the coil-resistor in the resistive part of the coil-resistor and in the diode. If there is an astute person out there with a scope and is willing to make some tests, they should be able to confirm this.

Then there are 2 basic points in logic here.

A - If you are correct, then virtually nothing can be recovered.

B - If there is recovery, then you can still be correct under the condition that it is admitted that the recovery came out of nowhere.

There are other scenarios but the above 2 are the only possibilities where your statement can be correct. The rest of the scenarios show your point is incorrect and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in point #2.

99 hasn't answered yet but I'd like to ask you the same question. What is your definition of the difference between COP and Efficiency.

Hoppy, if you read hits, please give your definition of these two as well.

[poynt99]

99,

Please tell me in your opinion the difference between COP and Efficiency.

LOL, Aaron you're trying to open a big ugly can of worms aren't you

Anyway, it's something I've addressed before a number of times. I think I even wrote a lengthy post/document on it one time.

First of all, they're not the same thing.

Second, there is no such thing as greater than 100% efficiency.

Third, COP can be anything, below 1 and above 1.

Confusing? Not really.

Efficiency is simply the ratio of how much of the paid-for energy we put into a system, to the amount of this energy that makes its way to the output of that system.

COP is the ratio of how much of the paid-for energy we put into a system, to the amount of total energy that makes its way to the output of that system.

So efficiency n and COP can be the same value for conventional systems that can only exhibit COP's of 1 or less. This implies a "closed" system where no outside energy can enter.

For cases where COP >1, n can still not be higher than 100% which implies that energy is entering the system from the "outside", and that the system is "open".

If you have a system that is exhibiting COP>1, it would be impossible to determine what portion of the paid-for input energy and what portion of the external energy is making up the total output energy unless one can "turn off" the overunity mechanism invloved.

In any case, it is a moot point. If you can make an overunity device, who cares what the real efficiency of the device is?

Obviously you want to get the most bang for your buck, so if you can get significantly more power output by making the device more efficient in using the paid-for input energy, of course go for it.

.99

[Allcanadian]

@Aaron
Thank you for finally showing the self-oscillation that Rosemary stated was required. I was starting to wonder if all the so-called experts here and were ever going to figure it out. It should have been obvious from the start that there was no way in hell the 555 timer could hit the true resonance of such a small inductance in the inductor/resistor, not in a million years. It also should have been just as obvious that the 555 timer rise/fall times are way to slow to produce efficient conversion, they must be at the minimum rise/fall duration of the mosfet, the circuit disrupter. Excellent video
Regards
AC