COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

It should be noted that my findings of spikes (or damped ringdowns) with and without the flyback diode were with a VERY low resistance Gate drive of 0.2 Ohms. This is how a MOSFET would normally be driven as a switch.

With 1k Ohm in series with the Gate (which is ballpark of what everyone is using I assume), all the spikes/ringdown into the battery disappear. Why? Because this resistance is now in series with any parasitic capacitance I mentioned before, and this kills the effect.

With 100 Ohms in series and no flyback diode, there is still some ringing current present in the battery. 100 Ohms and WITH the flyback diode (as TK had), again the AC current in the battery ceases, so in theory no charging takes place.

.99

There are those of us who can't access these references. Can you post the link? Thanks
RE 99 POSTS - .99 - the object is to get past 1.0

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

Yes I have seen some negative spikes and they should be investigated more. I have feeling that Gotoluc's clips show spikes that actually result in a small battery discharge when they go off like I showed for this circuit. I don't have the energy to go through them unfortunately. We also can't forget 0.99 has explained how junction capacitances charging can generate small spikes and how there is ring-down in the wires.

There are ways to reduce the ringing and only get "legitimate spikes" by using series damping resistors and other tricks like that. The idea of course is to be seeing the true operation of the circuit on your scope minus all of the distractions.

>
No matter what the output of battery vs input back to battery is, any input back to the battery reduced the net amount that was required from the battery. If x amount is REQUIRED to power the load, but some came back, that instantly defeats what the REQUIREMENT was to begin with.
>

That's true. But for power, it is a pure numbers game. If I put four watts into a circuit and I record one watt back, that means the battery sees the load as a three watt load and provides that power. The circuit turns the three watts into heat. The circuit does not burn four watts and also give back a watt. It burns three watts of power. There is no "requirement" that you are somehow gaining advantage over by squeezing out a bonus watt of heat. Ultimately whatever circuit you connect to a battery is a load and burns xxx watts of power. Kind of like death and taxes.

You also of course loose some of the power that you pump back into the battery as heat. So perhaps only 80% of the energy you put back into the battery is stored as chemical energy. Then when the battery discharges that same energy, more energy is lost as heat through it's internal resistance. Perhaps only 80% of the 80% of the original put-back energy is available to power the load on the second go round. (I am making a guess for the two efficiency factors.)

Yes I acknowledge the this is the classicist viewpoint and there is a belief that this is a non-classical circuit.

For TK's data legitimacy, with all due respect, you are biased and emotional now and in spinning mode. Wait 10 days and let things calm down, get a new perspective. He knows his stuff.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

There are those of us who can't access these references. Can you post the link? Thanks
RE 99 POSTS - .99 - the object is to get past 1.0

Rosemary, if you've been following along in this thread the last couple days, you have already read my posts. They are within the last two or 3 pages. I have not been posting much over at ou if that is what you are referring to re. my reference.

.99

PS. I may or may not ever reach 1.0 and beyond, but at least I am Poynting in the right direction! (ergo, I am striving for it )

[gotoluc]

Hi everyone,

Test stopped Thursday 23rd at 10pm and measured after 2 hours to allow stabilization.

Supply Battery voltage 12.81

Charge Battery voltage 13.01


The Batteries will be re-tested again tonight but once again I'll exchange their position to better understand what is taking place.

I will post the results tomorrow evening at about the same time.

Stay tuned.

Luc

[witsend]

Rosemary, if you've been following along in this thread the last couple days, you have already read my posts. They are within the last two or 3 pages. I have not been posting much over at ou if that is what you are referring to re. my reference.

.99

PS. I may or may not ever reach 1.0 and beyond, but at least I am Poynting in the right direction! (ergo, I am striving for it )

.99

I have indeed been poynting. Look back a page near the end, forget the post number - I'm anxiously waiting here.
Btw - Can you oblige by posting TK's video link when you refer to his waveforms. It's the only way I can get to see them. Thanks .99 - You've been extraordinarily patient for a classicist mainstreaming, purist, standard bearer of all good standards in general. I mean that in the nicest way.

