COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie

[witsend]

Luc:

By connecting the bulb across the single battery and noting the voltage drop, and measuring the light bulb resistance, you have accumulated the data to calculate the output impedance of the battery. I know that you are working with .99 on this and he can help you there.

Also you shouldn't connect the three batteries directly in parallel, that could be dangerous. You should have a diode on each battery so the charging source goes through each diode.

MileHigh

I would argue differently MileHigh. The diode would simply drop the input from the 'regenerated current cycle'. Where are your comments regarding the clear evidence of recharge? Where, MileHigh and with the utmost respect, is your impartiality? That lack served us proud on TK's thread. Are you not aware how it mitigates in our interests rather than otherwise?

[MileHigh]

Rosemary:

In the boxcar analogy, there are no magnetic fields. The fact that your moving finger is compressing the spring and force is thravelling through the spring is the equivalent.

Yes I would be prepared to acknowledge over unity if the results show that. I think it would be too soon to define it precisely before further investigaton though.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Luc:

If you have three batteries shorted together one can start to discharge into the other and they could catch fire. Have you ever seen any "laptop battery fire" clips on YouTube?

MileHigh

[witsend]

Rosemary:

Yes I would be prepared to acknowledge over unity if the results show that. I think it would be too soon to define it precisely before further investigaton though.

MileHigh

Ok - thanks MileHigh. That's here for the record folks. And we've already had Poynt's acknowledgement. I don't think it could be fairer.

You guys will have to come up with some explanation if you won't concede zero point energy? I'd be interested to see what comes out.

[witsend]

Luc:

If you have three batteries shorted together one can start to discharge into the other and they could catch fire. Have you ever seen any "laptop battery fire" clips on YouTube?

MileHigh

MileHigh - rather recommend that Luc keep a fire extinguisher handy. We need those tests done and he's configured it in a typically excellent manner to prove the argument.

[witsend]

Guys this is for TK.

I'm not from the outback. I'm from AFRICA that dark and beautiful continent South of Europe and South East of Canada. I have never been to Australia.

And TK we need you to post results. I'm sincerely sorry that I didn't keep better records of the test procedure but was not advised that it was required. And as we all know now, I'm an amateur. I hope you'll find it in yourself to eventually forgive the oversight.

A monk? That's a new twist. Never would have thought it.
and FE to all.

We seem to have lost the good offices of ramset for the time being. Could someone else with 'dual citizenship' please oblige and post this across to OU.com?

[Aaron]

batteries

Luc:

If you have three batteries shorted together one can start to discharge into the other and they could catch fire. Have you ever seen any "laptop battery fire" clips on YouTube?

MileHigh

No fear mongering here.

The laptop fires are from defective and dangerous lithium ion batteries. Whole different story. We're all using gel cells or liquid lead acids.

And you're comments about batteries in parallel?

You seem to be here to confuse people, put fear into them and urge people away from Luc's demo or how he is doing it.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Hi Rose

Look in your in box, I have left a message

Mike

[witsend]

Hi Mike - seen it - Finally. Sorry about that.

EDIT I think you can just call?

[MileHigh]

Aaron:

Sometimes the Internet sucks, and looking for information about batteries in parallel is an example of this.

The best that I could find was a comment on a forum somewhere:

>
Discharging in parallel is a risk, we certainly use Ni-cds in parallel but beware that a failure in one battery can cause a catastrophic failure and risk of fire etc. What can happen if a cell in a battery fails is that the good battery in parallel with it can discharge into the failed battery / cell. Good practice is to only connect batteries in parallel when they have equal states of charge, never leave the batteries in parallel after use.

Charging batteries in parallel is not recommended at all, the batteries can charge at different rates potentially under-charging one and over-charging the other.
>

My comments:

I am not an expert on batteries and can't cite a reference. However, batteries are voltage sources. In a hypothetical example, connecting a very healthy battery with a nominal voltage of 12.6 volts with a very healthy battery with a nominal voltage of 12.0 volts is like creating a short circuit between the two batteries. One battery will be shorting out while the other battery will be being overcharged. It is not a healthy situation.

A weak battery that does not charge well in parallel with a good battery is a dangerous situation. The strong battery will start to discharge through the weak battery and both batteries will start to heat up. The heating up will increase the activity of the battery chemistry causing even more heating up and more current flow. This can set up a positive feedback loop and cause a thermal runnaway condition and fire. You end up with one or two 20-pound batteries that are ultra hot and near melting and possibly on fire and filled with boiling sulphuric acid ready to boil over and spray it everywhere.

> You seem to be here to confuse people, put fear into them and urge people away from Luc's demo or how he is doing it.

Enough, get out of your spin zone. If the tests on Rosemary's circuit all show an under unity situation, then you can look through all of my postings in this thread and come to the realization that they are the truth. I am not here to confuse people so stop saying it.

I am urging people to not put batteries in parallel for sure.

MileHigh

[Joit]

Claim

One Thing still gets me.
What is the actually Claim from the Device.
Having COP 17 while creating Heat or make Overunity?

Overunity would mean, you create more Energy, or support more Work, as what is running through the Circle.
COP over 1 means, you can (in this Case) make heat with lesser Losses, as when you take the Energy directly from the Source.
But then you can wait for that your Batteries are slowly going down.
When someone can make it, to keep them loaded, it would be an advantage.
Just to make clear, what we can Expect.

Nice Video Luc btw, and i see by myself, adjusting the Cycles are an importend Part of it.
I did run another Try by myself, and after adjusting it to, where the whistle from the Coil did sound some unusual, like overlapping, i did leave it, just did adjust it a bit further, that the Voltage drop is slowest.

