COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Joit - are you saying the MH and .99 are just more of the same like TK? I don't think so. If they were then they'd be better qualified. When we get the basic evidence refuted publicly - by qualified physicists - then only could we be proved wrong. Debunkers no longer cut it. And if qualified physicists write on this to disprove it - then it calls for question from other physicists to prove it. That's how they play their chess games. Either way it'll get the question back out there. And the question is as Aaron's pointed to. Is our natural system a closed system? Or not?

I do think my magnetic field model is perhaps close to the truth. But that doesn't help anyone at all because it's as clear as midnight to just about everyone.

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

You said:

>
That is what some transistor do. 2n2222, mjl21194,
and a few others that I know of. That negative
resistance range.... current goes DOWN as
voltage goes UP. That happens at certain stages.
Mjl21194 around the 1 amp range and associated
voltage, the current will drop with increase in voltage!

A complete and total violation
of ohms law. Explain if it is a "LAW" how any
of these transistors can violate it? How does
certain carbon fibers violate ohms law? How does
a negative resistor in a battery formed by
voltage potential impulses violate ohm's law if
it is a "LAW"
>

Here is an example of you clearly demonstrating a variation on the theme of unconscious incompetance. There is no violation of ohm's law in the example you cited, none at all. Your mistaken belief that "a law has been broken" is being used by you to challenge classical electrical theory and advance your proposition that there are many "unconventional" circuits and that these types of circuits need to be seen with a new and open perspective.

You see these leaps of fath and incorrect connecting of the dots all the time around here.

Going back to the circuit, you and Rosemary appear to want to jump on any shred of evidence that there is a spike of current going back and charging the source battery and then argue that there is real battery recharging going on while the circuit operates. This flies in the face of the evidence presented so far with various scope traces. Nowhere have we seen any convincing evidence of battery recharging. This is analogous to the negative resistance example above where you take that information and massage it into an example of a violation of ohm's law when nothing could be further from the truth. You are looking at the world with rose-coloured glasses and simply seeing what you want to see and incorrectly leveraging false information to advance your proposition.

Let me give you one more example:

>
Yes, classical training is good for MANY things with these circuits. For example, I showed how to dampen the ring on the spike returning to the battery by increasing resistance at the gate. That should have been something classical training should have been able to pick up on but it takes me - a non trained EE to figure that out and show it?

Classical training should have let you know who make the mosfet oscillate on demand but it takes my lack of credentials to make it work.
>

Here are two CLEAR examples of "you don't know what you don't know." In your fist paragraph above you have no knowledge of whether classical training "should have been able to pick up on it or not" but you are making a totally erroneous assumption that that's the case. Why are you even doing that, it makes no sense.

The same thing applies for the MOSFET oscillation. You were working with the circuit and tried a few things and stumbled onto the oscillation. You didn't design your setup to do this, you did not purposefully arrive at this as a goal in your build up of the circuit, you merely stumbled upon it. You can't claim any kind of victory here or take any kind of credit, nor can you explain the mechanism for the oscillations. You are a million miles away from the type of analysis that could be done on this phenomenon by a hard-core academic EE. To use modern lexicon, there has been gigabytes and gigabytes and gigabytes of research done investigating this kind of thing. There have proably been thousands and thousands of academic papers written on this topic and yet you feel that "you did what a regular EE could not do" because he or she would be limited in their perspective because of their classical training. Meanwhile I am telling you there has probably been so much hard-core academic research and real world research done into this phenomenon that it would take several lifetimes to cover all of the material.

Going back to the battery charging issue and your first scope shot with all of the ringing at the end of the cycle. This has been suggeted as evidence that the battery is recharging. I put forward the proposition that it is most likely ringing in the wire, and by that I mean the wire alone, and no other part of the circuit. I mentioned again that the MOSFET is clearly switched off when the ringing happens and thus the battery can't be charged by this ringing. Am I correct in my hypothesis? I don't know for certain but I have a hunch that I am. The point is to continue investigating and try and get a full understanding of what is going on. What's going on with you and Rosemary is that every time you see some preliminary evidence of a spike or ringing then you automatically force that into your pre-conceived conceptual view of the circuit and conclude that this must be battery charging. That's wrong. Again, look at what happened when you saw some spikes when you ran the test without the fly-back diode. Both you and Rosemary automatically assumed that they were spikes that were charging the battery. I walked everyone through the actual analysis and proved very convincingly that these spikes do NOT charge the battery, in fact the battery discharges a bit when this happens, and the spikes could damage the MOSFET.