[Aaron]

resistive load

But for power, it is a pure numbers game. If I put four watts into a circuit and I record one watt back, that means the battery sees the load as a three watt load and provides that power. The circuit turns the three watts into heat. The circuit does not burn four watts and also give back a watt. It burns three watts of power.

MH,

Are you now saying that 99.9999% of the power going thru the resistor is not being burned up after all?

Is 4 watts moving thru the resistor and if 1 watt comes back, does that mean that 1 watt snuck thru the resistor unnoticed?

We're not dealing with Ninja watts that stealthily moves thru a resistor without producing heat.

I thought that according to what you said before, 99.9999% is dissipated from the resistive part of the inductive resistor. If 99.9999% is dissipated and 1 watt comes back, there was in fact 4 watts of heat produced, the battery saw a 4 watt load and AFTER THE FACT, 1 watt came back.

Therefore 4 units of heat was produced for a total of 3 units of energy net expenditure from the battery. This is exactly what the point is. And you're right, that is what the numbers game is. But you have to add or subtract in the right order. The return energy isn't returned before the energy is dissipated, it comes back AFTERWARDS.

If you say otherwise, you are contradicting your own claim that 99.9999% is burned in the resistive element essentially dismantling the very premise of your claim.

Based on the assumption that almost all the power is dissipated in the resistor, that means the resistor is only able to take what it can "burn up." And there shouldn't be anything left to come back.

But for the fact that there is, the game is up, has been up, and nobody can push the reset button.

I'm not arguing the fact that the real measurement needs to be done. Because it does. I support your argument about the number crunching because this will show what us unconventional believers know to be the truth.

A true rms reading on the shunt is what will quantify this. This is what needs to be done on EVERYONE'S TEST, including TK. This one point is what appears to have been evaded but no longer can it be ignored because it is the biggest thing begging to be shown.

TK has the equipment to do this, he probably has so many meters to do this that it is falling out of his ears. This cannot be ignored anymore.

[Aaron]

TRUE RMS metering on the shunt

I'll have the right meter soon to show this but there are plenty here with
the right equipment now. These measurements are of serious importance.

Simple test for people to try. (ROSEMARY, PLEASE CORRECT THIS IF NECESSARY)

Do the control with a battery. Put the 10 ohm resistor straight on the battery bank fully charged up. When connecting the resistor, let it go and then start your measurements after it drops to a certain voltage. 24 volts so you're not just on the surface charge. See how long it lasts until it drops to 21 volts.

Even without a side by side test, charge the SAME bank, then hook up the Ainslie circuit, let it go until it hits 24 volts. Then see how long it takes to drop to 21 volts.

Charge again, do control test, charge again, do Ainslie circuit, repeat.

You will see that it takes much longer producing the same heat.

[witsend]

Everyone - just to give a summation here. I think Aaron will explain the significance of measurement for our tests. We're in a bit of a race here becasue TK et al are probably launching something soon. I suspect that it's based, in whole or in part, on our patent application claims - that same patent that was never registered - and thereby now in the public domain.

TK went on this exuberant de-bunking exercise to eliminate any possibility of a patent being extant. He's right. There is no such patent. It's only a patent application. This was duly published to invite any 'counter claim' from the public. No such counterclaim was lodged and therefore, in the fullness of time we were invited to register. Due to an oversight, deliberate or otherwise, that registration never took place. This means that the technology in the patent is now in the public domain and has been for about 7 years. Therefore, to state the obvious, no-one can capitalise on that technology via a patent right. Which is not to say that applications cannot be developed. Some, no doubt will be better than others. But application of the technology cannot become the patented property of any individual or any state that recoginses such patent rights. Which means that we should not again need to be subject to a strangled dependancy on energy delivered by a monopolist - unless of course we choose to - or unless any Government appropriate the right to such a monopoly.

The balance of the debunking exercise rested on his being able to refute the claim in the paper, or the Quantum article - on whatever basis he could. As you know he questioned my rights to comment on every possible basis including even my apparent lack of a decent education. I won't go over it, but those that followed this thread and the thread at Overunity.com will be aware of the mud-slinging. What is of interest is the desperation of that attack. Had there been a single power measurement based on the use of some of that really expensive measuring equipment so often displayed but never used - we would have been able to see TK'S full argument. Instead of which he introduced one red herring after another and ended up by relying exclusively on the 'possibility' of some error. Quite frankly I've lost count and no longer know which of the many is now considered valid. So much attention relating to total irrelevancies. The reading of the waveforms, the generation of the waveforms, the working of the switch, the capacitance in the leads. God alone knows. The one replaced the other. And nothing was concluded.