Just this time i did connect my ugly Coil different.
I did connect the inner, thinner Windings across Plus and the 10W Pot to the Secondary, thicker one.
so Plus ^Coil-Pot parallel and set to ~120 Ohm^-second Coil^ Heating Element (~50 Ohm/220V)-Drain- Source-Minus.
I did let run it over Night, but with this Row, i could make it, that the Heat appears half at the Transistor, and half at the Element. IMHO.
The Element is handwarm now, and Batteries did drop from average 12V to 10,5V at 10 Hours..
I try to adjust it now, to see, if i can make the drop down slower.

[witsend]

So - at the risk of repetition - I think we're now at the stage that we've at least identified the difference between the two schools. Mainstream - old school - believes that the energy that has been delivered during the on period of the duty cycle is somehow stored on the system. New age believes that this energy is actually 'regenerated' during the second part of the switching cycle, thereby adding more energy to the system.

Where new age has got the edge is that the actual current flow around the circuit is still able to respond in terms of inductive laws. Old school, with respect have had to bend their thoughts around the most complicated of processes to try and explain how stored energy can somehow manifest as current on both the positive and the negative rail - concurrently - without going through the battery.

However, at those times, which vary with every explanation - that it is conceded that the energy does go through the battery - they then have the onerous if not impossible task of explaining how enough energy can be stored away from the battery to exceed the battery's own resistance to recharge it. Just a mismash of nonsense - posing as science - and justified not by experimental evidence but by consensus for goodness sake. Quite amusing really.

[witsend]

Joit - I see you keep asking this question. We're actually claiming that we can exceed unity. In other words we can dissipate more energy in a system than was provided.

It's not increased efficiency. It actually is more energy out than in. Puts paid to conservation laws. The whole shebang. That's what we're arguing - but we still have to get my claim replicated. That's what Aaron's doing and, also gotoluc - but his is on a different circuit.

[Hoppy]

Yes, but that didn't answer the question - but I'll look at your answer.

But I do appreciate your honesty in admitting Over 1.0 COP It's about time.

You said that it is all converted to work or wasted. Right, but you metion no useful purpose. Well, whether or not there is a useful purpose for the work done or not is irrelevant because it IS a demonstration of work being done and ANYTHING that adds to entropy of the universe is indeed WORK being demonstrated. In our case, the heat on the element is VERY USEFUL since it is what we want if our goal is to have a heater.

Therefore, if 100% of what leaves the battery over 24 hours is converted to heat, we know that at a certain voltage X amperage leaving the battery, it is all converted to heat. There is nothing complicated about that.

Therefore if 100% is turned into heat and you clearly admit "If energy is recovered then this will not be additional energy gained by the system, only re-directed energy that would have otherwise been dissipated somewhere else in the circuit."

That means that any energy - your definition of if it is gained or re-directed is a matter of perspective and isn't really relevant to the fact - BECAUSE of the fact that if 100% was turned into heat. ANYTHING that is recovered and put back to work is 100%+.

I appreciate your honesty!

Now, I understand that you are saying IF there is recovery - gained or redirected is irrelevant - you are saying if and that doesn't mean necessarily that you believe there can be anything recovered. But do you?

Those spikes can be recovered. If you recover spikes and charge a cap to 1000v @ 2uf, you have 1 joule of potential sitting there. If 100% of what left the battery was turned into heat energy. Where the heck did 1 joule come from? I guarantee you I can perform more work with that 1 joule.

I'm not saying that the inductive resistor will charge a 1000v @ 2uf cap because it won't be able to push that unless that inductive resistors is a monster. But the fact of the matter is that if ANYTHING can be recovered into a capacitor - then that is potential that can be put back to work that is above and beyond the 100% that was ALREADY used up.

EDIT: I say 100% meaning 100% of what we pay for - not including what nature gives us back for free.

Hi Aaron

I'm back and thanks for your reply. I will try to explain my thinking in a little more detail. The SG Monopole motor is perhaps a good example to use. Loading the shaft mechanically will affect the energy discharged from the inductor and vica-versa. It is not possible for the mechanical or electrical side of the motor to be loaded without affecting each other. The motor seeks a balance between electrical and mechanical output for a given level of input energy. Charging a secondary battery is a diversion of energy which will be compensated by a rebalance of energy in other parts of the system. The inductor acts as an energy storage tank that can be tapped but has to be refilled in order to keep balance with the tapped load. Heat is produced in the process of switching, converting the low voltage input to high voltage output. This high voltage allows a secondary battery to charge and it is here that claims are made that a battery charged in this way will deliver more out than in. IMO nobody has ever shown convincing proof of this. We are shown very low power motor devices being run for very long periods of time from batteries, but these are all utilising the 'Peukert Effect' to a degree depending on the capacity of the supply battery, giving the impression of self-running but these are not overunity systems.

As Peter Lindeman has shown in his excellent videos, PM motors can be made more efficient. However, in terms of total energy input to total energy output both electrical and mechanical, they can never run overunity by feeding back energy to the supply battery. COP>1 is of course achievable if the criteria is based on some or all of the input energy to a system being a free energy supply being defined as a 'non-user' input obtained from environmental sources as described in John Bedini's Free Energy book. Even a COP of infinity is possible with full environmental energy input but the point is COP>1 or infinity does not take a system overunity. If I rig my electricity meter and pay no grid power bill, I can claim a COP infinity system. I do not see this criteria for calculating COP as being at all helpful as a means to measure the true performance of an electro-mechanical device such as a PM or SG monopole motor.

Hoppy

[witsend]

EDIT actually ignore this - I've just seen the question has been addressed. Sorry.

Welcome back by the way.