So all of that has to be weighed in when you look at the big picture. Even the notion that this is an "unconventonal" circuit is really a statement that is rooted more in your ideology than fact. Think of it, take a step back for a second now. You have a circuit that consists of a switch, a resistor, a coil, and a diode. Four components that are completely conventional. What could possibly make this circuit unconventional? You may cite the evidence presented in Rosemary's paper. For a certain proportion of the readers here all of the data in the paper is suspect. The hypothesis that experimental procedural error got the duty cycles mixed up is still on the table. I think that we are all in agreement that a new rounds of testing should be done to verify or refute the claim.

You can accuse .99 and myself of being acrgumetative and that's fine. By the same token you and Rosemary have much less understanding of how circuits work, and are prone to try to jam square pegs into round holes if doing that fits into your expectations for the circuit. You have to back off and be conservative, run more tests to see if you can get more data to back up your theory, etc.

Let me give you one example of this, going back to your first scope shot again. Supposing you disconnect the battery and the MOSFET, and just run current through the wire and keep your scope probe across the shunt resistor. Simple setup: Battery positive -> current limiting resistor -> mechanical switch -> start of wire -> shunt resistor -> end of wire -> ground. Flip the switch on and off and see if you see ringing in the wire because it is acting as an LC resonator.

If you see ringing in the wire, and it looks nearly identical to what you see in your first scope shot, then that pretty much confirms my theory that it was simply ringing in the wire, which CANNOT charge the battery. Plus you CANNOT forget that the MOSFET is clearly OFF when you see the ringing in your scope shot. This makes it highly doubtful, if not impossible, for that ringing to charge the battery. Then there is ANOTHER fact as pointed out by .99: The ringing, if it showed current going into the battery, also shows current leaving the battery, for a net gain of zero.

So that is all stuff for your comtemplation. We need real measurements and then we will see what happens.

MileHigh

[Joit]

witsend, i dont say anything right now, lol.
Maybe they are even some old Hooks, like a good Friend of me, what has a hard time, to accept an other View of Things, as he allready has.

But i ve seen a lot of Attempts here, to damp down other Attempts to proove something, what do end up in missleading.
And that all with a Cape of established Science how it all do work ? Well, i dont know.

Even when i read Things like that
Post #1058 Repeat: No energy is going back to the source battery.

That sounds more like mass Hypnosis.

At all, we all do use most of the general accepted Terms of EE for now, because there is nothing else, how to talk about it, its not like, we are only using it, because its so handy, but its kind of a Base right now.

And btw, i am quit not sure about the fact, when the Ringing apears at a higher Potential, as the Source/charge is,
if it is not a Case of higher DC against the Source, what is only a higher and lower Load.
Like Source = 12V, the ringing apears at 40V and gives a Load to the Source.
Sure, at the Scope it appears as AC ringing.

[witsend]

following quotes from MileHigh. I can't get past this para so if we can clear this up I'll be able to read on.

Going back to the circuit, you and Rosemary appear to want to jump on any shred of evidence that there is a spike of current going back and charging the source battery and then argue that there is real battery recharging going on while the circuit operates.
Not at all. We are not arguing. We are showing the evidence. Science is progressed on experimental evidence.


This flies in the face of the evidence presented so far with various scope traces.
Also not entirely true. It flies in the face of your explanation of the evidence. That's a different thing altogether.

Nowhere have we seen any convincing evidence of battery recharging.
Extraordinary. There's been plenty of evidence. It has been systematically dismissed by you, TK and sundry. But the evidence is indeed there. We're looking for impartiality here MileHigh. If you need to make a statement like this please support it with actual reference. EDIT TK dismissed the evidence based on the fact that his battery was new? Can't win if evidence is dismissed.

This is analogous to the negative resistance example above where you take that information and massage it into an example of a violation of ohm's law when nothing could be further from the truth.
Can we please ask you to simply explain how it is possible that potential difference on the resistor cannot regenerate current flow when those magnetic fields collapse? We're still waiting for an explanation.