In any event, it was Aaron's published waveforms that clearly showed the 'resonance' and also put paid to those arguments. What followed were a few more chapters where TK lost the plot and reverted to calling eveyone names with his usual and unrestrained talents for insult. The question here is why? Why the parade of insults, why the need to refute the claim, why the lack of results based on simple power measurements, why all that passion? It's only a small claim. There have been many. Bedini motors is virtually a household name it's so well known. Thousands of other claims attest to overunity. Why attack the modest little claim with it's modest little patent?

My guess, for what it's worth, is that TK et al are behind Don Smith's claim and that in turn, is patented technology claimed to have been already sold for use in electric planes, to sundry governments including China - The Middle East, everywhere? That's HUGE. If we are to believe the video. then the marketing rights have already been sold to General Electric? Where's the press announcement? And Don Smith makes a small point. He is able, apparently, to still influence the rights to market the device for household use? What is he saying? That he may or may not negotiate to our benefit? And why does Ramset repeatedly advance the use of tesla coils throughout both forums and again, why go to such extraordinary lengths to blacken my name, my field model, my patent or lack of it? Again, my guess. The technology is based on a simple principle exposed in a simple circuit that enables overunity in terms of classical analysis. And all that our circuit does is expose this simple fact. Switching circuits - however they're configured - are able to generate usuable energy. If this can get back to any power supply - to national grids or to your average solar application to store more energy in batteries - it will, at its least, result in a reduction of your household energy bills. But it will also prove that 'unity' as defined by quantum electrodynamics and as applied to electric energy and electric current flow - is not constrained to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Charge is delivered and used - but it is wholly conserved.

The race, right now, is to launch this Don Smith device, to rename? the publicly owned 'switching circuit' a 'tesla coil', and then to call our God given zero point and free energy 'resonance', and to claim patent rights accordingly. So. Whoever then owns that patent will also then own the whole world. What a thought? We've found zero point particles and free energy only to find that we're again 'owned' by another monopolist? This time, probaly more able to 'help himself' to attendant royalty rights - by virtue of our energy crisis? I sincerely hope not. This is very important. Please wrap your minds around this. The applications that are intended to be patented and launched may not be accepted if they are based on any principle applied to a switching circuit.

But there is one last point. There is the possibility - in one of TK's experiments - where it is possible to generate a resonating frequency that is self-sustaining. There have been hints at this and we have actually seen a demonstration. To the best of my knowledge and from what I can work out, it's advantage is in that it accesses energy that is readily available from an earthed rail. But that will be wonderful because it will be very difficult to apply patent rights to such an application as it would be also difficult to monitor. If we shake loose the need for utility suppliers then it can only get better.

I suggest that what is important is to know that we need to hurry up with proof. The trick is in the measurement. Aaron will explain it if he hasn't already. and we need tests and tests and more tests. Then we can put some pressure on our academics or our Government representatives or where ever it's needed and try and try and advance this debate where it belongs - which is also, hopefully with our public.

[witsend]

And to explain the significance of the test - let me try this as well.

If you put a shunt resistor at the negative rail of a battery supply source - and if you then quantify the energy delivered by the battery - less the amount returned, that is THE DIFFERENCE between the voltage generated during the on and the off cycle of the switching circuit.

This value will always be less than the amount of energy dissipated at the load, within certain fixed frequencies. There is an upper limit where the advantage disappears.

But to measure that fast frequency and those spikes you must get some kind of storage meter to measure that returned energy carefully. If you don't have one, beg or borrow, go to your labs, to universities - wherever you can. And just keep comparing input to output. It's a really delicious exercise.

But to accept that the energy returns and that it's generated during the 'off cycle' - that argument needs academic input. So if you know anyone from campus - please open the debate.

[Joit]

Thanks Luc and Jetijs to post your Results. Looks quite good.

Aaron apologize for what?
I think better late then never, and better act before the Roof is blowed away.
Still wonder about, that all Suggestions from Milehigh are against all, what i know from FE Devices.
Even still not sure, if the Ringdownpart is the importend thing there, and is still there, when its at higher Frequency,
because it can cause more movement into a Inductor and therefor more Induction.
I think about to make a similar Coil again, what had the same Ringdownwave without Transistor.

Btw, i did make a Newman motor running similar to the Original.
Sure, it did not make Heat, opposite, it stayed more cold, but it was able, to start with Zero Energy Batteries,
and did run through the Night after i turned the Shaft few Times, till i stopped it.
I had to put a load on the Shaft, a Shear, to slow the natural movement of the Shaft down.

[witsend]

Hi Joit. Can you give us a circuit description? I'd love to know which you're testing?

And how easy would it be for you to get hold of a storage scope? Are you near some Labs or test facilities? A university? It would be so good to get some detailed numbers here. Especially since you've been working on this for so long?

[witsend]

Bolt

Don Smith Free Energy - Video

Just for those that are interested. Here's the link to the video re Don Smith's devices. I would add that I've gone to some trouble to check on this but have not been able to verify any of these statements. If someone could perhaps ask at GE Head Office - or maybe a good investigative reporter? It would be nice to know whether these claims are, in fact, true. If so, they deserve more publicity

[poynt99]

IDEAL Component Models

Hi Rosemary.

About what I meant regarding IDEAL components, it's pretty much what is implied.

Regarding IDEAL switches, yes this involves several factors, such as ON and OFF resistance, switching delay, inter-electrode capacitance (i.e. stray/parasitic), lead inductance, drive feedthrough etc etc.

So in SPICE when I replace the MOSFET with an IDEAL switch, there is still a finite ON and OFF resistance (which I can specify at will), but the important factors involved regarding our tests here are the inter-electrode capacitance and lead inductance. These are not present in an ideal switch. So if there is no stray capacitance around the ideal switch, the current paths for these transient spikes are gone and they do not appear in the output wave forms.

The same goes for an ideal diode. There is no junction capacitance associated with an ideal diode therefore it can not pass transient spikes backwards across it's junction.

I really have no dispute of whether these spikes or ring-downs are present in yours and similar circuits. There is bound to be spiky stuff all over the place, esp. if construction techniques were average.

I don't think anyone contends that they aren't there. The important question is: Do they impart any benefit in terms of providing more heat and/or energy that can be extracted from the circuit compared to what is sourced by the battery.

I think we're getting bogged down in the nitty details, and the focus is blurring. Power in and Power out measurements need to be done and that's it. Let's get this puppy put to bed already, whatever the outcome. I think you agree with this, and I am certain that TK will be doing the very tests you have asked him to do, i.e. the power and RMS measurements.

.99

[witsend]

...

I don't think anyone contends that they aren't there. The important question is: Do they impart any benefit in terms of providing more heat and/or energy that can be extracted from the circuit compared to what is sourced by the battery.

I think we're getting bogged down in the nitty details, and the focus is blurring. Power in and Power out measurements need to be done and that's it. Let's get this puppy put to bed already, whatever the outcome. I think you agree with this, and I am certain that TK will be doing the very tests you have asked him to do, i.e. the power and RMS measurements.

.99

Thanks .99. We've never seen a single power measurement related to this from OU.COM. But I take it that you're happy with the protocols? Then you concede the principle?

Please comment re my post on current flow? I just want some recognition that if there is an explanation it may yet be in line with Inductive Laws - always assuming that there's a proven gain.

Thanks Poynt. Ta muchly.

[witsend]

And just to call attention to yet another interesting point. TK has apparently gone on record as saying that the 3% duty cycle delivers the ball park heat we recorded in the - dare I call it 'paper'. In any event, that's really good news. He's also on record as saying that he could never get the same resonating frequency.

Therefore, my claim - get the resonance with the duty cycle and you can run a little bit of wattage without any significant loss to the battery as recorded in that paper. Else what recharged the battery? The control was flaaat - within 9 hours. We hardly lost 0.5v from the battery in over 16.

I was advised by the editor at Quantum that we could not reference the control because battery vagaries were such that it was not a dependable reference. So we had to omit it from the paper.