You are looking at the workd with rose-coloured glasses and simply seeing what you want to see and incorrectly leveraging false information to advance your proposition.
With respect MileHigh. Go and look in a mirror.

[MileHigh]

Joit:

In post #1058 I made the effort to give everyone a clear step-by-step explanation of what that spike in this specific setup was doing and how it would affect the battery. Real analysis, following a logical process, looking at voltages and currents and timings to arrive at a conclusion based on the evidence.

Yet you are quick to dismiss that effort as "mass Hypnosis?" From your postings I would assume that you might not understand my analysis beause it was fairly technical. That does not give you the ability to reach a conclusion and dismiss this analysis as "mass Hypnosis." This is a case where you should be approaching your argument knowing that for a lot of concepts related to electronics circuits "you know what you don't know."

Rosemary:

> Not at all. We are not arguing. We are showing the evidence. Science is progressed on experimental evidence.

It's evidence coupled with a knowledge base that you can draw on to understand the evidence presented to you. Evidence without the means to understand and interpet it is the problem. You have clearly stated that you have very little understanding of electronic circuits and are going up a learning curve. For every scope trace you look at you are supposed to be able to follow though on a path of deductive reasoning to arrive at a proper conclusion. You have to be able to demonstrate a mastery of the subject matter at hand to arrive at a proper understanding of the experimental evicence.

So far every "charging spike" on the shunt resistor we have seen has been miniscule compared to the the output waveform from the battery thats powering the load. The logical intrepretation of this evidence is the net result over the full curent waveform is that the battery is discharging and any recharging spikes are insignificant. By the same token if your scope shot shows you a voltage spike, you cannot make any conclusions about any possible charging of the battery unless you know what the current is doing at the same time as the voltage spike. When you see a voltage spike alone, either you look for evidence of current flow during the spike and/or use your understanding of how analog circuits actually work to arrive at a conclusion. You don't have the skills or knowledge about analog circuits to draw conclusions, and need to solicit the opinions from both camps on this forum, as well as draw on other sources.

MileHigh

[Joit]

Joit:

Yet you are quick to dismiss that effort as "mass Hypnosis?"
MileHigh

That Effort and tell, What to do are quite some different Things,

I tend for solid Proofs too, not just for some hypothetical Explanations.
but i do tent for too, Not to try to People to suggest, what they should Repeat or Not Repeat, like you tell it some Retards.

[poynt99]

MileHigh,

You have made a valiant effort to offer the classicist "perspective" on electrical circuits and their operation, and I think I have done the same.

Clearly the folks here are resistant to any notion that goes against their beliefs, and folks will stand by their beliefs, no matter how absurd if they are passionate enough about them.

I think it's time to back away and let the dead horse lay. Don't get drawn so deeply into the fray that it cuts time off your lifespan, evidently here, it is not worth it. Clearly no one's listening, and no one's getting it.



Save yourself, that's my recommendation. Ban yourself

Peace my friend,
.99

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

> Can we please ask you to simply explain how it is possible that potential difference on the resistor cannot regenerate current flow when those magnetic fields collapse? We're still waiting for an explanation.

I am assuming that you are referring to your standard circuit after the MOSFET switch opens. What happens to the energy that is stored in the coil part of the coil-resostor? Is that correct?

By "potential difference on the resistor" I am assuming that you mean the fact that the coil part is storing energy because current is flowing through it as per the standard fromula E = 1/2 x L x i-squared.

By "magnetic fields collapsing" I am assuming that you are referring to when inductor is de-energizing and dumping it's stored energy.

If that's the question then it has been answered already here and there in the thread.

The other day you posted about the path you think the current is taking when the inductor de-energizes to recharge the battery, and you asked .99 to comment. I don't recall if he did, but I noticed that it did not make sense. Your notion that in the standard circuit as per your paper that the coil de-energizes through the battery is not true. More shunt resistor waveforms will show this. I think that Aaron said that he was going to do a new and cleaner build, so he should keep investigating.

In fact, there is an easy way to confirm that the coil is de-energizing through the diode. If you run the standard circuit and put a 5, then 10, then 20 ohm resistor in series with the diode, then you should see progressively higher voltages across the diode + resistor combo as you increase the value of the resistor. At the same time you shoud see no changes across the shunt resistor waveform. If you observe this, it is telling you that the coil is de-energizing through the diode. If you don't know why you should see progressively higher voltages then I suggest that you go back and read through earlier posts on this thread. This is an example of developing a new experimental procedure to support your hypothesis. At this point in time, you and Aaron don't have the electronics knowlegde to invent new test procedures like this.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you about what you question is all about.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

.99:

It does makes sense to slow down a lot. I hope replicators start generating some data.

Rosemary I am very cool about this whole thread don't need to repeat myself anynore and don't have ulterior motives. I can't contribute much more, and of course I sense the fact that we are all pooped in one way or another.

I just want you and all interested parties to get at the real data. The real world saying the data will be unremarkable, because there is nothing remarkable about the circuit. Please don't take offense, but you are dealing with something extremely simple here. Occam's Razor will most likely determine what the results of this expriment will be.

MileHigh

[witsend]

MileHigh - here's the thing. Those magnetic fields that are established across the resistor - when the switch is open they are simply potential difference. Is this not so? Or is this the point where my argument fails in terms of classical physics?

[witsend]

I take it you've banned yourself Poynt99? Let me then thank you very much for your contributions here. Truly appreciated.

[witsend]

Quotes from MH
I am assuming that you are referring to your standard circuit after the MOSFET switch opens. What happens to the energy that is stored in the coil part of the coil-resostor? Is that correct?
Yes.

By "potential difference on the resistor" I am assuming that you mean the fact that the coil part is storing energy because current is flowing through it as per the standard fromula E = 1/2 x L x i-squared.
No. I mean that the path for the flow of energy from the battery is interrupted courtesy the switch. Now. Is there PD - at that moment - on the resistor? If so, is there a path for this energy to flow?

By "magnetic fields collapsing" I am assuming that you are referring to when inductor is de-energizing and dumping it's stored energy.
Indeed. If we're going to be Occam's razorish. Here's the thing. Collapsing magnetic fields are changing fields. They are changing from plus something to zero. Are you saying that - notwithstanding this 'change' they are not able to regenerate another cycle of induced electromagnetic energy?

If that's the question then it has been answered already here and there in the thread.
It hasn't been answered. I am referring to Inductive Laws. As I understand it - changing electric fields induce magnetic fields. Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. If the collapsing fields are also changing fields why would they not induce an electric field? And why would that electric field not be equal to the energy stored in those magnetic fields in the first instance.

Just that. Just PLEASE argue that point. No reference to any previous explanations. Just this. Why is it that classicists cannot accept that the collapse of the fields also represents a change of the fields.

Lets argue this step by step. Don't add anything else. Don't look anywhere else. Just this one moment in the duty cycle when the battery is disconnected.

[poynt99]

I take it you've banned yourself Poynt99? Let me then thank you very much for your contributions here. Truly appreciated.

Yes Rosemary, I've contributed all I can here.

If you have any more questions, I'm sure MH can answer them, although I agree with him that most if not all already have been. I would suggest you compile a document with all mine and MileHigh's posts and study that.

I'm moving on to a new project helping Luc and some others with a new circuit and method of driving their coils for their resonance experiments. At least I know that will be a fruitful endeavor for me, and worth my time and effort.

I would suggest that MileHigh move on as well.

Good luck with your tests. I'll be watching quietly on the sidelines for some real results and evidence.

.99

[witsend]

Poynt - for now I take it you're happy with the measurement protocols outlined in the paper?

If, therefore, the results are substantially consistent on a replicated experiment - then we can conclude there is a definite breach of unity?

I would be sorry to do a test replication to discover that you were, in any event, reserving judgement.

Without an express denial of this therefore, I will take it as a confirmation. Thanks for this.

[poynt99]

I am ok with your test protocol. My only contentions were as I noted before:

1) Move the shunt to the battery/voltage source +'ve terminal
2) Ensure that the data and its analysis is sound

If MH is willing, he can critique your test protocol for for any deficiencies.

.99

PS. My judgment means nothing. If performed properly, the test and the resulting data and analysis will speak for itself.